Siting of panels for solar water heating

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-21 17:14:58 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said: On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:30:43 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote this:-
But if you organise your life it won't be _wasted_. Indeed. I think it's a little like sorting out the recycling, cooking on the top of the cooker rather then the oven, growing vegetables, using a shower rather than a bath and many other things. It takes a little effort to get organised, but after that it's easy. The key is encouraging people to organise these bits of their lives. if they do get organised then things like fortnightly bin collections are no problem.
This is complete and utter bullshit.
If there is value in recycling ( and that is highly questionable)

Well yes, but as ever, have you done the LCA ?

then it is the responsibility of the collection organisation - ie. local authority or subcontractor to deal with it. They are paid a lot of money and should do their job.

Yes and no. A tendering process links price to service. They are paid a lot of money, but not a lot of money per household.
Recycling is certainly economically marginal. If you want more service, you'll have to pay more.

Fortnightly bin collections are not acceptable. It isn't clever, or green, just cheapness and unacceptable.

Well - that's your view. I wouldn't want to pay more for what you seem to regard as some minimal standard of service.

Secondly, I will organise my life to fit with what makes sense at the timer. If I want a shower, then that's what I'll havr, or if it's a bath then I'll go for that. I don't need greenwashing nonsense dictating how I conduct my activities, thanks. I'll make my own decisions on my criteria. I don't need others or things to organise my free choices.

Well yes - you do have that choice.
There are times when all of us have to keep to schedule and times when we don't. When I don't have to stick to any particular schedule, I'm quite happy to wait for things like hot water if it reduces environmental impacts.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-21 17:36:35 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> writes On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:28:44 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
As long as she feels she is doing something, it's OK (whatever the reality of the situation is) Well - the reality is that she IS doing something. Your blessing and approval are not required. AOL. It is mildly amusing that the knockers have little to offer as an alternative.
:) Well - there's always nuclear, but let's not go there ! Cheers, J/.
On the contrary. That's precisely where we should go. Even the idiot, Blair has figured that out.

Hmmm... I can wait for fusion... Which I'm surprised nobody has mentioned after this mornings announcements !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , raden writes

In message , John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> writes In message , raden <raden@kateda.org writes In message , John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> writes
My happiness is neither here or there. If you have a point, feel free to make it.
Two points really :
Up until a company tried selling a system to my parents, I was fairly neutral / sympathetic I now consider that the time for any half decent system to actually repay the investment is unrealistically long
Well - as I see it, it's up the individual to make up their own mind.
No, my point was simple maths really
take the example of my parents' proposed system
�7000, which on a 10 year return would have to save them �700 / year just on heating their water
it doesn't add up, does it ?
Well firstly I don't know the spec of your parents system, but it does look as if they were getting ripped off, so that's not a great example.
Well, TBH, the company were very professional

:) Hitler was very professional in his dealings with Poland !
OK, seriously, there is more to not ripping people off than being "professional" !

in their dealings (in the not making any major unjustified claims and quite willing to cancel when I got involved (Although that was prolly just good common sense)

Quite.

Secondly, some people aren't exclusively concerned with ROI, and are willing to take a longer view that takes account of errrr... the long view, of eventual financial return,
What thirty years for pensioners ?

:) Can they take it with them ?

protection of global commons etc.
Feelgood factor

If you insist, though you seem to using that phrase in a rather pejorative sense.
I guess it feels good in the same way that social cohesion or public spirited acts do - as opposed to feeling good like simple hedonism.

In essence, their behaviour illustrates how much they value the global commons and the resources they can save, by the amount of cash they are willing to spend protecting them. Introducing that term into the equation at least makes the use of a simplistic mathematical model to illustrate human behaviour look less broken.
No, it just shows that they've been pulled in by the hype

I can't agree.
You only seem able to consider the financial angle. When you were "fairly neutral / sympathetic", was this on simple financial grounds ?
Are you only capable of being sympathetic to financial objectives ?

Consumers don't install these things to make me happy, but it does please me that these things have an environmental benefit, and in the long run, that they cost less than burning fossil fuels. That's enough for many people, and strikes them as environmentally and financially better than the conventional solution.
Feel good factor and ignorance
Well no - a lot of very well informed and numerate people do these things, and they don't do it for show, green wash or to make money in the short term.
Yes, but there are also lots of otherwise intelligent people who get religion, become latter day saints etc ...
... means nothing

Well - I can't help the things to which you do or don't attach importance. Above you claimed their "ignorance". Even a brief discussion with them will illustrate that your assumption is simply wrong.

They wouldn't feel good if it was a bad decision.
That's where you're totally wrong
It might be a bad decision if they only took the things you want to into account, but other people place [cash] values on other things.

I not that you don't deal with this part of my remark.

The other is that the anything we do in the UK is insignificant in comparison to the big three
If I cut my fossil fuel consumption, it is just as beneficial as somebody in China, India, or the US doing it.
Are you actually aware how fast China is building coal fired power stations?
Have you got a clue how many more Chinese there are than concerned Brits?
Yes and yes, but this doesn't absolve individuals in the UK of their responsibilities, or reduce the benefit brought about by their actions.
Do you have your teaspoon to hand ?

Indeed !

This tendency to abdicate personal responsibility because "anything we do in the UK is insignificant", not only makes it other peoples problem [who may be less well resourced / educated than us] - it makes it other peoples governments problem [which may be less well resourced / educated than us]. How blunt an instrument of change could you possibly devise ?
It's like trying to empty a pond with a teaspoon
So ? No individual bestrides the planet. We are plankton, not gods, but that doesn't negate the point of our attempts to protect the environment any more than it negates any of our other actions.
In short - what defines us, is not the size of the shoal we are in, or even our individual size - it's what we choose to do with the resources at our disposal.
Behaving like a greedy ass all your life, and dying with most of the cash does not make you 'da man' ! You're still dead, and you were still a selfish git.
Sorry, but laudable as you claim your actions to be, You are looking at having an insignificant effect

Being laudable is for others to judge.
Of course my effect is insignificant, but it is insignificant in a relatively good direction as opposed to a relatively bad one; moving towards a solution, at least in some areas, as opposed to moving towards bigger more urgent problems in those areas.
Of course - I needn't do this. I could still be working as a software engineer, earning far more money, and contributing to more problems in more ways. I would still be just as insignificant.
To grossly oversimplify - I'd rather be insignificant and doing the right thing, than insignificant and doing the wrong thing !

even worse, you feel you're making a difference - which is what I see as being dangerous

I'm well aware of the scale of the problem and my size relative to it, but relative size doesn't alter the direction in which it is sensible to go, and certainly 'following the money' doesn't do it for me !

like offsetting carbon emissions when you fly

Offsetting seems to be technically flawed in that it is used to justify fossil carbon getting into the atmosphere / biomass reservoirs - the point is, it won't stay in the biomass.
Of course - in a hundred years time, a few of the worlds people will have burned most of the oil, but I've no particular desire to be part of that process to a greater extent than I need to be.
Do I make a difference ? Some ? Is thinking that dangerous ? It would be if I thought I was saving the world single handed, or if I thought I mitigated all of my environmental impacts, but I don't, and I guess I'm more numerate about that than most.

What's worse, the Americans can justify inaction because the Chinese and Indian populations dwarf their own, and the Indian and Chinese can justify their inaction because individuals in the US have much higher per capita emissions.
And THERE lies the problem
Well - one of them...
The big daddy one

For the moment. Look at the rate the Chinese are buying cars...

If everyone donated the money they would have spent on a solar heating system to a "getting rid of George bush fund" it would be money far better spent

Possibly, though the example I prefer is
If you had a thousand quid and wanted to save the planet, would it be better to
a) install a half a solar water heater
or
b) break into 10 of your friends attics and insulate them ?
I tell this to our clients. Especially the ones without loft insulation !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-22 01:52:47 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-21 17:14:58 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said: On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:30:43 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote this:-
But if you organise your life it won't be _wasted_. Indeed. I think it's a little like sorting out the recycling, cooking on the top of the cooker rather then the oven, growing vegetables, using a shower rather than a bath and many other things. It takes a little effort to get organised, but after that it's easy. The key is encouraging people to organise these bits of their lives. if they do get organised then things like fortnightly bin collections are no problem.
This is complete and utter bullshit.
If there is value in recycling ( and that is highly questionable)
Well yes, but as ever, have you done the LCA ?

I have better things to do with my time.

then it is the responsibility of the collection organisation - ie. local authority or subcontractor to deal with it. They are paid a lot of money and should do their job.
Yes and no. A tendering process links price to service. They are paid a lot of money, but not a lot of money per household.
Recycling is certainly economically marginal. If you want more service, you'll have to pay more.

I have no problem with paying for a service - in fact I am certainly a believer in paying good money for a good service because for things like this it's cheaper to pay someone else to do it than to spend the time myself. However..... in the case of local authority involvement, efficiency is poor - on so many issues their customers pay twice - once for the incompetent bureaucrats who would never be able to get and hold down a job in the real world, and again for the firms of management consultants who do the work but are always looking for ways to create more work for themselves - rubbish collection surveys, traffic surveys and so on.

Fortnightly bin collections are not acceptable. It isn't clever, or green, just cheapness and unacceptable.
Well - that's your view. I wouldn't want to pay more for what you seem to regard as some minimal standard of service.

Of course not. I would rather pay the same, directly to a choice of two or perhaps three companies, and not have the overhead of the local authority at all - they are not adding value and cost a lot.

Secondly, I will organise my life to fit with what makes sense at the timer. If I want a shower, then that's what I'll havr, or if it's a bath then I'll go for that. I don't need greenwashing nonsense dictating how I conduct my activities, thanks. I'll make my own decisions on my criteria. I don't need others or things to organise my free choices.
Well yes - you do have that choice.
There are times when all of us have to keep to schedule and times when we don't. When I don't have to stick to any particular schedule, I'm quite happy to wait for things like hot water if it reduces environmental impacts.

I rarely have that luxury...

On 2006-11-22 02:18:26 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , raden writes
Feelgood factor
If you insist, though you seem to using that phrase in a rather pejorative sense.
I guess it feels good in the same way that social cohesion or public spirited acts do - as opposed to feeling good like simple hedonism.

The problem with that is that all but a very small proportion of people think with their pocket books first and being public spirited falls a long way down their agenda. I am not saying that this is good or bad, but in terms of achieving the objective of an improvement to the environment (in whatever scope you want to choose) it won't work if there are too small a number of adopters. Most pf the available market does not buy on being public spirited, they buy on economic grounds. The two are only incompatible, if the economic value proposition is weak in the first place.

In essence, their behaviour illustrates how much they value the global commons and the resources they can save, by the amount of cash they are willing to spend protecting them. Introducing that term into the equation at least makes the use of a simplistic mathematical model to illustrate human behaviour look less broken.
No, it just shows that they've been pulled in by the hype
I can't agree.
You only seem able to consider the financial angle. When you were "fairly neutral / sympathetic", was this on simple financial grounds ?
Are you only capable of being sympathetic to financial objectives ?

I can't comment for Geoff, but had it been me, I would have had pretty much the same reaction. Normally I wouldn't have looked too seriously into this stuff because it is clear that there is not a strong reason to do so at the current price point of energy. It's an issue of what do I want to spend my time doing, and to be honest, there are more important things that have to be dealt with first.
However, had my parents been scammed in this way, I would have had the same reaction, because the sale was made on grounds that were a long way short of being honest. I have a simple rule in business transactions - that is that people do what they say they are going to do. If they do a little more, then I am very happy. If they do less, then I expect them to fix it, and quickly or I pay less. It's surprising how many suppliers of goods and services ar genuinely shocked when pulled up on this. This is an example where there was no chance at the outset that the supplier/technology could deliver on the customer's expectation or what the supplier had allowed the customer's expectation to become without reseting it. When the customer is relatively vulnerable for whatever reason as well. said supplier had better watch out. I would have become sensitised to the issue as well for much the same reasons. In this case, the customer was buyig on what he thought were economic grounds and the justification wasn't there.

Sorry, but laudable as you claim your actions to be, You are looking at having an insignificant effect
Being laudable is for others to judge.
Of course my effect is insignificant, but it is insignificant in a relatively good direction as opposed to a relatively bad one; moving towards a solution, at least in some areas, as opposed to moving towards bigger more urgent problems in those areas.
Of course - I needn't do this. I could still be working as a software engineer, earning far more money, and contributing to more problems in more ways. I would still be just as insignificant.
To grossly oversimplify - I'd rather be insignificant and doing the right thing, than insignificant and doing the wrong thing !

The problem is that unless you are doing what you perceive to be the right thing on a sound economic basis, on the small scale you won't be in business, so it becomes academic; and on the macro scale is effectively worthless because not enough people will adopt it to make a worthwhile difference. If, OTOH, you do something close to what you are doing that does pass the economic tests, then you have the ability to potentially make a difference.

even worse, you feel you're making a difference - which is what I see as being dangerous
I'm well aware of the scale of the problem and my size relative to it, but relative size doesn't alter the direction in which it is sensible to go, and certainly 'following the money' doesn't do it for me !

Don't expect to be in business for very long then.....

If everyone donated the money they would have spent on a solar heating system to a "getting rid of George bush fund" it would be money far better spent
Possibly, though the example I prefer is
If you had a thousand quid and wanted to save the planet, would it be better to
a) install a half a solar water heater
or
b) break into 10 of your friends attics and insulate them ?
I tell this to our clients. Especially the ones without loft insulation !

or c) keeping the money invested until the point when spending it will actually achieve something. In that sense I would rather focus effort on the abolition of inheritance tax so that future generations can actually benefit from technology that is worthwhile in the future rather than wasting money on marginal stuff today. Unfortunately, not many people think laterally either....

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-22 01:52:47 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-21 17:14:58 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said: On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:30:43 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote this:-
But if you organise your life it won't be _wasted_. Indeed. I think it's a little like sorting out the recycling, cooking on the top of the cooker rather then the oven, growing vegetables, using a shower rather than a bath and many other things. It takes a little effort to get organised, but after that it's easy. The key is encouraging people to organise these bits of their lives. if they do get organised then things like fortnightly bin collections are no problem. This is complete and utter bullshit. If there is value in recycling ( and that is highly questionable) Well yes, but as ever, have you done the LCA ?
I have better things to do with my time.

Well OK, but that makes it hard for you to make your case with any more authority than 'gut instinct'.

then it is the responsibility of the collection organisation - ie. local authority or subcontractor to deal with it. They are paid a lot of money and should do their job. Yes and no. A tendering process links price to service. They are paid a lot of money, but not a lot of money per household. Recycling is certainly economically marginal. If you want more service, you'll have to pay more.
I have no problem with paying for a service - in fact I am certainly a believer in paying good money for a good service because for things like this it's cheaper to pay someone else to do it than to spend the time myself. However..... in the case of local authority involvement, efficiency is poor - on so many issues their customers pay twice - once for the incompetent bureaucrats who would never be able to get and hold down a job in the real world,

:) True in some cases... But by no means all...

and again for the firms of management consultants who do the work but are always looking for ways to create more work for themselves - rubbish collection surveys, traffic surveys and so on.

Yes, but that's not up to them is it ?

Fortnightly bin collections are not acceptable. It isn't clever, or green, just cheapness and unacceptable. Well - that's your view. I wouldn't want to pay more for what you seem to regard as some minimal standard of service.
Of course not. I would rather pay the same, directly to a choice of two or perhaps three companies, and not have the overhead of the local authority at all - they are not adding value and cost a lot.

Maybe. I'm not sure I share your faith in the private sector.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , raden <raden@kateda.org writes
Sorry, but laudable as you claim your actions to be, You are looking at having an insignificant effect

'What you do will be insignificant but it is very (most) important that you do it.' [Gandhi]

Being laudable is for others to judge.

Or for yourself only is sufficient?
Suits me to be doing my own place at my own pace and at least cost even though it seems to be taking forever just reducing consumption so that renewable energy is viable (i.e. holistic as far as I can make it) rather than an adding to the many inefficiencies I inherited with my place.

Of course my effect is insignificant, but it is insignificant in a relatively good direction as opposed to a relatively bad one; moving towards a solution, at least in some areas, as opposed to moving towards bigger more urgent problems in those areas.
Of course - I needn't do this. I could still be working as a software engineer, earning far more money, and contributing to more problems in more ways. I would still be just as insignificant.

Heh. 'My little bit (of excess consumption) won't matter because I can afford it.'? I cringe at what I used to pay out on fuel bills in a past life...

To grossly oversimplify - I'd rather be insignificant and doing the right thing, than insignificant and doing the wrong thing !
Dat de one!

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes John Beardmore wrote: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes
To understand that they'd need to see the connection between supply & fit cost and the energy input in supplying and fitting it. Very briefly, money is a form of measure of energy.
It may be an indicator, but not a very good one !
I wrote about / explained the money -energy connection in detail just recently, so I dont want to again.
No need - it was unconvincing the first time as indeed I pointed out giving at least one example of why.
your example illustrates your unfamiliarity with the concept. I'll go see if I've got the link...
http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6888&sid=5ca008e7 75816416ce3381a9440c4fc2 Relevant posts are mostly on the first few page and the last.
Well, they certainly restate your position, but they don't answer the points I raised when this first came up in this thread, or deal with the example I gave.

so you didnt read the linked pages.
NT

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-11-22 01:52:47 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes

Fortnightly bin collections are not acceptable. It isn't clever, or green, just cheapness and unacceptable.
Well - that's your view. I wouldn't want to pay more for what you seem to regard as some minimal standard of service.
Of course not. I would rather pay the same, directly to a choice of two or perhaps three companies, and not have the overhead of the local authority at all - they are not adding value and cost a lot.

Oh I wish. I could then choose between weekly, twice weekly or fortnightly, and choose what items the company would take and wouldnt, drop any that played childish games and so on. And perhaps the poorest could pick monthly, with a minimal cost dehydrator to stop whiffing.
Private companies arent perfect, but better than council inefficiency and uncompetitiveness.
NT

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:36:56 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

The key is encouraging people to organise these bits of their lives. if they do get organised then things like fortnightly bin collections are no problem.
This is complete and utter bullshit.

Yawn. What a surprise, more aggressive language.

-- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:52:47 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wrote this:-

Fortnightly bin collections are not acceptable. It isn't clever, or green, just cheapness and unacceptable.
Well - that's your view. I wouldn't want to pay more for what you seem to regard as some minimal standard of service.

Indeed. Some would rather pay for a monthly general bin collection. Those that want to put a bin out every week should not be subsidised by others, they should pay for the waste they generate.
-- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:47:40 +0000, David Hansen wrote:

Indeed. Some would rather pay for a monthly general bin collection. Those that want to put a bin out every week should not be subsidised by others, they should pay for the waste they generate.

What about the poor neighbours of such an anti-social person who cares so little for their environment that they leave meat remains to rot for a month? -- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:47:16 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry wrote this:-

What about the poor neighbours of such an anti-social person who cares so little for their environment that they leave meat remains to rot for a month?

The worms in the wormery like to eat meat remains.
Meat remains can be boiled up for stock. The remaining remains son't attract pests.
-- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:52:47 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
Fortnightly bin collections are not acceptable. It isn't clever, or green, just cheapness and unacceptable.
Well - that's your view. I wouldn't want to pay more for what you seem to regard as some minimal standard of service.
Indeed. Some would rather pay for a monthly general bin collection. Those that want to put a bin out every week should not be subsidised by others, they should pay for the waste they generate.

I agree. We put out ours weekly because it's collected weekly and since the bins are loaded in pairs it makes no difference to the energy needed (= cost to the operator).
Recently there was a hiccup and our bins weren't collected for three weeks. Ours still didn't get full. I really don't know where all the stuff in bins comes from.
Mary >

"David Hansen" wrote in message

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:47:16 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry peter@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote this:-
What about the poor neighbours of such an anti-social person who cares so little for their environment that they leave meat remains to rot for a month?
The worms in the wormery like to eat meat remains.
Meat remains can be boiled up for stock. The remaining remains son't attract pests.

Meat remains?
That's like talking about left-over champagne!
Mary