Siting of panels for solar water heating

On 2006-11-25 01:44:09 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 00:52:39 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Why can't I opt out of the payments if I don't want to buy the service, but choose my own while still complying with the EPA (above)?
Same reason you can't opt out of buying Trident but keep a few grenades under the kitchen sink I guess.

Different issue I think.

Perhaps there is another clause saying that the local authority or its representative is the only "authorised person"
No - it's to do with having waste transfer licenses.

Fine, so no need for a restriction.

Perhaps the authority chooses not to use multiple contractors and to offer the customer a choice.
It might have discretion to do that. I'm still not convinced it would result in better service or greater efficiency.

Competition almost always results in the customer getting what they want at the right price.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-25 01:41:16 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 00:51:47 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
OK - so the situation is analogous to private education. You can send your children to private school, but if you do, you don't get a tax rebate. You should.
You can have no children at all, and still get no tax rebate. Again, you should. Well - maybe.
There is plenty of history of this kind of thing, but people don't generally think of state education as a monopoly. In practical terms, to those who could otherwise afford private education if they didn't have to pay that proportion of council tax, it is. Yes - but in that sense, not having a Rolls Royce is a monopoly thing.
Not influenced by taxation in that sense, though.

True. My point though is that calling waste collection a monopoly isn't strictly accurate but is certainly emotive.

The same is true of education and of healthcare. The difference with those is that people view those rather more seriously and are willing to pay twice to get a proper service. Quite so - demonstrating that it's not a monopoly. The local authority collects money from every household. Part of this goes towards refuse collection. - It does not offer a choice of level of service. - It does not offer a choice of refuse collection company - It does not allow its customers a part in the selection of the single chosen company - It does not provide a discount on council tax if the customer wants to shop elsewhere. It's a monopoly in terms of profile ?

So what do you mean by profile here ?

and effect, Except you do have the option to have any licensed agent take your waste if you want them to.
Fine. Then they should be in a position to compete in the market for weekly collection as well as delivery and collection of large skips.

You mean the government should butt out of the market and leave it to private firms ?

I should be in a position that if I choose one, I opt out of paying the council tax amount for it.

Yes - that might be fair. While we are at it we should give people tax rebates for not using any government service... How much bureaucracy would that create ?

and a poorly run one at that. In some respects. I guess to some extent this situation has perhaps arisen to address a need from an era when the private sector did not offer waste collection services, but imperfect though the present situation is, I'm not sure that having three providers working the same streets would be more efficient, reduce congestion, or otherwise be too smart.
I'd settle for 3 licensed operators with each having a different collection day on a given street.

OK - by this implies that there will be a licensing process and tendering process to select the three.
More bureaucracy.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-25 01:44:09 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 00:52:39 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
Why can't I opt out of the payments if I don't want to buy the service, but choose my own while still complying with the EPA (above)? Same reason you can't opt out of buying Trident but keep a few grenades under the kitchen sink I guess.
Different issue I think.

A parallel one I think.

Perhaps there is another clause saying that the local authority or its representative is the only "authorised person" No - it's to do with having waste transfer licenses.
Fine, so no need for a restriction.

Well - you seem keen to have three players selected to provide the service. That's hardly unfettered capitalism. There will certainly be people kept out of what you claim is a very lucrative market.

Perhaps the authority chooses not to use multiple contractors and to offer the customer a choice. It might have discretion to do that. I'm still not convinced it would result in better service or greater efficiency.
Competition almost always results in the customer getting what they want at the right price.

I want an electron microscope for 50p.
Almost...
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

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

This is complete and utter bullshit.

Excellent, more personal abuse.

Fortnightly bin collections are not acceptable.

Ah, proof by assertion.
As others have said, experience seems to be that switching to collection of residual waste once a fortnight initially causes loud complaints by some, but the silent majority have no problem with it.

-- 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 Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:48:39 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry wrote this:-

Most of the output is liquid feed, which would be put on the house plants.
That takes care of the first three weeks output and gives enough plant food for a year

Really. I suppose that if someone only had one house plant and a large wormery that might be the case. However, that's unlikely.

Most of the wormery instructions I've seen recommend composting the output from a wormery further in a conventional composter before using it.

Have they really. The most well known wormery manufacturer is probably Original Organics. Their web site isn't working at the moment, but the last time I checked their instructions they said nothing of the sort.

-- 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 18:07:56 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wrote this:-

Indeed. Some would rather pay for a monthly general bin collection.
Would be fine for me, though I'm still not convinced that private contractors sound that great.

It was fashionable at one time. Whether individual householders have so much time on their hands that they can individually arrange waste contracts is debatable. I suppose some have, typically the retired. However, such people would have little bargaining power with the contractors.
If one wants to involve contractors then the way to do it is probably to do so collectively, as is done with many other things, like roads.
-- 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 Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:22:12 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wrote this:-

And of course many would reduce energy use by reducing collection frequency, just as many would not. We could all have the collection frequency we wanted.
Though possibly much more duplication and poorer utilisation of equipment, all of which has to be funded somehow.

Perhaps a year ago I saw three waste lorries heading down Leith Walk in Edinburgh, stopping in various places (sometimes at the same place). Two were from different companies and one from the council. It didn't strike me as a good way of utilising equipment or staff or road space, though no doubt it warmed the cockles of competition enthusiasts' hearts.

-- 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 Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:41:34 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall :-
Has still to propose, in some detail, something better.
-- 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

"John Beardmore" wrote in message

How much energy is used raising a moderate amount of water to say 55 degrees, (and the tail end of the washing up water will probably do !), as opposed to melting glass ?

55C ???? That's VERY hot for washing up - unnecessarily so.

But with a solar water heat very little energy need be used to get water hot

enough for washing up.
Mary

On 2006-11-25 10:38:00 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 01:41:16 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 00:51:47 +0000, John Beardmore said:
OK - so the situation is analogous to private education. You can send your children to private school, but if you do, you don't get a tax rebate. You should.
You can have no children at all, and still get no tax rebate. Again, you should. Well - maybe.
There is plenty of history of this kind of thing, but people don't generally think of state education as a monopoly. In practical terms, to those who could otherwise afford private education if they didn't have to pay that proportion of council tax, it is. Yes - but in that sense, not having a Rolls Royce is a monopoly thing.
Not influenced by taxation in that sense, though.
True. My point though is that calling waste collection a monopoly isn't strictly accurate but is certainly emotive.

This is hair splitting. It has nothing to do with emotion but freedom of choice over how services are bought by the individual, who is, after all, paying. The current arrangements do not provide a freedom of choice unless people pay twice. It is none other than a monopoly. If you consider the activity of the Competition Commission, this would qualify for its attention by any metre stick.

The same is true of education and of healthcare. The difference with those is that people view those rather more seriously and are willing to pay twice to get a proper service. Quite so - demonstrating that it's not a monopoly. The local authority collects money from every household. Part of this goes towards refuse collection. - It does not offer a choice of level of service. - It does not offer a choice of refuse collection company - It does not allow its customers a part in the selection of the single chosen company - It does not provide a discount on council tax if the customer wants to shop elsewhere. It's a monopoly in terms of profile ?
So what do you mean by profile here ?

The points above list 4 characteristics of a monopoly. Undoubtedly there are more that one could add.

and effect, Except you do have the option to have any licensed agent take your waste if you want them to.
Fine. Then they should be in a position to compete in the market for weekly collection as well as delivery and collection of large skips.
You mean the government should butt out of the market and leave it to private firms ?

Absolutely. The government should butt out of every market, with a very few exceptions.

I should be in a position that if I choose one, I opt out of paying the council tax amount for it.
Yes - that might be fair. While we are at it we should give people tax rebates for not using any government service... How much bureaucracy would that create ?

Simple. It could be done the other way around. Don't collect the tax in the first place and people pay for the service.

and a poorly run one at that. In some respects. I guess to some extent this situation has perhaps arisen to address a need from an era when the private sector did not offer waste collection services, but imperfect though the present situation is, I'm not sure that having three providers working the same streets would be more efficient, reduce congestion, or otherwise be too smart.
I'd settle for 3 licensed operators with each having a different collection day on a given street.
OK - by this implies that there will be a licensing process and tendering process to select the three.
More bureaucracy.

Nope. No tendering process because the local authority would not be in the commercial path between the customer and the supplier. Licensing would consist of a maximum price point to provide the minimum statutory requirement - and I mean the minimum, not some interpretation of it. All operators would be required to provide that. They would be at liberty to offer lower pricing and also to offer services over and above the minimum.

On 2006-11-25 11:41:17 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:07:56 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
Indeed. Some would rather pay for a monthly general bin collection.
Would be fine for me, though I'm still not convinced that private contractors sound that great.
It was fashionable at one time. Whether individual householders have so much time on their hands that they can individually arrange waste contracts is debatable. I suppose some have, typically the retired. However, such people would have little bargaining power with the contractors.
If one wants to involve contractors then the way to do it is probably to do so collectively, as is done with many other things, like roads.

Collectivism is the poison of advancement.
Of course people can arrange their own waste collection agreements in exactly the same way that they buy food, gas, electricity, telecommunication and most other commodities.
There is no issue with bargaining power unless there is a monopoly as there is today.
It doesn't require a big bureaucracy to organise people's lives for them.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:02:53 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry wrote this:-

When they asked what would happen if they put all their rubbish in the black (landfill) bin they were told they couldn't be fined for this. So now to avoid the chance of a fine for another mistake they simply tip everything in the black bin, recycle nothing and are advising their neighbours to do likewise.

The sort of own-goal which councils are noted for. Another own-goal was to put RFID chips on bins without having a discussion about it with the public.
However, there is rather more information on what is going on than the nay-sayers assert. In this country a good starting point is http://www.wascot.org.uk/html/index.asp and should one wish to look at the plans then http://www.sepa.org.uk/nws/guidance/awp.htm has them all.
-- 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 2006-11-25 11:02:44 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 01:44:09 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 00:52:39 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Why can't I opt out of the payments if I don't want to buy the service, but choose my own while still complying with the EPA (above)? Same reason you can't opt out of buying Trident but keep a few grenades under the kitchen sink I guess.
Different issue I think.
A parallel one I think.

Not really.

Perhaps there is another clause saying that the local authority or its representative is the only "authorised person" No - it's to do with having waste transfer licenses.
Fine, so no need for a restriction.
Well - you seem keen to have three players selected to provide the service. That's hardly unfettered capitalism. There will certainly be people kept out of what you claim is a very lucrative market.

Three was a number chosen as being sufficient to have competition. It could be ten, or an unlimited number.
The economic equation is smple enough Today, I pay �X to the local authority of which an amount goes for rubbish collection. The local authority subcontracts to a private firm to do the work but in addition employs a large department of people who are supposed to be administering it, but in practice do very little of any value. The private firm still makes a profit or it would not be doing the work. If the unnecessary overhead of the local authority is taken out of the loop, the firm can do more for the same money or deliver the same for less money. The only people to lose out would be the bureaucrats in the local authority who aren't adding any value in the first place. They should view it as an opportunity to find something gainful to do. That would be a benefit to them as well as to the population as a whole.

Perhaps the authority chooses not to use multiple contractors and to offer the customer a choice. It might have discretion to do that. I'm still not convinced it would result in better service or greater efficiency.
Competition almost always results in the customer getting what they want at the right price.
I want an electron microscope for 50p.
Almost...

Check out your local Aldi. They are bound to have a Christmas offer on one. Just for you. Just today.

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:26:47 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wrote this:-

Plastic bottles are OK, but plastic tubs are not (even if of the same plastic as the bottles).
I just stuff them in anyway to be honest, but I guess the issue may be contamination with non food grade materials, e.g. PVC with horrible plasticisers etc, sheet metal e.g. steel coated with cadmium or zinc...

It varies from place to place. Some places accept any plastics of the appropriate types. The same is true of various types of cardboard and shredded paper.
When things are different in different places some people whine about how it should all be standardised to avoid confusion. However, when things are standardised the same people whine about how they are straight jacketed by a centrally imposed system.
-- 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 2006-11-25 11:27:55 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:36:56 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> wrote this:-
This is complete and utter bullshit.
Excellent, more personal abuse.

No it isn't. The comment was about the statement being complete and utter bullshit, not the person who made it. Of course if you wish to feel inadequate because you made it, that's your affair. I guess that that's a form of self abuse.....

Fortnightly bin collections are not acceptable.
Ah, proof by assertion.

Nope. Just conversations with many people in my area and what their concerns are. Rubbish collection is very high on the local agenda.

As others have said, experience seems to be that switching to collection of residual waste once a fortnight initially causes loud complaints by some, but the silent majority have no problem with it.

It may be where you live. It certainly isn't where I am. People will not accept paying a lot of money to get third rate service.