Siting of panels for solar water heating

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes sarah wrote: meow2222@care2.com> wrote: sarah wrote: Andy Hall wrote: On 2006-12-03 11:02:36 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:
But I think there are some things like eating and going to the toilet that we seldom depute to others. Maybe sorting our own waste might be seen in that light.
it isnt in that category though

Not quite, but it might bee seen as something for which we could take more personal responsibility.

I have never before heard of the 'excess packaging myth'. I'll try to remember not to note excess packaging when I see it next.
Are you trained in packaging design? Do you fully undertand why what is done is done? If not, are you in the best position to know when its excessive and when its not?
:) This does assume a commercial sellers perspective.
But for once the seller's and buyer's interests match pretty well on this.

Why ? Is it in the consumers interest to pay for excess packaging ?

I guess the whole point is that if product information spread by user recommendation rather than glossy boxes, products would have to sell themselves rather than the cardboard.
Inside many of us lurks the notion that
'if the product was any good, there'd be no need to advertise it'.
I know this has a number of flaws, but I guess there is also a nugget of truth.
Yes I'll agree about advertising. But its a tiny percentage of packaging that depends on this. A glossy paper wrapper versus brown paper, but the same box and polystyrene. Close to 100% of the packaging isnt about that.

I'm not sure that any of these were what I had in mind.

Burning some of that oil-derived waste can generate remarkably toxic chemicals so the flue gases must be cleaned (additional cost/effort).
yes, I believe thats been dealt with though, and I'm told incineration does make economic sense.
Economic or environmental sense ?
Economic, that has to add up for it to be an option.

Which doesn't preclude it having poor environmental performance if done badly.

Isnt it ironic that under LA control we recycle the plastic packaging thats worth nothing to anyone,

Specifically ? Which plastics ?

yet dont resell the endless stream of working consumer goods that are of value.
And you dont think private enterprise could do better :)

Well it's not what I think - it's a free country. Does it do better ?
I don't see private enterprise doing that much recycling of consumer goods, yet many can be more or less had for the asking. The best instances of this I can think of are in the voluntary sector in fact.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-15 03:26:02 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , meow2222@care2.com writes sarah wrote: meow2222@care2.com> wrote: sarah wrote: Andy Hall wrote: On 2006-12-03 11:02:36 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:
Each of us has our own level at which we function, in the sense that some have achieved more than others. Eg some are trying to make ends meet while some put their energy into quite different things. A bit like a maslow scale. no, its gonna take too long, its really another thread. Lets just say different people have different things they can best do with their money. Or time. But I think there are some things like eating and going to the toilet that we seldom depute to others.
Really? Letting the government run services is exactly doing that - i.e. letting others wipe our arses.

Sorting your own waste takes the process under your control.

The trouble is that the government always uses Bronco sheets and tells us that it's Andrex.

N/A in this case.

Maybe sorting our own waste might be seen in that light.
If we are stupid enough to buy into that notion

If it gives the lowest environmental impact, it may not be 'stupid' but 'responsible'.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes
Ah, and thats important. Lots of people dont compost because there is no financial incentive to, and this results in masses of extra rubbish to dispose of and extra costs for us all. Why then do you not vote out people supporting this problem?
Possibly because bad composting is not going to help the environment.
OK, how do you think home composting worse than the local landfill?

Local landfill at least burns the methane. Sometimes even generating a bit of electricity.

If waste recycling were merely some whimsical initiative undertaken by UK local authorities, that would be fair. Unfortunately it's not. Recycling has been forced on them by EU directives
so not even a democractic decision, or even semi democratic.
Like speed limits and many other things we don't like.
no, those are decided within Britain and are subject to the normal democratic-ish process.

As opposed to decided within Europe and are subject to the normal democratic-ish process.

which are in turn a function of general (you may be excluded if you wish) recognition that we're running short of sites for bulk waste disposal
a classic untruth. There are areas of coastline begging for a ring wall of rubble to be laid down in the water and the area filled with garbage. The resulting land would pay us with its value, not cost us.
An interesting proposition, though I'd like to see the strategic environmental impact assessments taking landfill leechate into account.
Fwiw leechate would be a lot less of a problem at sea, no polluting of our aquifers, and no land made unfit for various uses.

Just algal blooms...

From an energy use point of view, what difference does it make if we burn oil or burn oil derived waste?
Not a lot, but
a) there is a strong case for burning less oil,
b) materials like PET can be reused directly without the overhead of chemical synthesis from crude oil, and
c) the emissions from burning waste are much harder to manage in 'bonfire in a box' incinerator systems.
These are all part of it of course, but dont by themselves decide which is best.

Nor does any one other factor.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Tony Bryer writes

On 6 Dec 2006 04:18:20 -0800 wrote :
A friend and I in the mid 70s used to retrieve Flymos from the dump and make 'em work again. Made a nice income from that which was very welcome to a couple of teenagers.
this kind of thing is educational and gets kids into subjects at which they later do well. So now its illegal, and we have armies of bored clueless kids instead. Thanks Nanny.
Now we have Flymos (like the 15-month old one in my garage) which are destined for the dump because they are unfixable.

Very few things are unfixable !!
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

Owain wrote: Pete C wrote:
If you want to choose not to participate, why not exercise your right to move to somewhere like Peru? There an army of homeless children will scavenge from your rubbish at the dump, so nothing is required for you to do.
A small army of uk.d-i-y regulars have expressed the desire to scavenge at the dump in the UK but are prevented from doing so by H&S regulations.
Owain
is that truth or excuse though? How hard is it to sign a preprinted waiver?

Indeed this is what Torfaen BC used to do. May still for all I know.

How hard is it to buy electrical goods after showing evidence of being in the trade? Etc.
And why is laying out the possibly saleable rubbish so much more hazardous than it is when its done at jumble sales, second hand goods shops and so on? I'm far from convinced.

Probably a matter of arse covering, appropriate premises etc.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Owain writes

Jumble sales and the like are done by people wanting to sell things for money. Council tips are run by councils.

Many of which take money for scrap. Andy would be proud !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

If an item is bought and sold it is by definition not waste.

I wish !! Try telling it to the Environment Agency !

Jumble sales and the like are done by people wanting to sell things for money. Council tips are run by councils.
Owain
No, theyre run by private contractors.

Always ??

In short, permitting free trade would reduce landfill and make lots of good goods available for businesses and end users alike.

Seconded !

If the issues of dealing with public direct were insurmountable,

And again !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

sarah wrote:
Perhaps like most things we're not looking for the place to draw a line, but rather painting subtle shades of grey across a wide area :-) The competent and concerned get to do more, the rest follow according to inclination, ability and legislation.
surelt the competent have far more useful and important things to do with their time, like try to crack technological problems for one example.

I don't think competence routinely excuses people from things like this.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-04 13:06:00 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said: On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:22:26 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> wrote this:-
Perhaps like most things we're not looking for the place to draw a line, but rather painting subtle shades of grey across a wide area :-) The competent and concerned get to do more, the rest follow according to inclination, ability and legislation. surelt the competent have far more useful and important things to
with their time, like try to crack technological problems for one example. Precisely.... I doubt if even ten minutes a week would make any difference to the solving of problems by the competent, especially as they can still think about these problems as they do the sorting.
You are missing the points...

Idleness and pride ?
I don't think he is.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Alan Connor writes

On uk.environment, in , "John Beardmore" wrote:
article not downloaded: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline
Sorry, John. You still can't tell the difference between reason and rationalization.
That's what you get for beieving stupid things like "anything's possible" and "nobody knows for sure" and "it's all relative".
They strip you of intellectual integrity.

Is this with respect to anything in particular, or just a random prod from my 'conscience in the woods' ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Alan Connor writes

On uk.environment, in 1hptg2v.q021i71bxepyvN%usenet@colddrake.co.uk>, "sarah" wrote:
An Earth-friendly civilization wouldn't necessarily be Utopia. Just a lot closer to it.
Your statement is basically a copout.

So is running off to the woods !

We _need_ to create an Earth-friendly civilization.
Or it's going to be created for us when this unsustainable one collapses.

Until it gets too big again.

The latter choice is a very unpleasant one for most people, who have no idea how to live directly from the land.

:) Or anything else much...

No. I've no objection to ugly industry in my neighborhood.
You would if _all_ of the ones you rely on were there.
Or even 1/2 of them.

But there's no reason why they should all be in one place is there ?

Provided it conforms to appropriate environmental regulations.
The vast majority do not, being tastefully out-of-sight in other countries.
Good thing, too, or you wouldn't be able to afford what they produce.

Some of us can still remember the Black Country in the 60s and before.

I currently live in an environment thoroughly trashed by industrial agriculture.
How about a nice iron smelter next door? You use a lot of steel.

We are pretty close to what's left of Stanton Iron works. It never bothers us, and we don't bother it, not that it does much these days, but the ones in South Wales don't generally seem to be a problem, except when they occasionally explode. Wouldn't bother me.

And a nice petroleum refinery.

No real problem with that. One of my friends used to live and work in Avonmouth. He loved the place.

How about a de-inking plant for recycled paper?

What about it ? OK as long as I don't have to share a bath with it.

All those wonderful, high-order petroleum solvents.

I love the smell of VOCs in the morning. Not that it's easy to find these days !

Oh. And don't forget the petro-chemical plant to make _those_.

Covered above I think.

The list is very long.

And very cyclic.

So just make a ritual out of sorting your garbage, cleansing yourself of sin thereby (in your own mind, anyway) and then send it somewhere else. Wouldn't want to actually _live_ near where it ends up, would you?
Actually I wouldn't mind at all. i
You do not want to live by a landfill.
Trust me here.

This I am more inclined to agree with.

I've had enough of your willfully ignorant, psuedo-progressive glibness.

So much so that you ran off to the woods !

Fine. I get the picture. You aren't going to do anything real to preserve the Nature that sustains us.

How would you know ?

So go play the role of environmentalist with your elitist friends and we'll do our best despite you all.

You and whose army ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Alan Connor writes

On uk.environment, in , "Alan Connor" wrote: snip
Actually I wouldn't mind at all. i
You do not want to live by a landfill.
Trust me here.
I know exactly what's coming next. This lady is obviously another Beardmore, smart as a whip with the intellectual integrity of a sleazeball politician:
She'll say something like:
"A modern, well-designed landfill is perfectly safe and comfortable to live near."
No. Go spend a day adjacent to and downwind of one.
And those are _very_ expensive to create and maintain.

Do they even exist ? I'm not sure there is much you can do to control smells and insects etc from land fill ?

What does that mean: A whole lot things have to be mined and manufactured and powered to create and maintain them.
Of course, you don't see _that_ part of it.

Which doesn't mean you aren't aware of it.

NIMBY
But since you don't mind living near _all_ of the industry necessary to make your lifestyle happen, you won't mind living near the smelters and open-hearth furnaces and foundries and rolling mills and factories necessary to do the job.
And don't forget the iron ore mines, coal mines, and limestone quarries necessary to _begin_ the process of making steel.
Oh. And the coking plants.

Wouldn't bother me, though I'd rather see the use of recycled than virgin materials going into these things.

And those landfills are still nothing but toilets. Nature being flushed down the toilet.

Again, I am more inclined to agree with this.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-04 02:35:50 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-29 01:17:13 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , Andy Hall writes
Absolutely. I would like to buy (or rather continue to buy) a service where the supplier deals with this stuff. I don't want to spend my time on it. If you would like to buy something which involves you in sorting through every item and putting into different places and tracking where it goes, be my guest. You could set up in business, and I would happily be your first customer. That doesn't deal with the notion that sorting at source is the 'least resource' way of getting things sorted. Then you would be welcome to visit and sort through my dustbin each week. It would still be more efficient for you to do it.
No it wouldn't. My work time costs considerably more than what it would cost for me to outsource it to a rubbish collection firm.

Then maybe you should ask if it's over valued ?

If I provide you with the service, I introduce overheads like getting your rubbish and me in the same place. You could walk or use your bike. From Derbyshire ??
Nope.
It would still be more efficient for you to do it.
See above.

I'll take that as a 'no'.

I am not willing to spend my time sorting through all kinds of different plastics, metals, paper and all the rest of it. I object to being told that there is only one way that all of this can possibly happen and that I shouldn't have a choice of supplier and the ability to agree my own commercial arrangement with them. I'm sure there are many ways it could happen, but there seems to be one clear winner in terms of environmental performance.
The customer needs to be the winner.

The customer wins if their actions stop, or contribute to stopping, their ecosystem collapsing, though of course, it doesn't all turn on a single banana skin...

I think that both notions are bogus. If something relies on only being effective if there is no choice and a specific procedure has to be followed, it is highly questionable and in my view a very dangerous road to be traveling down.
:) This is a bit like saying there ought be a choice about ohms law or the ideal gas equation.
No it isn't.

By your logic above I'm not so sure...

I think sometimes you have to admit that from an environmental perspective there is a clear winner, that it involves a bit of input from you, and that you can't be arsed or want to argue.
It doesn't *require* input from me.

It does if you are going to take the most environmentally benign course of action, i.e. sorting your own waste at source. OK - I can accept that you don't plan to.

It's not an issue of "can't be arsed", but an issue of choice and whether I wish to spend my time on one issue vs. another.

Well yes - you can always choose to spend your time on something more important. It must terribly terribly important though !

In answer to your other point... no I don'f think that that is a self centred position to take at all; rather the boot is on the other
Well I sort my waste. That doesn't feel too self centred here.
For you, that may be the optimal solution. I haven't said that you can't do it. I would also like my optimal solution.
The point is - I can't make you do it, but I can say why I think it's a good idea, and am free to point out when I think your 'reasons' for not doing it are bogus.
That's your choice. I don't accept your limitation of choice or your approach.

And I'm not sure that you should have to. None the less I find the priorities of someone who claims to have so much important stuff to do that they can't spare a few minutes a week to sort their own waste, yet spends ages arguing about it recreationally, more than a little odd.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-10 23:39:47 +0000, John Beardmore said:
You just have to live with us each forming our own opinions.
I always do. It's called being an individual rather than a sheep. I commend it.

Good !

Yes, though there is probably much to be said for education, public health provision, health and safety, environmental protection the police etc... Out of those, the only one that marginally may be worth doing in the public sector is policing and even that is marginal Again - this is your view, and I don't get the feeling that it's widely shared ! It really doesn't bother me. As long as there is freedom of choice, one of the choices can be to stay with the status quo. But the status quo involves one fleet of vehicles run by one contractor doing the whole job. As soon as you move to three services from three contractors, that is lost.
Sigh.... Already covered.

Not adequately.

If it is possible to sort mechanically, or otherwise *some* different types of plastic or metal, then I am sure that given thought and investment, other types can be as well. I doubt it will be cheap, and it's likely to be energy intensive. Let's see what happens when the drongos in the LAs are taken out of the food chain. Let's see what happens when you have the software, circuit diagram and the components list. ?? To sort materials automatically...
That would be something worthwhile striving for rather than wasting millions of peoples' time sorting crap.

Depends on its life cycle environmental impact.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Alan Connor writes

On uk.environment, in , "Andy Hall" wrote:
The 'environmentalists' won't even take the time to sort their garbage.

Well - in another post, you seemed to be asserting that we should do something more important. Make your mind up !

Whose idea was it to recycle? Theirs.
They talk, but they don't do.

You assume Andy is an environmentalist !

In order to avoid taking a little time off from watching the Telly and running his mouth on the Usenet, he would rather see yet another industry created.
(Or radically expanded: It would take many hundreds of thousands of these garbage-sorting complexes to serve even the developed nations.)
This would be an industry that produces very complex and energy-intensive machinery to sort his garbage for him. Robots, essentially.

:) I'm inclined to agree.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore