Siting of panels for solar water heating

On 2006-11-25 11:46:14 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:22:12 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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.

The simple solution would be for an arrangement that each company collects in different areas on different days.
That would take a ten year old an afternoon to work out.
For the local authority it would probably take three permanent employees, a secretary, a consulting firm to go out and remap the area and someone from Accenture to oversee it all just in case someone needs to be blamed.

On 2006-11-25 11:56:52 +0000, David Hansen said:

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

I don't *have* to anything.
There are already plenty of ideas; the most obvious of which is to take the local authorities out of the food chain.

On 2006-11-25 12:11:28 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:02:53 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry peter@wpp.ltd.uk> 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.

All of which illustrates the motivations of those involved. It has to do with control games and nothing to do with the objectives or the requirements of the customer.

On 2006-11-25 12:16:09 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:26:47 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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.

Which means that the solution is for everything to go into one collection container and for it to be sorted by those being paid to do it. Of course if FoE and others would like to volunteer to go and sift through the stuff at waste transfer stations on Sunday afternoons, I'd have no objection at all. I might even buy them a packet of biscuits at Christmas.

On 21 Nov 2006 00:33:06 -0800 someone who may be meow2222@care2.com wrote this:-

Thre are some historic buildings with a firewall that rises maybe 3 bricks above the roofline, but most houses dont have those.

This was a feature of regulations in some places. However, they are a point of weakness for water penetration and rain is more common than fire, so their value is debatable.
-- 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

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-25 11:56:52 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said: On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:41:34 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> :-
Has still to propose, in some detail, something better.
I don't *have* to anything.
There are already plenty of ideas; the most obvious of which is to take the local authorities out of the food chain.

Hardly a detailed proposal for what should replace them.
J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Mary Fisher writes

"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.

Yes - I'm inclined to agree, but people do get very up tight about Legionella.
This concern has a huge energy cost.
Some cooks seem keen to have washing up water hot enough to blister skin too...
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-25 12:16:09 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:26:47 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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.
Which means that the solution is for everything to go into one collection container and for it to be sorted by those being paid to do it.

I think you'll find there is more than one solution.
One might be for you to sort your own waste in a responsible way.

Of course if FoE and others would like to volunteer to go and sift through the stuff at waste transfer stations on Sunday afternoons, I'd have no objection at all.

No doubt you would be willing to exploit them, but I doubt they'd have time to sort through all the waste people like you produce and can't be bothered to sort themselves.

I might even buy them a packet of biscuits at Christmas.

Good to see such a responsible attitude !
J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-25, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-11-25 11:41:17 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> 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.

I do wonder if the State is that marvellous, why it isn't prepared to compete against private enterprise.
And in this particualr case, there's no reason whatsoever why the local Council shouldn't sell a "Home Care" package that people could choose to buy or not, as they wish.

-- "Other people are not your property." [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

In message , Andy Hall writes

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 wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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.
Not really.

Well - no doubt anybody reading this will understand the analogy and recognise the extent of its limitations.

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.

Unless the LA have a useful QA function. Depends how much you trust the private contractors to do it right if unpoliced.

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.

Maybe in some instances, but I'm not convinced it's true in the general case.

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.

I doubt it.
J/. -- John Beardmore

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:27:46 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

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.
Which means that the solution is for everything to go into one collection container and for it to be sorted by those being paid to do it.

That is one solution, though even then there are two options about where the sorting is done.
The first option is the Stalinst one of a central "facility" at which to do the sorting. I assume this is the option you are in favour of. Sorting out compostable and other waste at such a "facility" is a rather dirty operation.
The second option is to do the sorting at the container, with staff sorting the contents of the container into a multi-compartment vehicle. If one provides a separate bin for compostable waste, which is taken off separately to a composter, then the sorting operation is very much less dirty. One could then provide two containers, to be collected on alternate weeks. One container is the one for residual waste and one for recyclable waste. The second option seems a lot better to me.

-- 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 12:03:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

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.

People tend not to consider these things too carefully. Rather they stick with what they know. The number of people who have not switched gas and electricity suppliers is a case in point. Many people have better things to do with their lives than switch suppliers.
-- 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 12:17:03 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

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.

Excellent, mind reading as well. Don't take up mind reading for a living, you aren't very good at it.

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.

Ah, another attempt at personalisation. My comment has nothing to do with where I live, rather it relates to a couple of postings by others in this thread.
-- 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.
Yes - I'm inclined to agree, but people do get very up tight about Legionella.

They do, without considering that Legionella has to get into the system to be a problem.

This concern has a huge energy cost.
Some cooks seem keen to have washing up water hot enough to blister skin too...

I know. And then wear gloves to protect their hands from it.
Daft I call it.
Mary

"David Hansen" wrote in message

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:03:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> wrote this:-
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.
LOL! Can you imagine the mayhem if several contractors were collecting

rubbish?
That WOULD give you something to complain about. And John, David and I wouldn't be happy either so for once we'd be in accord.

People tend not to consider these things too carefully. Rather they stick with what they know. The number of people who have not switched gas and electricity suppliers is a case in point. Many people have better things to do with their lives than switch suppliers.

I haven't switched suppliers because I'm happy with my present ones. What's more, we're not on the breadline so we don't need to 'save' money.
Mary

-- 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