Siting of panels for solar water heating

In message , Phil Bradshaw writes

John Beardmore wrote:
What on earth can you use 486 CPUs for these days ? Especially without the motherboards ?
It was a number of years ago.
Does he want a few more ? Got some pentiums too !
Heh. Most probably not!

Wise man I think...
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , sarah writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , sarah usenet@colddrake.co.uk> writes John Beardmore wrote:
North Herts has apparently concluded that the privatised bus services are effectively operating a cartel ;-/
Surely not ??? Shock ! Horror !!
Maybe they have a monopoly ? Oh no ! That cannot be !
If we're not careful, you'll corner the market for irony, cynicism and sarcasm.
:) Too bad there isn't much market.
You'll be wealthy beyond your dreams,
Not according to my accountant who I can't afford any more...
Oh, dear. I just engaged one. Not having to do my accounts and file a tax return is my best (adult) christmas present ever.
regards sarah
ps. Is the beginning of this thread worth reading for info on the subject?

You mean "Siting of panels for solar water heating". I think there might have been the odd interesting notion if it's the thread I remember, but it was a month or so ago, so may be expiring from news servers.
http://www.t4sltd.co.uk/NepDairySolar0112.pdf should cover that and more if you want a free download on it ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , David Hansen writes

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 01:37:41 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
Sems to be about 1 per week, and the fines are not minor slaps on the wrist either. ISTR �400 for a single item of junk mail in with the waste paper.
I find that hard to believe.
I suspect the OP is referring to the following
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,,1925467,00.html
====================================================================
Environmentalists yesterday criticised a council for prosecuting a man who put the wrong kind of rubbish into a recycling bag. Friends of the Earth said the case of Michael Reeves, who has been ordered to pay �200 for putting a single sheet of paper in a bag reserved for glass and tin, could put others off recycling.
Mr Reeves, from Swansea in south Wales, said he would not attempt to recycle again. He was backed by other residents who said the council ought to be putting more resources into keeping the streets clean rather than chasing people who were trying to do the right thing.
The saga began when a recycling team spotted a sheet of paper in a green bag outside Mr Reeves's flat - a bill with Mr Reeves's name on it. He denied he had put it in the green bag but was fined �100 with �100 costs by Swansea magistrates.
Friends of the Earth Cymru, the Welsh arm of the environmental group, said the prosecution sent out the wrong signal. Spokesman Julian Rosser said: "I feel a case like this can really damage recycling.
"If someone persistently puts the wrong things into the wrong bags, and is warned, then we would support prosecution." But the "one-off offence was very, very minor." Mr Reeves, a 28-year-old local sports journalist, said: "I am very angry. I still deny putting that piece of paper in the bag." Swansea council said most people managed to sort their waste. "It's not rocket science," said a spokesman. "The bags are labelled clearly."

And it's not as if bottles don't have paper labels !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

David Hansen wrote:
"If someone persistently puts the wrong things into the wrong bags, and is warned, then we would support prosecution." But the "one-off offence was very, very minor." Mr Reeves, a 28-year-old local sports journalist, said: "I am very angry. I still deny putting that piece of paper in the bag." Swansea council said most people managed to sort their waste. "It's not rocket science," said a spokesman. "The bags are labelled clearly."
and bizarrely, some people want these folk to have a monopoly on their waste services!

Unless you can show that the alternative is better anyway !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-06 13:54:50 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said:
On 6 Dec 2006 04:39:40 -0800 someone who may be meow2222@care2.com wrote this:-
and bizarrely, some people want these folk to have a monopoly on their waste services! There is only one "minor" flaw with your assertion. Councils don't have a monopoly. Unlike the situation with gas and electricity bills some years ago any householder can contract with any supplier to deal with their waste. However, as with roads, education, defence and many other things the householder will not get a discount if they don't use the government provided service.
So a monopoly.

Well - I think not. The option to use other services remains.

Private armies seem not to be appreciated for some reason, so let's leave that one aside.
However, if I use a toll bridge or toll road I pay for them, otherwise I don't.

Yes - not too keen on that notion either, but that debate is even further off topic !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Mary Fisher writes

"John Beardmore" wrote in message
Waste plastic going to China does not replace oil. I've seen photographs of PET bottles being burnt in China on open bonfires yielding acrid yellow smoke.
Even if you have, that doesn't mean that the Chinese burn all PET, or indeed that all our PET goes to China.
I wonder how he knows that the smoke is acrid if he's only seen photographs?

Maybe he borrowed Andys divining rods ?

For composting, small branches are OK but dead woody matter isn't. How you tell the difference between a small branch (which is dead woody matter but allowed) and something which is dead woody matter and not allowed is interesting but could cost you a lot of money to get wrong.
In theory. How many are fined in practice ?
Sems to be about 1 per week, and the fines are not minor slaps on the wrist either. ISTR �400 for a single item of junk mail in with the waste paper.
I find that hard to believe.
I find it impossible to believe. It's probably been rumoured in a redtop or a consumer tv programme.

Hmmm... If somebody got fined �200 for a single sheet it's still pretty poor !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-04 02:49:59 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-28 19:32:11 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-27 01:52:56 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
:) People generally have problems with their own anti social :):):):)traits. It's not pretty to threaten people, but ultimately most behaviours are constrained by social norms which are expressed and law in enforced through physical force and if
Ah. so now we are bringing in the nebulous concept of "society". It's closely linked to the notion of democracy. No it isn't. "Society" is a nebulous term which is orthogonal to democracy. Not sure about 'orthogonal'.
It certainly isn't in alignment with it.

Well that's a matter of opinion, because it seems to me that that no individual can negotiate a relationship to the state, and when we vote, opinion is aggregated. Such aggregations might be regarded as society expressing a view.

Democracy, in terms of current use in western Europe is much more closely aligned with freedom to choose.
:) Really ? I thought it was about things being done in your name within (?) reasonable limits ?
Reasonable being the operative word.

Quite so.

... and this is supposed to be a recommendation? I don't hold social science in very high esteem at all, I am afraid. Well that's too bad there's a lot of it about.
More's the pity - seems to attract people unable to do real work.

:) I couldn't possibly comment !

I suppose again it's one of those things that's not perfect, but the best tool we have for that particular job. There are 'soft' problems that are not well served by solving differential equations.
An excuse for more fluff and imposition on personal freedom resulting from it.

Or an appreciation of the complexity of many real world situations depending on your perspective.

What is new here is that what is considered normal waste disposal practice is being changed at one end by the likes of FOE, and at the other end by the likes of the EU, DEFRA, EA, DTI, LAs etc. In the end they will exercise the law against individuals who don't conform. To the totalitarian state?
:) That's a matter of opinion. Too close in some ways for :) Which is precisely why this needs to be highlighted for what it is. It needs to be highlighted for all the things that it is and is part of. There is more to it than a political structure, however obsessed with the structure you are. I'm not obsessed with anything in this field - I'm simply highlighting the shortcomings. Well - you do seem to be concerned with the (?) monopoly and bundling aspects of the problem much more than the waste or environmental issues.
I already told you that those issues are a given as part of the service offering.

Well - you've said that the minimum standards imposed by law are a given.
That doesn't not mean that standards will rise, as you yourself have admitted.
Telling me that they are a "given" is disingenuous wibble.

or is it basically that anything that looks vaguely green must
Well, I've got an MSc in environmental decision making so I have put a bit of thought into this stuff. I see. Does this include consideration of individual freedom of choice and the economic impacts of environmentalism? I don't mean the impact of the economy on the environment. All of the above in fact. Wouldn't be much use otherwise. It's curious in that case that so much environmentalist propaganda and proposal chooses to ignore these very points. Environmental decisions are made to support people and the things on which they depend.
Then they should be given the freedom to make them.

If they are properly informed.

This is a great way to convince people of the case for environmental measures. Well - it's not performance art ! Bottom line is, you are asking if and how the case for recycling can be demonstrated. I'm telling you there is a technique, that allows impacts to be quantified, and the best you can do is say "How convenient". Well - yes it is. Nothing's perfect, but you don't seem to have anything better, fond of assertion and allegation though you are. I am not setting out to provide anything better,

Noted.

so there is little point in making criticisms on that basis. So deal with the best tool we have then.
I would prefer to make my own choice of tool.

I'm sure you would.

It seems to be born of bloody mindedness rather than any real desire to change in the best way possible. The best way possible meets the objectives while bringing the customer with a choice of solutions. It doesn't come out of presenting one solution and compelling the customer to do that one solution in a particular way or else. Well choice isn't a bad thing except where providing multiple services results in redundant duplicated equipment and journeys. Again. If different operators are offering different services, there is not duplication. Nor is it necessarily lower aggregate footprint.
Nor does it necessarily increase it.

Indeed, though it's not at all easy to see any way it might not.

It may not duplicate services in the same sense that tow bus companies operating on the same route do not duplicate services, but it may travel more road miles and use more man hours even with fewer people on each trip than existing services.
.. and it may not.

Well - if you really believe that, show us how it might not please.
If you can't, stop making the claim.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-04 16:48:31 +0000, John Beardmore said:
The inevitable result is overpricing and poor quality. The way to defend that is not to have any competition so that people have comparison points. This strikes me as a political belief rather than an observation based on what can be observed in the town hall. One only has to look in a few places to see a consistent malaise. Guess I just look under different rocks. Perhaps that's where you are going wrong. The malaise is in broad daylight for all to see. I know what you mean in some departments, but it's not universal. I'm going to support the people in LAs that are worth supporting.
You must spend a lot of time looking.

Well - you can't do much in the environmental sector without running into them !

Supply and branding can be applied in almost any sector. So for example, SITA could offer a range of waste collection services that I might like to buy; or I can buy a different package of services from the local authoriity but operated by SITA. It just requires a little imagination and application of business principles. Yes - though I'm not sure what the point is or how it helps. Sigh. Didn't your environmental studies course have anything about business principles..? Well up to a point, but they don't generally encourage the provision of redundant services to gratify and ideological lust for choice where any marginal benefit from the provision of choice is swamped by increasing the environmental footprint of the service provision of a whole.
Not in touch with reality then...

You could say the same of economists total lack of grip on environmental issues.

And calling it a "Home Care" package implies that there is more bundled into it than waste collection. I thought you only wanted to pay for what you used ? So create "Home Care" bronze, silver and gold products. Bronze is basic rubbish collection, silver includes collecting additional things such as garden rubbish etc. and gold includes rat catching and wasp nest destruction; or whatever. Just illustrations. Hmmm... The only people to whom this kind of thing seems to appeal are those who seem to be obsessed by the provision of choice a matter of principle. Still - make it an election issue, and see how far you get. It'd be interesting to see.
I think it will....

Go for it then ! Keep us posted please !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

Not in touch with reality then...
Its odd how many put whatever theyre taught on a pedestal. The 'well..' paragraph above describes some real naivete.

Again, I think it's just as valid to argue that economists have not grip on the reality of environmental issues.

And calling it a "Home Care" package implies that there is more bundled into it than waste collection. I thought you only wanted to pay for what you used ?
So create "Home Care" bronze, silver and gold products.
Bronze is basic rubbish collection, silver includes collecting additional things such as garden rubbish etc. and gold includes rat catching and wasp nest destruction; or whatever. Just illustrations.
I suspect many will opt for the 'wet paper medal' home care package. This should cut costs, staff use, vehicle miles, energy use and pollution greatly.

How ?

Hmmm... The only people to whom this kind of thing seems to appeal are those who seem to be obsessed by the provision of choice a matter of principle. Still - make it an election issue, and see how far you get. It'd be interesting to see.
I think it will....
I dont believe it'll happen any day soon, as recycling is a vehicle for taking more of our money, using it to pay for services that companies then profit from. And that games been going on for along time. The Olympics is another example.

On that last point I'll certainly agree with you !!
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-06 12:49:16 +0000, meow2222@care2.com said:
Well up to a point, but they don't generally encourage the provision of redundant services to gratify and ideological lust for choice where any marginal benefit from the provision of choice is swamped by increasing the environmental footprint of the service provision of a whole.
Not in touch with reality then... Its odd how many put whatever theyre taught on a pedestal. The 'well..' paragraph above describes some real naivete.
Quite amazing. I've always considered education to be about finding out things for one's self, questioning them and sifting the important and influencing from the dross.

If you were observant, you would have noticed that environmentalists do not all sing off the same hymn sheet.
Your analysis has no more validity than Alan Connor can manage.

The last thing that I have felt it to be was being fed a package of goods and treating it as sacrosanct.

This seems to be exactly the way you regard economics.

I suspect that that is one reason for my not wanting to buy unquestioningly into mindless ecobabble for the sake of it.

Maybe you should take the trouble to learn something meaningful about the work environmentalists have done before you start making assumptions ?
While acknowledging that you must comply with the law, attitudinally you seem far more disposed to find justifications for inaction than to see if action is really required. This alone makes me reluctant to support your ill specified commercial proposals.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

Andy Hall wrote: On 2006-12-06 12:49:16 +0000, meow2222@care2.com said:
Doing a degree course proves you can do a degree course, and know at least something about the subject. So its useful, but to take it as complete qualification is just not how it is,

Well - a qualification generally doesn't give experience in any particular sphere, but it may impart a body of complex theory.
You can take an expert in climate change who will be totally unfamiliar with analysing flue gasses or interpreting the results of such etc.

and employers see it this way too in my experience.

I'm inclined to agree - We certainly do !
Of course, no doubt the same goes for electronics designers and soldering, economists doing accounts etc...
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-14 15:17:47 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes
I can and do acknowledge achievement where it is made. Unlike a lot of people, I won't accept poor service and being promised A and having A - B delivered. This is why, as a nation, we are ripped off and then moan about things but are generally not willing to take action about them. IME, both the private and the public sectors suffer from bad service malaise, but it is far more prevalent in the public sector. But none of this happy rant says anything specific about the matter in hand.
There is no rant, just an observation on the poor service ethic which is a UK malaise.

When you repeat it so often with no acknowledgement of other views I think it is likely to be seen as a rant.

It is just as much the customer's fault for allowing it to happen as the suppliers' for performing poorly.

Where it happens, yes.

In terms of public to private sector comparison, the acid test is what happens when there is good service and bad service. Do people get rewarded over and above their basic remuneration for giving good service? Do they get penalised and ultimately fired if not.

Usually in the private sector, then again, sometimes in public sector too.

Does the organisation that they work in cease to exist if it doesn't deliver?

They may get kicked out or sideways in the public sector, and companies can take a long time to die in the private sector !

When those fundamental questions are answered, it becomes very clear that for the most part the public sector is not being correctly motivated.

It seems to me that when the people near the top of an LA are well motivated, plenty of opportunities arise for sensible rewarding of worthy efforts.
In either type of organisation, if the top of the organisation looses the plot, the whole thing tends to descent into finger pointing, back biting and arse covering. (Well - you would cover it with all those teeth flying !)
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-12-18 00:51:57 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-17 15:12:53 +0000, John Beardmore said:
OK then, so you accept that there may well be increased transport costs then ?
There may or there may not be. The volume of rubbish remains the same in either scenario
Transport cost would be a factor for each provider to work out and to decide on the most cost efficient solution.
Well - unless they all share the same collection trips, it's pretty hard to see how the number of road miles won't increase isn't it ?

I said cost efficient solution. The vehicles may be smaller and hence have lower emissions.
I also said that one has to look at the overall picture and not just measure one parameter.

Ah, that's OK then. It would certainly make a difference to the current situation where all this goes on behind the scenes and the customer gets a bill which he is forced to pay.
Well yes. That's usually the way industry goes about things, and the civil service too.

Industry does not force its customers to pay bills unless they buy something.

Not outdated at all. The free market has stood the test of time. Seems to be wanting in a number of areas, particularly around environmental exploitation, degradation and equity. Sigh.... the old chestnuts. They are old because capitalism has never dealt with them well.
There isn't any viable alternative.
Well there is. Environmental legislation has been a great success in the areas it has reached, and it reaches more month by month.

No it hasn't. This is why LAs and others are using bogus schemes in order to meet illconceived targets.

Given that situation, the correct approach is to achieve what is wanted by creating a win rather than a loss situation such that there is incentive to take a course of action as opposed to a penalty for not.
That requires people to take a long view, and that requires them to be familiar with the issues, and that takes time and a desire to act responsibly. In many respects our problems may be too urgent for that.

Evidence?

If legislation is the least worst option, let them legislate.

Emotional running around in circles.
- We think there may be a problem - What shall we do? - Doesn't matter as long as we do something that's high profile - Even better if we can force the public to join in with something. Doesn't matter what that is either.
Very weak.

Ultimately, regulated environments don't work because people will find a way around them if they deem them to be too intrusive. And unregulated ones do what's cheapest and 'hang the consequences'. So what's the right compromise ? Freedom of choice fo rthe customer. With no restrictions ?
Refer to first point. If people find restrictions too intrusive, they will find a way around them.
Possibly. I'll worry about that when it becomes a major problem.

It will be the moment that it affects people's economic well being to an unacceptable degree.

Paying twice for a service that doesn't deliver what the customer wants isn't emotional fluff when it is your money that is being spent. Indeed, but that issue only arises when you buy in an additional services, which while it's something you personally want, may be judged to have an unacceptable environmental impact if widely imposed. Making a market more free is not the only worthy objective.
It's the only one that ultimately works.....
Oh I don't know. Legislation seems to be effective in many areas.

I do. If something is too inconvenient and the chances of being caught are low, people won't bother.
OTOH. Advertise incentives for doing something and there will be a positive response.
One obvious example is glass bottles.
There used to be a deposit on them and they were returned for re-use.
Nowadays they reach bottle banks sometimes. That is to say assuming the bottle bank isn't full and there is broken glass all over the surrounding area. Even if they do reach the bottle bank, the exercise is pointless.
That is the difference that adding incentive makes.

Have they been asked the question or offered choice? Most people would assume that the LA will continue to arrange rubbish collection and therefore from thinking inside this restriction have no comparison. Advancement happens from thinking outside the box and not accepting the status quo.
First you have to convince people that it is an advance at all.

If it matches their requirements, it's an advance because they will co-operate with it.

Nonetheless, there is much discredit around recycling with numerous scams going on in order to meet artificial targets. Until there is more honesty about that, there is little point in discussing environmental impact of measuring one detail vs. another.
Nonsense - it's only by measurement that you can get to the bottom of what is worthwhile and what is scam or futile consequence of overzealous legislation.

This is assuming that there are disinterested people to do the measuring and reporting.

For example, my car needs to be serviced periodically. I could do it myself - I have the ability and most of the tools required. However, I don't like titting around with cars, so I pay the garage to do it. Rubbish disposal should be the same as that. It is state involvement that results in the restriction of choice of service based on very wooly arguments and that is why I believe it to be unacceptable. Well - get a consensus and change the law then, though unless you can show that there are real wins for the end user, without causing significant environmental impacts, including increases in road miles, fuel consumption, emissions and congestion, I won't be voting for you.
I wasn't seeking votes....
Happy to hear it !

Just suggesting freedom of choice.

On 2006-12-18 01:43:59 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
So it should be made incentive and not penalty. How did you have in mind ?
There are plenty. Reductions in corporation tax for businesses implementing a relevant environmental policy would be but one.
OK - a start, though this is hardly a market force. More of a 'financial instrument applied'.

It's exactly a market force. Make an action attractive and people buy.

Improvement in environmental reality won't happen to any worthwhile degree until and unless the economic realities are addressed. Hence the point about incentive rather than bullying.
Hmmm... There will always be a sense in which the prolong absence of a carrot will be seen as a stick.
I'm not sure that these things can always be 'happiness led'.

It certainly won't work to always lead with the negativity of legislation and penalties for trivia.

Then to take it further, this failed policy is not repealed but continued! A policy that wastes energy and costs money is continued. Not totally convinced it has failed... It is focus on the irrelevant. In a typical house, lighting accounts for 2% of energy consumption. I seriously doubt that's true, at least unless they use low energy light bulbs, heat electric, cook electric and have TIG welding as a hobby. Care to cite a source ?
I said energy consumption, not electricity consumption.
Even so, I'm not at all sure it's right, and as for every kW of electricity we use, Drax et al push 2 kW up a chimney as 'waste' heat, consumption at the point of use is a pretty silly way to look at it. Deal with the PRIMARY energy used to make that electricity.

That's a matter of generation and there are numerous more efficient ways to do so than to burn fossil fuels at Drax.
I was, however, referring to energy use in the home.

It's really very simple. Add up the number of incandescent bulbs required in a house with their ratings. Work out the usage pattern. Calculate the amount of electricity used in kWh averaged over a year. Then look at the energy bills.
Yes. I suspect it comes out to more than 2% though.

Try working it out.

They just have a no incentive to, and would rather not bother if not doing so increases the sale of fittings in the long run.
Exactly. People don't want this stuff and are voting with their money.
OK - a little cynical, but I would expect no less.

So that should give you the clue. Make it attractive and hassle free to do something and people might just do it. Force them and you will a) have a battle and b) a poorer result than if you had spent the money cajoling and policing on incentivising.

Lets compare what happens with failed policies in the private business sector. Either the business corrects it, and they try to, or they cease being a service provider, and those that come closer to what the buyer wants stay in business. The motivation to do well is much larger there, as the individual either prospers or loses it all. Which is great in those areas that markets address well. The environment has generally not been one of them. Then those wishing to promote its maintenance need to go away and think about how to make that marketable rather than immediately falling on the easy way out of forcing unnatural behaviour. I'm not sure that living sustainably is unnatural, but it's not something capitalism has been good at.
That's just broad brushed nonsense
It's broad brush, but I can't think of a lot of major environmental improvements led by industry off the top of my head.
You ?

It doesn't have to be led by, only made attractive enough to win co-operation.

Either marketing or legislation might contribute to getting the job done. I'm not fussed which, and up to a point happy with both, though marketing does seem to be the art of selling illusions.
Not sure that makes it the most appropriate tool.
Legislation certainly isn't. Marketing is very effective and produces sustained results if done honestly and competently.
Where it's done honestly and competently, it's little different from education. But how often is that ?
Look at government advertising on energy consumption. Terrifyingly naff !

Terrifyingly wasteful as well and focussing on the wrong areas.

This is something that the green lobby has attempted to do and has been found out on the first and failed on the second.
Well there are one or two thinks like Brent Spa where there has been clear misinformation given. I suspect that such cases are rare, and other state owned companies like BNFL have hardly been squeaky clean in this area. The asbestos industry lies for the best part of a hundred years. I don't think industry can lecture the environmental movement on corporate responsibility !

So honesty needed all round it seems....
THe question is how to achieve that. It's too expensive to police it.

Education about environmental issues, in as quantitative a way as possible seems to be the better long term strategy, and that is something I'm happy to invest effort in.
That is reasonable, provided that it is even handed and facts are separated from guesses and agendas.
Nobody is free of agenda, and there are significant errors likely to be embedded in current climate models, environmental predictions and economic predictions of all kinds.
A large part of education is learning to react sensibly to uncertainty, while at the same time trying to establish a more rigorous understanding of complex systems.

... and addressing the areas that actually do make a difference. Has anybody in the West had a word with the Chinese lately?

On 2006-12-18 01:59:27 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
Yes they can, because there is the potential to cover larger geographical areas. Road miles...
Vehicle size....
Yes - size is important,

I've always understood that it's what you do that counts.

but if you don't know what market share you'll have if your tender succeeds, what vehicle size will you get ? Or will you get small vehicles now, then more or bigger ones later ?
And what happens to the fleet of the previous incumbent ?

No, no, you are assuming a tendering process and one successful bidder. This is what we have today.

(and someone will have to regulate and inspect the suppliers, but that's another issue, sorry, set of costs). That can be aggregated and outsourced as well To consultants... :) Or cheap dweebs. Maybe the LA should inspect the outsourced inspectors and make sure they inspect all the things that ought to be inspected ? But seriously, what does aggregation mean here ?
Economy of scale.
Maybe if done at a national level. Is this what you have in mind ?

That may be an option.

If there are three companies to inspect, you still have to inspect three companies. Unless 'aggregation' means that somehow you don't. Or do you mean that only some statistical indicators get inspected rather than the practices of individual companies ?
Measurement criteria have to be defined. However the LA (or licensing authority) would not need to provide the "customer service" role that it does today. Mine has an army of people taking phone calls from people who haven't had their bins emptied that day. All of that can be taken away. People can deal with their chosen waste collector and if not satisfied, take their business elswhere.
Somebody still has to answer the phone though.

Again there can be a choice of services. For example, some energy suppliers offer better pricing if customers interact with them via their web site and not normally via a call centre. Others are geared up with massive call centres in the UK for customers who don't like speaking to someone in Mumbai.

I'm perfectly happy to have essential services provided by a single supplier ultimately responsible to me (the electorate). Fine. I'm not. Your choice is a subset of mine. And your point is ?
You could choose your supplier and I could choose mine. I am not seeking to restrict your choice. Of your LA wished to stay in the rubbish collection market, you could buy from them if you wanted to do so.
The issue is one of how their environmental performance would change if two thirds of the tonnage were to go else where.

The issue is the overall picture, not the LA's slice of it.

No one sorted refuse in the past: you're requiring them to do additional work. I haven't asked them to do anything. They are doing so as a result of attempting to meet questionable political targets. And attempting to deliver better environmental performance.
Demonstrated by what
Environmental footprint or LCA would be a good start.
and by whom?
Anyone who cares to read it, though particularly the licensing body I guess.

Fair enough.

Nope, I'm afraid that if you don't want to sort your refuse yourself, the only effective solution is for you to hire someone to sort yours before you put it out. Exactly. This is a service that a supplier could offer or could do it at a central depot. I don't care how they do it - I pay them to do a job. And I care about the environmental impact of how the job is done.
So do I, but that is in part the responsibility of the contractor. I am paying him to do that. The question really amounts to whether I want to do a larger part of the job and pay him less or to do less and pay him more. I would choose the latter.
Yes - though it's also about the standards that they achieve after the waste is sorted that concerns me.

It's much easier to monitor that at sorting centres than having an abfallpolizei checking peoples' bin bags.
The Swiss tried this in Bern a few years ago in order to try to identify people putting out rubbish earlier than an appointed time. The local police were roped in to go through bags looking for addresses on envelopes. More recently they've resorted to CCTV cameras.

Are circumstances obliging them to have too large a fleet of too large vehicles for example ?

I don't see why.

I'd rather my council tax paid for library books, thanks. So would I, which is why I suggested taking local authorities out of the financial path between supplier and customer. They add little no value. Well as ever - get numerate then we can form our own opinions when we've heard both sides of the story.
It's perfectly simple. If you employ X+Y people to do something when X would be enough, then the cost will be higher.
But if a companies pay X people to do something, pay them bugger all, and charge a lot for their services who is better off ?

The customer, always assuming that they are paid bugger all.

There is no need to slavishly follow every dotted i and crossed t emanating from Brussels unless your name is Blair, of course.
:) In one or two respects, 'I wish' !
have they let him out of the cells yet? I heard that he was being questioned by the police.
He probably should be, but maybe for putting civilians at risk while bombing other countries rather than dishing out Ks to donors ?

Ah well....