Using urine also cuts down on river pollution — urine is a major source of nitrogen that contributes to river eutrophication if expensive denitrification is not used at the water treatment plant. And it's not a backwards step, it's space age technology — NASA has used urine in hydroponics systems!

1. Keep it separate. The golden rule with urine use is to keep it separate from other bodily wastes. Urine is clean and needs to be kept that way. Pee in a bottle, or invest in a urine-separating toilet.

2. Use it fresh. We all know that stale urine smells. That's ammonia, and it's made from nitrogen. The smellier your collected urine, the less nutritious it will be for your plants , as well as being unpleasant to apply.

3. Always dilute. Urine is too strong to be used neat on plants. Dilute at least 5:1, and it can be diluted up to 10:1 for use on tender plants and seedlings.urine fertilizer

4. Water at the roots. It's good practice when watering not too splash the leaves, but to water at the roots. This saves on evaporation, and dry leaves are much more resistant to disease.

5. Spread it around. Urine can be salty, and using too much of it in one place can harm plants. Use it throughout your garden so no one area suffers from an overdose, and dont use it every time you water a plant.

6. Feed hungry plants. The plants that will benefit most from urine fertilizer are the ones with the highest nitrogen requirements. Try it on leafy vegetables like cabbages and cauliflowers, corn, or anything that needs a quick pick-me-up.

7. Other uses. Neat urine is too strong to be used directly on plants, but it can be used as a weedkiller; a few applications, especially if used on hot days, should finish off your weeds. It can also be used neat as a winter spray for fruit trees, to discourage fungal diseases.

via How To Use Urine as a Fertilizer | How To Do Things.com.

Net metering programs serve as an important incentive for consumer investment in renewable energy generation. Net metering enables customers to use their own generation to offset their consumption over a billing period by allowing their electric meters to turn backwards when they generate electricity in excess of the their demand. This offset means that customers receive retail prices for the excess electricity they generate. Without net metering, a second meter is usually installed to measure the electricity that flows back to the provider, with the provider purchasing the power at a rate much lower than the retail rate.

Net metering is a low-cost, easily administered method of encouraging customer investment in renewable energy technologies. It increases the value of the electricity produced by renewable generation and allows customers to “bank” their energy and use it a different time than it is produced giving customers more flexibility and allowing them to maximize the value of their production. Providers may also benefit from net metering because when customers are producing electricity during peak periods, the system load factor is improved.

Currently, net metering is offered in more than 35 states (see the summary table and map below). For a more detailed description of state net metering policies and links to the authorizing legislation, see the DSIRE database, which is a project of the Interstate Renewable Energy Council funded by the U.S. DOE and managed by the North Carolina Solar Center.

via Green Power Network: Net Metering Policies.

October 7, 2008

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has never been known as a hot bed of progressive thought–it has long been dismissive of renewable energy for example–or accurate oil price forecasts for that matter. It has been consistently wrong on both for years if not decades. But who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

The IEA began building up its renewable energy expertise several years ago and it's beginning to show fruit. While couched in the language and world view that critics have come to expect, a new IEA report is surprising for what it says about renewable energy policy mechanisms.

Simply put, the IEA concludes that feed-in tariffs are both more effective at developing renewable energy as well as less costly to consumers than quota systems (known as Renewable Portfolio Standards in North America).

The full report is behind a pay barrier, but the summary report (IEA Summary: Deploying Renewables, p. 17 and p. 19) is sufficiently revealing to mark a breakthrough in the thinking at IEA. Here are some brief excerpts from the sections on wind and solar PV.

Wind on Land

“A minimum level of remuneration appears necessary to encourage wind power deployment. Until 2005, none of the countries that provide overall levels of remuneration below USD 0.07/kWh witnessed significant deployment effectiveness.”

The actual price here is less important than the message: If a program doesn't pay enough, there isn't any development. Many programs try to develop wind energy on the cheap, then administrators wonder why there is no progress on the ground.

The report goes on . . .

“The group of countries with the highest effectiveness (Germany, Spain, Denmark and, more recently, Portugal) used feed-in tariffs (FITs) to encourage wind power deployment. Their success in deploying onshore wind stems from high investment stability guaranteed by the long term FITs, an appropriate framework with low administrative and regulatory barriers, and relatively favourable grid access conditions. In 2005, the average remuneration levels in these countries (USD 0.09-0.11/kWh) were lower than those in countries applying quota obligation systems with tradable green certificates (TGCs) (USD 0.13-0.17/kWh).

“Beyond some minimum threshold level, higher remuneration levels do not necessarily lead to greater levels of policy effectiveness. The highest levels of remuneration on a per-unit generated basis for wind among the countries studied are seen in Italy, Belgium, and the United Kingdom, which have all implemented quota obligation systems with TGCs. Yet none of these countries scored high levels of deployment effectiveness. This is likely related to the existence of high non-economic barriers as well as to intrinsic problems with the design of tradable green certificate systems in these countries, which cause higher investor risk premiums.”

This too is a clear message: feed-in tariffs are more effective and cost $0.04/kWh to $0.06/kWh less than quota systems using tradable credits. These findings mirror those of Ernst & Young in a comparison between the cost of wind programs in Great Britain and Germany.

Solar PV

” . . Feed-in tariffs (complemented by the easy availability of soft loans and fair grid access) have been very effective in Germany, albeit at a high cost (USD 0.65/kWh). In recent years, the level of the German FIT for solar PV has decreased to some extent, and an element of degression has been introduced. The German parliament has approved proposals for acceleration of degression rates for stand-alone installations from 5% per year in 2008 to 10% per year in 2010 and 9% from 2011 onwards. This creates incentives to reduce costs, and hence move down the learning curve.”

Interestingly, IEA notes the high cost of Germany's solar PV program to consumers, but doesn't note the cost of solar PV to both consumers and taxpayers in the discussion on US policies in the paragraph that follows the description of Germany's program. As Vote Solar has prominently noted on several occasions, some of the costs of solar PV “incentives” in the US are buried behind the meter and some are shifted from the consumer to the taxpayer. By doing so, the costs of solar PV programs in the US are not readily apparent, being hidden from view.

It may have been simply easier for IEA to report on the cost of the German program because it is transparent, and for the IEA not to report on the costs of US programs because the programs are not transparent. To understand the program costs in the US would require a much more extensive analysis than IEA invested in evaluating Germany's program. Still, these are remarkable conclusions from a bastion of the Washington Consensus.

via IEA: Feed-in Tariffs More Effective and Cheaper than Quotas for Renewable Energy.

* Exceptional washing results, even at low temperatures

* Suitable for all white and colourfast laundry

* Plant based formulation

* Respects and naturally cares for your skin

* Not based on petrochemical ingredients

* No optical brighteners (see below for more info*)

* GMO enzyme free

* No artificial fragrances

Environmental Advantage:

* Quick and complete biodegradability (OECD-test 301F, full product)

* Minimum impact on aquatic life (OECD-test 201&202, full product)

* Against animal testing

* Suitable for septic tanks

What is the difference between Biological and Non-Biological washing powders?

Biological detergent contains enzymes which aid the removal of stains. They do this by reacting with the water through hydrolysis. These enzymes will often work at lower temperatures than non-biological detergent which does not contain enzymes.

In terms of the environmental impact the enzymes in biological detergent will often take longer to breakdown in the environment than using a non-bio without the enzymes. You will often have to use a higher heat setting with a non-biological powder to get the same result however, although developments in non-bio’s mean they can now work at lower temperatures than previously.

Some people with sensitive skin may find they are better suited to a non-biological detergent.

*What are optical brighteners?

Most conventional detergents contain an optical ‘brightener.’ This is a chemical which reflects light, making your clothes and linens look brighter than they really are. Optical brighteners make an irreversible chemical bond with the skin and exposure is more or less permanent as we are always in contact with some kind of material. Ecover does not use optical brighteners in ANY of their laundry detergents. In addition to the problems they cause to skin they do not increase the washing effect, nor the hygiene of your wash.

via Ecover Biological Washing Powder 1.2kg.

Soaps and detergents both act to reduce the surface-tension of water so that it is able to wash dirt and grime away more effectively. They also both help to lift the dirt and grease particles off during cleaning. However, there are some important differences between them and different situations when they should be used.

Soaps…

• Are made of natural materials (usually the product of the chemical reaction occurring when plant or animal fats and oils are mixed with an alkali)
• Are a more natural product and less harmful when used to clean the body
• Can be in hard bar or soft liquid form
• Is kinder on the environment because it is made of biodegradable materials
• Does not cause pollution in lakes and rivers
• Is not as toxic to wildlife and plants
• Deteriorates faster in storage
• Loses its cleaning power over time
• Reacts with minerals in hard water to form ‘soap scum’ – an insoluble film that clogs drains and pipes. It also sticks to clothing in the laundry, resulting in a build-up over time, which leaves an unpleasant odour and causes the fabric to deteriorate.

The best soaps to use on the skin are those where the glycerine has not been removed at the end of the production process, as these will not leave the skin feeling dry. Any soaps with extra emollients added, such as jojoba oil or shea butter, are also better for the skin. Try not to use soaps with sodium laureth sulphate as this compound is very harsh on the skin. Soaps made only from vegetable oil (“castile soaps”) are the gentlest, most natural soaps, which can be used for sensitive skin.

Detergents…

• Are made using synthetic chemicals, including propylene – a waste product of the petroleum industry
• Tend to be used in household cleaning rather than personal use – such as laundry, dishwashing and other cleaning
• Are easier to produce
• Are more adaptable
• React less with minerals in water
• Is preferable to soap for use in the laundry and other household cleaning chores
• Can be specially designed for specific cleaning tasks e.g. with oxidants to help in bleaching or with enzymes to help in digesting the proteins, fats and carbohydrates in food stains. These are called biological detergents and are very popular as they are effective even in cold water, which helps to save energy and is also kinder on fabrics.
• Can be specially formulated for use in certain machines e.g. low-suds detergents for front-loading washing machines.
• Can contain abrasives, which help to scour during cleaning or acids to descale
• Can contain chemicals to modify the pH of water and/or water softeners, which fight the effects of calcium deposits in hard water.
• Are believed to cause skin allergies
• Causes significant pollution to the environment
• Are very toxic to fish and wildlife

In fact, many cleaning agents nowadays are a mixture of soaps and detergents, with the combination carefully determined so as to extract the maximum benefits from the two different bases. Remember, biological detergents (those containing enzymes) should never be used on delicate, natural fabrics like silk and wool. It is best to look for products that are either phosphate-free or low in phosphates, artificial fragrances and dyes when choosing a laundry detergent, as these are believed to irritate the skin.

Adding fabric softener separately, rather than having it combined with the detergent, is also a better choice. To help preserve the environment, choose detergents that are made from biodegradable, renewable ingredients – these are often found in health food or environmentally friendly shops.

via Soaps and Detergents – Cleaning Expert (UK).

The use of enzymes in detergents has the advantage

that effective washing can be carried out in warm water.

Warm water is preferable to hot water because

1) it is more energy efficient

(you don’t have to heat the water so much).

2) the dye in coloured clothing is less likely to wash out of the fabric.

3) clothes are more likely to stay the same shape

(hot water causes some fabric to shrink).

via What’s the difference between Biological detergent & Non Biological detergent??? – Yahoo! Answers.

Environmental risk assessment
Due to the physico-chemical properties of soluble silicates a release into the atmosphere during its use as household product is not to be expected. Direct emissions from soluble silicates used as detergents to the terrestrial compartment are considered negligible. Consequently, no environmental risk assessment related to the use of soluble silicates in detergents for the compartments soil and air has been performed.
As ingredients of household cleaning products, soluble silicates present in domestic waste waters are mainly discharged to the aquatic compartment, directly, via waste water treatment plants, via septic tanks, infiltration or other autonomous waste water systems.
As soluble silicates are inorganic substances, biodegradation studies are not applicable. However, the removal of silica in several sewage treatment plants was measured and an average removal of 10 % was determined. In addition, it was found that silica is continuously removed from water by biochemical processes: diatoms, radiolarians, silicoflagellates, and certain sponges serve as a sink for silica by incorporating it into their shells and skeletons as amorphous biogenic silica, frequently referred to as opal (SiO2·nH2O).
The primary hazard of commercially used soluble silicates is their moderate-to-strong alkalinity. Soluble silicates with a low molar ratio (SiO2:M2O < 2; M = Na or K) like sodium metasilicate and its hydrates with a molar ratio (MR) of 1.0 exhibit a higher alkalinity than the soluble silicates of higher molar ratio. However, most of natural aquatic ecosystems are slightly acid or alkaline and usually their pH values fall within the range of 6  9, and due to the high buffer capacity of these ecosystems pH effects of released soluble silicates to aquatic organisms are very unlikely. Consequently, the PNEC derived from artificial laboratory test systems overestimate the effects of soluble silicates to aquatic organisms in realistic natural ecosystems. Therefore, the PNEC was derived from the ubiquitous SiO2 background concentration in the environment (mean of 7.5 mg SiO2/L in European rivers ). This conservative PNEC of 7.5 mg SiO2/L was used for the final risk characterisation. Based on the EUSES HERA detergent scenario the PECregional.added and PEClocal.added of SiO2 were calculated to be 0.536 and 1.75 mg/L, respectively. The resulting PEC/PNEC ratio was found to be 0.07 and 0.23 for the regional and local compartment, respectively. These ratios are far below 1, indicating that there is no risk to aquatic organisms after an input of silicates due to the use in detergent household products.
In addition, the amount of soluble silicates introduced into the environment must be seen in the context of the background level due to geochemical weathering processes of silicate minerals. The overall anthropogenic contribution to this total flux is only about 4 % and even lower for the use of soluble silicates in household detergents indicating that the natural background concentration/fluctuation is of much higher significance for the silica content of aquatic ecosystems than the use of silicates in detergents. For this reason it can be concluded that the SiO2, which originates from the use of soluble silicates in household cleaning products has a negligible effect on the aquatic ecosystems.
The measured concentrations in the influent of domestic sewage treatment plants as well as the calculated PECs with the EUSES HERA detergent scenario showed that the expected concentrations of silica in sewage treatment plants will not have adverse effects on the functions of the sewage treatment plants, i.e. the degradation or the reduction of organic carbon (COD/BOD), phosphorus and nitrogen.
An eutrophication of surface waters due to nutrient enrichment as a result of the use of silica in household detergent products is not expected. The growth of diatoms and their seasonal fluctuation (blooms) is not influenced significantly by the additional anthropogenic silica input, taking into account that the input of silica from the use of commercial silicates is negligible as compared to geochemical weathering processes. Such effects are dependent on many factors varying spatially and temporally (temperature, light, concentrations of phosphates and of other nutrients, activity of grazer population, etc.).
Based on the available data, the use of soluble silicates in household cleaning products is not expected to have adverse effects on the aquatic ecosystem.

Human Health risk assessment
Consumers can be exposed to silicates from household cleaning products by the routes, skin contact, eye contact, oral ingestion or by inhalation. Using exposure scenarios relevant for consumer uses, the total potential exposure was estimated to be 12.4 µg SiO2/kg/day.
Experimental data showed that soluble silicates have a low acute toxicity by the oral route. No data are available on dermal toxicity of soluble silicates. However, due to moderate to high water solubility, very low lipophilicity and the molecule size of soluble silicates, the dermal bioavailability for such ionic substances is assumed to be rather limited. Soluble silicates can be irritating to corrosive to the skin and eyes, depending on their molar ratio and concentration. Skin sensitising properties of soluble silicates are highly unlikely. In several repeated dose studies the NOAELs of soluble silicates ranged from 159 mg/kg bw/d (180 days) to 284 mg/kg bw/d (90 days). Because of severe limitations in a poorly conducted 4-generation study, no firm conclusions could be drawn on potential reproductive effects. The noted effects in the daughter generations cannot be evaluated from the limited data given in the study and due to the generally low surveillance rate noted in all groups including the controls. No teratogenic effects were observed in a mouse developmental toxicity study. No genotoxic effects are reported in in vitro or in vivo studies for silicates or very similar compounds like magnesium silicates. Consequently, there is no risk for developmental or reproductive toxicity or genotoxicity. The only critical endpoint for soluble silicates seems to be local irritation or even corrosive properties on skin or eye. It should be noted that the primary hazard of commercially used soluble silicates is their moderate-to-strong alkalinity causing the observed local irritations/corrosive properties. Soluble silicates with a low molar ratio like sodium metasilicate and its hydrates (MR 1.0) exhibit a higher alkalinity than the soluble silicates of higher molar ratio.
Consumers may be exposed to soluble silicates due to direct skin contact with solutions containing silica. These can be laundry hand washing or the use of products containing soluble silicates for surface and toilet cleaning. However, the estimated concentrations of soluble silicates (0.22 to 2.5 mg/mL) and contact time in these solutions are generally too low to cause local skin irritation.
Accidental acute overexposure to soluble silicates may occur via the oral route, via exposure of the eyes (e.g. due to splashing) or via inhalation. Due to the particle size, formulation and bad taste of the products an accidental overexposure to soluble silicates is rather unlikely to occur. In addition, the available data do not indicate severe adverse effects when accidental overexposure to soluble silicates occurs.
Comparison of the total estimated systemic exposure to silica through the use of detergents (5.1 µg SiO2/kg/day) to the No Effect Level estimated in animals (159 mg SiO2/kg/day, 180d) results in a margin of safety of approximately 31 000. Consequently, soluble silicates are of low concern for the consumer use in household detergents. In addition, the average daily intake of silica background exposure via drinking water and diet is in the range of 43 – 107 mg SiO2/d and therefore, an exposure of silica due the use of household products is negligible in comparison of the average daily intake via drinking water and diet.

via Risk Assessments.

* Biological detergents provide improved stain removal, especially at lower temperatures, because they contain enzymes, often of different types which assist with the removal of, for example, protein, starch and fat-based stains, such as blood, egg, chocolate and gravy.

* Non-Biological detergents are designed with skin-care especially in mind, and do not contain enzymes which some people prefer not to use.

For coloured clothes and household textiles, COLOUR DETERGENTS will best help you to maintain their original colours, whilst still giving you a very high standard of cleaning. These are all biological detergents. They are particularly suitable for matching and coordinated sets of lingerie, bedding or towels, and are essential when items are non-colourfast.

For washing wool and silk MOST DETERGENTS, INCLUDING COLOUR DETERGENTS, ARE NOT SUITABLE. For these fabrics, you should use a GENTLE/FINE WASH DETERGENT specifically designed for this purpose.

To maintain the appearance of your clothes and house-hold textiles and to make them last longer, you should use different types of detergent for different washes, whether for whites, colours or delicates. Although this may require buying two or three different products, you do not need to use any more than if you were buying just the one.

Almost all washing machines these days are of the front-loading, horizontal drum type, and these require a low-suds washing product. Consequently almost all detergents for sale, of all the types mentioned above, are low suds. If you have a twin tub or other vertical drum machine you can use any of these low-suds products, or you might prefer high suds products, which deliver a richer lather. You might also prefer these for hand-washing.

Remember…!

* Always read and follow the instructions on your detergent pack!

* Always use the recommended amount of detergent!

* Always read and follow the care label!

And in Which Form ? …

Not only are there the different types of detergent listed above, each designed for a particular type of wash, but these are also available in different forms. Which of these you choose is more a matter of personal preference.

POWDERS give an excellent level of cleaning, and allow you to choose exactly how much you want to use depending on the soil level etc of the wash. Biological and Non-Biological powders usually contain fabric-safe, oxygen-based bleaching systems which are particularly effective at removing highly coloured stains, and which deliver a high standard of hygiene.

LIQUIDS, or GELS also give a high standard of cleaning and flexibility of dosage. Many people also find them more convenient to use, and their ready dissolution make them particularly suitable for low temperature washing. Super-concentrated variants offering the same benefits but with less use of packaging are now available.

TABLETS are comparable in performance to powders but come in a more convenient to use form.

CAPSULES, SACHETS or LIQUID TABLETS similarly offer liquid or gel properties in an easy to use way.

Fabric Conditioners…

These are ideal for improving “softness”. They also reduce static cling on synthetics and make ironing easier. Fabric Conditioners come in four forms:

* Liquids, which work in the final rinse. These currently come in regular and concentrated formats, though the latter, with their greater convenience and less use of packaging, are rapidly becoming more popular

* Capsules, which are added, in the drum, at the start of the wash

* Sheets for use in the tumble dryer, and

* Combined Detergent and Fabric Softener

via Home Laundering Consultative Council – Choosing The Right Detergent.

* Tired of paying $15-30 (+ tip) – or more! – to have your car “professionally” washed, only to be disappointed by the result? That mediocre carwash is costing you $150 to $480 a year!

* Are you one of millions of apartment and condo residents who end up paying a premium to have your car washed, because you don’t have access to a hose or can’t do it yourself at home?

* Are you in a drought-restricted area, where water is a precious resource (think waterless car wash), and the city hands out FINES for washing your car at home?

* Looking for a simple – and inexpensive! – way to go “green” TODAY?

Learn How You can Save Money, Time and Water & Go Green!

Discover Real Green Car Cleaning at Its Best!

Think about the money and time you spend just to keep your car clean:

* You use gas to drive to and from the car wash

* You spend valuable time waiting at the car wash

* You pay for the car wash (on average, about $15-30 each time for a basic car wash) – that’s $150 to $480 a year for an average driver!

Plus, did you know traditional car washes use between 13 and 92 gallons of water, per car? Not very “green,” is it?But it gets WORSE!

Let’s talk about what you get for your hour of time and money at the car wash. You and your family inhale stinky V.O.C. fumes (volatile organic compounds), the smell of industrialized chemical cleaners and cheap synthetic fragrances that pollute the air you breathe in your car and are linked to asthma, cancers, birth defects and more.

Next time you get your “professionally washed, notice how that “clean” smell really smells? Like chemicals.

And, you get a big fat bill for your effort!

Not exactly the way to go green, feel cleaner and better about yourself!

Wash your car with a hose? That’s not much better. In fact, it may be even worse for the environment!

When you use a hose, you…

* Waste money and water: using a hose wastes 80-140 gallons of water that you pay for

* Pollute the environment: you are washing heavy metals, oils, gasoline and detergents into the earth and eventually, into our water stream. Did you know the runoff from your driveway or parking lot generally runs directly into the nearest storm drain?

* Create a huge mess: dirty buckets of water, sloppy brushes and that unmanageable snake of a hose…isn’t it annoying to have to clean up after cleaning up?

* And it takes at least an hour of your time when all is said and done!

Here is the GOOD news:

You CAN Break the Bad Habits of Conventional Car Care Cleaning!.. and SAVE Money By Going GREEN!

Are you ready to say GOODBYE to:

* time and money wasted on getting to and from the car wash

* wasted water that you pay for

* annoying drought restrictions

* rules and fines from the city or your condo or apartment management

* toxic fumes that you, your family and your pets inhale

and say HELLO to:

* seeing your car clean and shiny in just 30 minutes or less!

* keeping your car clean ANYWHERE, even if you don’t have a garage or a driveway

* a new green product line that’s highly effective and works; is safe for the environment, and safe for you!

* one of the most affordable green car care lines of its kind on the market!

* pure green goodness for your car and family!

* $300 or more in car care savings per year!

* making a difference and going green with this one simple product!

* Getting into water conservation and saving water today!

via Green Your Car With Our Waterless Car Wash Products | Green Products | Green Living.

unlike traditional car washing processes, an “ecowash” does not require water. instead, we use a unique 2-in-1 wash and polish technique: our process uses an exclusive polymer compound which lifts the dirt from the surface of the paint and encapsulates it in a lubricant. the dirt is then removed with a soft cloth – all without water and without a scratch!

what’s left is a fine layer of polish which we remove with a clean cloth to reveal a beautifully polished and protected surface. your car will look like new again and will stay that way for longer thanks to a protective coating which remains to guard your car from the harmful effects of the environment.

remember this is not just a wash, it is a polish which offers longer lasting protection. traditional washing methods only remove dirt, ecowashing is a full polish and protection treatment.

to keep your car protected and looking its absolute best, we recommend ecowashing every 3 to 4 weeks. you can set up a regular booking reminder with ecowash mobile or develop you own personalised ecowash protection (PEP) program to keep your car protected and looking great all year round.

via A Waterless Car Wash & Polish__Autobase Wash Systems.