Siting of panels for solar water heating

"John Beardmore" wrote in message

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-18 01:43:59 +0000, John Beardmore <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk said: In message , Andy Hall writes
Are you two still at it?

On 2006-12-20 21:17:13 +0000, "Mary Fisher" said:

"John Beardmore" wrote in message In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-18 01:43:59 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes
Are you two still at it?

At what?

On uk.environment, in , "Andy Hall" wrote:

On 2006-12-20 21:17:13 +0000, "Mary Fisher" said:
"John Beardmore" wrote in message In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-18 01:43:59 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes
Are you two still at it?
At what?

Pretending that you are environmentalists.
Like always.
Alan
-- http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/

Thank you Beavis.
-- <article not downloaded:
Info about "Alan Connor"
Alan "The Usenet Beavis" Connor is a good friend of Bigfoot: http://tinyurl.com/23r3f
A couple of years ago he was kidnapped and raped by Xena, the Warrior Princess: http://tinyurl.com/2gjcy
Beavis believes that the MSBlast virus of yesteryear was explicitly targeting him, for some inexplicable reason: http://tinyurl.com/ifrt
Beavis belongs to a UFO cult: http://tinyurl.com/2hhdx Beavis's life in a UFO cult: http://tinyurl.com/24jqm Beavis knows all about network security: http://tinyurl.com/5qqb6 And he's also a search engine expert: http://tinyurl.com/9pjnt
"But if you must know, Alans' name is Bruce Burhans, and he lives in Bellingham WA. To his hippie friends he calls himself "Tom Littlefoot" **Google Tom Littlefoot, Bruce Burhans and "Wildwood"**.
Bruce has some serious mental problems and spends a lot of time as an in-patient at the big mental hospital in Bellingham, when he's not hospitalized, he posts to usenet. In every group he posts to he comes off as some sort of expert in the subject at hand, and when anyone disagrees (and they will, he sees to that) he starts in on his trollery.
Again, Bruce is a true Professional Usenet Troll. It is his entertainment and it's what he lives for."
http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/fga.shtml http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=MQ9uxRYAAAAX2tAp-itjMPAOxLgFwCc3_gRbb05PKyTO4L-MEqh3HQ&hl=en http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/ http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/challenge-response.html http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html#CR http://www.gatago.com/authors_pgs/13650.html http://blog.bananasplit.info/?p=84 http://tinyurl.com/ifrt http://tinyurl.com/3h6a5 http://tinyurl.com/ys6z4
Also in the headers for alan to read.

On 2006-12-21 00:27:15 +0000, Alan Connor said:

On uk.environment, in , "Andy Hall" wrote:
On 2006-12-20 21:17:13 +0000, "Mary Fisher" said:
"John Beardmore" wrote in message In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-18 01:43:59 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes
Are you two still at it?
At what?
Pretending that you are environmentalists.
Like always.

Not me - at least not in the popularly understood way....

In message , Mary Fisher writes

"John Beardmore" wrote in message In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-18 01:43:59 +0000, John Beardmore <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk said: In message , Andy Hall writes
Are you two still at it?

:) Time permitting !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Alan Connor writes

On uk.environment, in , "Andy Hall" wrote: On 2006-12-20 21:17:13 +0000, "Mary Fisher" said: "John Beardmore" wrote in message In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-18 01:43:59 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , Andy Hall writes
Are you two still at it?
At what?
Pretending that you are environmentalists.
Like always.

Peoples Front of Judea thrown you out again ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

"John Beardmore" wrote in message

In message , Mary Fisher mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> writes
"John Beardmore" wrote in message In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-18 01:43:59 +0000, John Beardmore <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk said: In message , Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam writes
Are you two still at it?
:) Time permitting !

Well I wish you'd stoppit. I have christmas to prepare for :-)
Mary

Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Mary Fisher writes

"John Beardmore" wrote in message In message , Mary Fisher mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> writes "John Beardmore" wrote in message In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-18 01:43:59 +0000, John Beardmore <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk said: In message , Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam writes
Are you two still at it?
:) Time permitting !
Well I wish you'd stoppit. I have christmas to prepare for :-)

Hmmm... I know the feeling. A lot of water has gone under the bridge while this thread has been running !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Phil Bradshaw writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , Phil Bradshaw philbradshaw@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike> 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...
In some things maybe; doing pretty much all 64-bit

Hmmm... We're still on Socket A AMD nn00+ XP processors. Indeed we seem to have been on them for about 5 years now.
I'm rather hoping that if we get some new boards as these fail we'll see a big speed increase. Not holding my breath though !

these days but earning hardly a bean from it. Nonetheless doing a fair job of convincing people kubuntu with openoffice isn't such a wrench after Windoze.

Yes - well the path of righteousness is seldom well paid ! (I should know !)
It does sound like the righteous path though ! Well done !
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

But commented on anyway.

I've read one of Andy's posts on this subthread.

How conscientious of you !

How typical of Beardmore to be fighting to the death (verbally, anyway...) over something that wouldn't reduce the ecological footprint of this civilization by a measurable percentage.

Almost none of the individual decisions we make reduce the ecological footprint of this civilization by a measurable percentage. None the less, we are better off fighting to make things a little better rather than letting them get a little worse just to gratify somebodys zeal for the market.

But he is merely another member of the failed 'environmental movement'. Not unique.

How typical for you to say that from the woods !
Rather than carping from the sidelines, why don't you come back and do something useful ?
Happy Christmas ! J/. -- John Beardmore

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Phil Bradshaw philbradshaw@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike> writes John Beardmore wrote: In message , Phil Bradshaw philbradshaw@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike> 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...
In some things maybe; doing pretty much all 64-bit
Hmmm... We're still on Socket A AMD nn00+ XP processors. Indeed we seem to have been on them for about 5 years now.

AMD XP I had is in someone else's box now. Must be same sort of age.

I'm rather hoping that if we get some new boards as these fail we'll see a big speed increase. Not holding my breath though !
First thing I noticed with 64-bit was the GIMP fair racing along.
these days but earning hardly a bean from it. Nonetheless doing a fair job of convincing people kubuntu with openoffice isn't such a wrench after Windoze.
Yes - well the path of righteousness is seldom well paid ! (I should know !)

:-)

It does sound like the righteous path though ! Well done !
Here's hoping he will make a crust out of it all eventually.

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes John Beardmore wrote: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes sarah wrote: Andy Hall wrote: On 2006-12-03 17:47:04 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said: Andy Hall wrote:
but not half as mythical as saying LAs must use the least energy of all options!
Straw man. All I've expressed is the concern that the proposed scheme would increase fuel used, congestion, number of vehicles and staff used to do the same job etc.
...exactly what you just called a straw man then.

Your saying
"but not half as mythical as saying LAs must use the least energy of all options!"
is a straw man because that isn't what I've said.
My saying
"All I've expressed is the concern that the proposed scheme would increase fuel used, congestion, number of vehicles and staff used to do the same job etc"
isn't a straw man - it's a legitimate concern for many people - and it's probably true, regardless of what you want to hear.

At the moment, I think they are obliged to chase 'bast value', which I guess gives them a lot of scope for subjective consideration.
nominally yes, but realistically no. There isnt the competition there,

Anybody can tender. How much competition do you need ?

the investment in new trials,

It's certainly true that a process has to demonstrably work before an LA will or should sign up to it.
Trial are possible though, if the project might bring enough benefit.

incompetents stay in their jobs etc.

Or move to other regions when the laughter from their colleagues echos too shrilly !

Or alternatively, the rubbish is processed the cheapest way, regardless of consequences.
its down to the customer and the law. Personally I'd be in favour of reducing customer costs,
This is fine as long as the people at the sharp end don't have their wages cut just because some suit fancies better first quarter figures.
I think the basics of capitalism are already well known.

As are their limitations.

To get factual, wages in the private sector are mostly higher than in the public sector, despite services being delivered more competitively. Feel free to wonder why.

So are your facts taking the values of pensions, job security, health and safety provision etc into account ?
I don't think people stay in town hall jobs because "incompetents stay in their jobs etc". Seems to me that it has something to do with other factors too.

and can think of ways to do it while in the same measure increasing recycling.
Maybe. Go on then...
I was about to tell you my thoughts on that, but it would take us off the point. The whole point here is that in a freeish market everyone that thinks they can improve on existing services is free to try it, and see if it works. (And motivated to do so.) And if it does, others will follow. This just doesnt happen in the command economy of LAs.

I'm not sure that's true - I think the limiting factor is that while appropriate recycling brings environmental benefits, there just aren't many ways to make putting stuff in the right bin exciting.

Hopefully there would be no loss of environmental stringency in the process.
why would one lower the legal requirements at the same time as privatisation?

It's not so much that the minimum environmental standards would be lowered, so much as that the culture is likely to shift to looking for ways to cut costs rather than exceeding standards.

Are you proposing a two- (or more) tier cost for refuse disposal, with one price for those of us who sort their own and another for those who prefer not to sully their hands with it? How much would implementing *that* cost?
nothing. You leave the market to it,
And that makes it free ? Oh good !!
That makes it more cost efficient.
Key word there is COST.
Yes, thats one of them. Lowered costs mean more people can afford silver medal type services.

This is where the dustman wears a tie ?

The cost of deciding on price is a very small part of a large business operation's costs. Other differences will dwarf this one.
I had in mind the delivery of multiple services rather than the submission of prices.
OK. Lets take fro example garbage collectors being willing to go onto a persons property to collect bags if they have an orange sticker in the front window. The cost of that little exta labour is paid for by the silver service buyers. In fact in private enterprise it is common to have basic services at cost with the fancier options bringing in the profit. Thus all win, the low cost service is cheaper, those wishing and happy to pay for fancy services can have that too. All standard stuff in retail today.
The orange sticker is of course an example, there are various ways to do it irl.

Yes - though I'm not sure that this sort of provision couldn't be made within a single contractor arrangement.

and people will buy from whichever firm does closest to what they want. It would result in economies rather than costs.
Yes - but that makes the preferred outcome cheap, not the most sustainable one.
it makes it whichever the people of Britain vote for on a yearly basis, it is the ultimate democracy.
I'm not sure that democracy is much better for 'saving the planet' than capitalism, but I don't remember when we last had a referendum about waste services, never mind one per year !
Man, this is basics of free markets stuff. Each time a customer buys a service they are voting with their wallet. They will vote for the service they prefer by paying for it. Capitalism is the ultimate democracy. Capitalism enables the people to determine what they get by this method of voting with their money.

OK - I see what you mean, but the word 'democracy' is normally associated with larger scale political systems.

With private enterprise comparison and analysis are pssible. How well comparison is done varies of course.
Actually I don't see any evidence at all that private business is at all good at making environmental performance data public, either in sufficient detail, or in a timely way.
And if the data isn't generally available, saying "comparison and analysis are possible", while formally true is utterly missing the point. In the real world, this information is generally not available.
It is elementary to legally require publication of environmental data (or if the market is controlled via the LA, ie without a change in the law, to contractually require it).

I'd certainly be very happy with that !

When you've only got one system, there is no possibility of comparison of the options, and nothing can be learnt, because there are no comparison facts to learn anything from.
If it can be measured, it can be improved. 'Continuous Improvement' doesn't requite competition.
no, it just happens 4x faster in a free economy. This is 101 stuff.

It's certainly a 101 assumption !

The availability of comparison data
What availability would that be ??
Is that a promise ?
is it a sensible question to ak me to promise what I dont control? I think it relevant to garbage collection and would vote for full data being available.

OK - good ! But I'll believe it when I see it.

why cant he have another option, such as not sorting and not recycling? Its not like the recycling option is beyond debate.
I guess the real answer is that most people are happy enough to recycle what they can easily, and while not ecstatic about LA waste services, don't really want to think about alternatives foisted upon them.
foisted? wouldnt they rather have choice than the current foisting?

I'm sure some wouldn't given that the current system works pretty well for most people.

All those people that have changed from british gas and BT have all voted yes with their wallets to that one.

Yes - though until we know what we're paying for waste disposal at the moment and what we'd be charged in your scheme, it's quite hard to know if we'd be interested for a start.
In the old days, BT was clearly a technical backwater and an obvious rip off. This is far less clear with waste disposal provision.

At the end of the day, LCA will indicate where materials aren't worth recycling, and should be able to give a clue as to the best way to dispose of them.
In a sense, it doesn't require a debate, such as doing the LCA in each locale. Maybe when you have the LCA data there might be something to debate.
you're welcome to your undying faith in LCAs.

You're welcome to show mw a better tool.

To pretend there is no debate is so unrealistic

Well - I can only comment from my experience in Derbyshire. There has been loads debate about waste disposal methods, but none about service provision by multiple competing providers.

it seems almost disingenuous, though I daresay you really do believe so.

Well - you can stir up debate as you have here, but you've also kept it a pretty fact free zone, and based your assumptions about improvement on your undying faith in markets !
You've talked up the possibility of environmental improvements without addressing any of the issues that make such outcomes unlikely, and you can't even be sure that the costs would be lower...
So yes - debate if you like, but expect the various positions to be scrutinised by techniques such as LCA when people want to go beyond dogma to assess actual performance.

Well - you can lobby your democratically elected members using sound numerically supported arguments if you like.
I hope youre kidding, but I get the feeling you're not.
Well - you seem keen on democracy
yes. Do you see how a free market implements it, whereas LAs are command economy?

I do, but that doesn't mean that in aggregate, they do the job with lower environmental impact, or that the benefits accruing from the 'more free' market should necessarily be valued more highly.

... ...but less able to come up with plausible figures.
what figures, concerning what? If you want examples of what happens when command markets go free, UK has several examples you can look at. If you want 101 principles of capitalism, again theres no need for me to rehash it all.

No - I would like plausible figures to justify the change you propose, and specifically the claim that the environmental impact of delivering the new multiple services need be no higher than delivering the existing single service.
Happy Christmas all ! J/. -- John Beardmore

"John Beardmore" wrote in message

In message , Alan Connor i3x9mdw@j9n35c.invalid> writes On uk.environment, in , "John Beardmore" wrote:
article not downloaded: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline
But commented on anyway.
I've read one of Andy's posts on this subthread.
How conscientious of you !

But why?

Almost none of the individual decisions we make reduce the ecological footprint of this civilization by a measurable percentage. None the less, we are better off fighting to make things a little better rather than letting them get a little worse just to gratify somebodys zeal for the market.

Hurrah!

Happy Christmas ! J/.

And to you and yours.
Mary

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-05 08:10:40 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:
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 ?
Again this has long been known.

From an economic perspective perhaps. But this has not achieved sustainable development - indeed quite the opposite.

Free markets with laws that prohobit the worst practices.

But don't encourage the best ones.

In the sense that sorting is a requirement that is imposed neither by you or the LA, neither of you is trying to reduce the service provided
by the other - this argument is just emotional fluff. If you want to deal with the imposition, take yourself off to the EU and exercise your democratic right.
thats emotional fluff if ever I heard it.

No - it's a process for making legislation.

You really seem in need of more understanding of politics.

And you need to think in terms of sustainable development, not the development of markets.

Rather, one of you is being asked, and may ultimately be required, to sort waste, and this is generally held to be something that is least resource intensive when done at source.
It is ultimately up to you and the LA to decide how this might be accomplished, but either way, you will pay, by the commitment of time or money, if, or perhaps when it becomes a legal requirement.
it is asked yet unsupportable.

Well - you don't support it anyway.

Many consumers just say no.

And for the time being at least, they are quite within their rights to do so.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore