Siting of panels for solar water heating

Thanks for your kookfart, 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
Alan doesn't believe in anyone else's existence ...
Alan accuses practically everyone of being a troll/spammer. Apparently, Alan is the only real person in the newsgroups in which he posts.
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.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-25 17:11:13 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 12:49:59 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
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. That's not necessary Not necessary in the same sense as eating or breathing. Perhaps necessary in the same sense as not cutting down all the trees.
Now you are extrapolating into other areas that have nothing to do with the point being made.

Just illustrating that what is "necessary" depends on the tame scale you consider.

If there is some value in sorting waste (and I think that's highly questionable in the first place but let's accept it for the moment), either I can do it or I can pay someone else to do it. I prefer the latter. The outcome does not depend on whether or not I do it or someone else does it,

Well it does, in that it's least energy intensive to sort at source, so it's likely to be less cost effective for you and less beneficial to the environment to have somebody else do it.

therefore it is bogus to suggest that taking responsibility requires the individual to act directly.

No.

or interesting to do. Many things that we need to do to survive are not hugely interesting.
.. and this is one that I don't even need to do, therefore I am even less motivated to do it.

Well - you are certainly unmotivated.

I already pay for a refusal disposal service - I don't therefore expect to have to do half the job myself. The requirement has changed a lot in the last 20 years.
Who has changed the requirement?

The EU, central government, Environment Agency, DEFRA, LAs, FOE, environmental activists, environmental academics, the demise of domestic solid fuel fires, the amount the public buy, how it's packed, public opinion, and market forces for a start. Running out of landfill too according to some people, though I think I smell warm fudge around that one...

Would you rather 1) sort it your self 2) waste a lot of it or 3) pay to have somebody else do a more difficult and expensive separation and bill you for it ?
or 4) develop the technology to do 3) more efficiently such that 1) is unnecessary.

Well - I'll be pleased if you do...

You seem unwilling to consider option 1 and by default do option 2. If in the end option 3 is imposed on you, I shan't grieve.
There is no need for option 3) to be more expensive provided that administrative cost savings can be made and suitable technology is developed.

Well - I await your patent with baited breath.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes
Do the council have a monopoly ?
Lets give you another example then, should make it easier to see. Lets say you were forced to pay for breakfast at a certain eatery on the way to work, you had to pay whether you used the service or not, and once you'd paid you cold eat as much and often as you wanted, or not at all. But you paid the same. Now, having paid, you're likely to eat there. This is a monopoly in practice. Sure someone else could sell you food, but since you've already been forced to pay for this place, its monopolistic. This is how council garbage collection works.
Agreed. But while its an anti competitive practice, it's not strictly a monopoly I guess.
With a monopoly, if you want the product you have to pay the company. If you dont want it, you dont pay. With LAs you're forced to pay regardless. Its worse.

Yes - but what do you call that ? It's still not a monopoly.
Extortion ?

There is a set of people who, in a free market, would invest a little time energy and money into reducing recycling and self disposing waste, and just call a private rubbish co on the odd occasion to dispose of a batch of waste.

How odd an occasion ?

The state system strongly disincentivises this,

I doubt many people say to them selves while shopping
'The council are coming to empty the bin on Tuesday. Better buy some packaging !'

it causes the waste and pollution we see today.

What all of it ?

AND charges people for the privilege.

Yes - but it does a lot more besides !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-25 22:19:39 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 21:36:07 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 20:45:46 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes It really isn't rocket science to work out that if one takes out non productive cost element from a product or service, it can be delivered to the customer for less money, or the customer can get more for the same money. Indeed, though we differ in that you believe that the LA layer contributes nothing, and having seen it up close, I'm not sure I agree. I've seen enough to be able to see that if many of the people were doing equivalent jobs in the private sector, they would be out of the door. Standards are very disappointing among LA employees from my observations. Yes - there are some sad fossils, but we're going round in circles here.
I haven't changed my position.
Nor have I.

So by definition, we can't be going round in circles...

I won't bother to reiterate my view. Just take it as read that we'll have to agree to differ.
OK. You wouldn't be an LA employee would you?
No - and wouldn't want to be.

Thank goodness for that.

Without seeing what you propose in detail, I can't say if you cover all the bases or not. There isn't a need to cover all of the bases. Only those that actually make a difference. I have the feeling that we'd draw up different lists. Nothing wrong in that per se, but I would want to see what you propose in detail before I'd consider voting for it.
Certainly the whole issue should be made democratic. Currently, we vote periodically for people entrusted to do our bidding. I don't think that that is granular enough.
Agreed.
In the area we've been discussing, there is little to no democracy at all.
In fact, there is no democracy in most areas. Saying 'left a bit' or 'right a bit' every few years doesn't come close.
So.... why not make it so. For the local authority elections, it would be a simple matter to put different implementation alternatives on the ballot papers as well as the candidates.
Yes - but as LAs deal with so many issues waste would be lost in the noise. You really need voting on a per issue basis, including consent to pay - otherwise people will vote for micro budget with macro deliverables.

U.S. local and state government manages it OK. There are a set of propositions. Each is campaigned for as appropriate and the electorate votes. No vote. no money spent.

In other words, people who want to have a green package involving all the things you've described can vote for that. People who want the cheapest service can vote for it. Those who want a higher level of service and are willing to pay a little more *as long as it is delivered* can vote for that.
The outcome would be interesting. My guess is that where I am, the percentages would be about 25/50/25 of the turn out respectively - bearing in mind that local elections are never well attended.
You may be right, though I'd be quite happy to take the less sustainable options off the agenda.
In other words, you can pick a rate of collection, the uniform the people that collect ware etc, but your waste will be separated. Either you will do it or you will be billed for its having been done.

I think that the market would naturally determine that.

This was why I came to the conclusion that it makes much more sense to allow people to buy the level of service they want, according to their circumstances and priorities.
I'm not sure that meeting minimum environmental standards should be optional, but above, we seem to confusing voting for a particular single solution and allowing people to choose from a palette of solutions.

There should be minimum standards, I agree. I may not agree on what those actually are.

Cheers, J/.

On 2006-11-25 23:08:36 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 17:11:13 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 12:49:59 +0000, John Beardmore said:
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. That's not necessary Not necessary in the same sense as eating or breathing. Perhaps necessary in the same sense as not cutting down all the trees.
Now you are extrapolating into other areas that have nothing to do with the point being made.
Just illustrating that what is "necessary" depends on the tame scale you consider.

Of course. This further makes the point that if you want people to consider longer timescales, they will need to be encouraged to do so.. making it attractive financially is the best, fastest and lest resistance way to achieve that.

If there is some value in sorting waste (and I think that's highly questionable in the first place but let's accept it for the moment), either I can do it or I can pay someone else to do it. I prefer the latter. The outcome does not depend on whether or not I do it or someone else does it,
Well it does, in that it's least energy intensive to sort at source, so it's likely to be less cost effective for you and less beneficial to the environment to have somebody else do it.

This doesn't look at the complete picture. The other effect of operating in this way is that the sorting is being done, in effect, by free labour from the perspective of those with the accountable cost - i.e. the local authority. If they have to do it, then it adds to their cost, whether that is in labour or energy.
I take a broader view. From my perspective, if I do this work it takes me time to do so. That is expensive either directly or in terms of lost opportunity cost. If I can spend my time productively, I do more business and the government and ultimately the exchequer makes more because of corporation tax, income tax and national insurance. The reality is that I can generate far more money for that by doing things other than sorting rubbish.
Therefore, I think it's quite reasonable to suggest that provided that the outcome is achieved, the method, in terms of who does the work is irrelevant.

therefore it is bogus to suggest that taking responsibility requires the individual to act directly.
No.

I think that it's a desirable state of affairs to have law and order. I pay for a police force to do that. I don't need to be a vigilante with a baseball bat (other than for visits to council offices of course).

or interesting to do. Many things that we need to do to survive are not hugely interesting.
.. and this is one that I don't even need to do, therefore I am even less motivated to do it.
Well - you are certainly unmotivated.

Of course. I suspect that is true of many people. As I've said, it takes very little bad publicity to discredit all of this stuff. The approach is all wrong. national and local government seek to achieve results by compelling people rather than rewarding them. It's no wonder that they have difficulty.

I already pay for a refusal disposal service - I don't therefore expect to have to do half the job myself. The requirement has changed a lot in the last 20 years.
Who has changed the requirement?
The EU, central government, Environment Agency, DEFRA, LAs, FOE, environmental activists, environmental academics, the demise of domestic solid fuel fires, the amount the public buy, how it's packed, public opinion, and market forces for a start. Running out of landfill too according to some people, though I think I smell warm fudge around that one...

There's warm fudge around all of it. That's the trouble

Would you rather 1) sort it your self 2) waste a lot of it or 3) pay to have somebody else do a more difficult and expensive separation and bill you for it ?
or 4) develop the technology to do 3) more efficiently such that 1) is unnecessary.
Well - I'll be pleased if you do...

I might invest in a company doing so as long as it has a viable and demonstrable business model.

You seem unwilling to consider option 1 and by default do option 2. If in the end option 3 is imposed on you, I shan't grieve.
There is no need for option 3) to be more expensive provided that administrative cost savings can be made and suitable technology is developed.
Well - I await your patent with baited breath.

You could be surprised...

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-25 22:19:39 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 21:36:07 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam writes On 2006-11-25 20:45:46 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam writes
It really isn't rocket science to work out that if one takes non productive cost element from a product or service, it can be delivered to the customer for less money, or the customer can get more for the same money. Indeed, though we differ in that you believe that the LA layer contributes nothing, and having seen it up close, I'm not sure I agree. I've seen enough to be able to see that if many of the people were doing equivalent jobs in the private sector, they would be out of the door. Standards are very disappointing among LA employees from my observations. Yes - there are some sad fossils, but we're going round in circles here. I haven't changed my position. Nor have I.
So by definition, we can't be going round in circles...

We can certainly loop over stating the same views ad nauseam.

So.... why not make it so. For the local authority elections, it would be a simple matter to put different implementation alternatives on the ballot papers as well as the candidates. Yes - but as LAs deal with so many issues waste would be lost in the noise. You really need voting on a per issue basis, including consent to pay - otherwise people will vote for micro budget with macro deliverables.
U.S. local and state government manages it OK. There are a set of propositions. Each is campaigned for as appropriate and the electorate votes. No vote. no money spent.

OK.

In other words, people who want to have a green package involving all the things you've described can vote for that. People who want the cheapest service can vote for it. Those who want a higher level of service and are willing to pay a little more *as long as it is delivered* can vote for that. The outcome would be interesting. My guess is that where I am, the percentages would be about 25/50/25 of the turn out respectively - bearing in mind that local elections are never well attended. You may be right, though I'd be quite happy to take the less sustainable options off the agenda. In other words, you can pick a rate of collection, the uniform the people that collect ware etc, but your waste will be separated. Either you will do it or you will be billed for its having been done.
I think that the market would naturally determine that.

Not sure the market can be trusted to do anything much.

This was why I came to the conclusion that it makes much more sense to allow people to buy the level of service they want, according to their circumstances and priorities. I'm not sure that meeting minimum environmental standards should be optional, but above, we seem to confusing voting for a particular single solution and allowing people to choose from a palette of solutions.
There should be minimum standards, I agree. I may not agree on what those actually are.

:) I think you are probably right.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-26 00:25:37 +0000, John Beardmore said:

You may be right, though I'd be quite happy to take the less sustainable options off the agenda. In other words, you can pick a rate of collection, the uniform the people that collect ware etc, but your waste will be separated. Either you will do it or you will be billed for its having been done.
I think that the market would naturally determine that.
Not sure the market can be trusted to do anything much.

You have to be joking. Sooner or later and in the broadest sense, it determines the outcome of almost everything. The only way to avoid that is to have completely artificial situations like North Korea. Even those ultimately fail for the obvious reason that human nature will not sustain them.

The message from Andy Hall contains these words:

No. Do they often have EMs ? I do know somebody who got an SEM for �50 which worked after a fairly trivial fix. I'd go for that...
But what would you use it for?

This came up in the shed the other day. There's so many fascination things to ogle under a SEM that what /wouldn't/ you use it for might be a better question.
-- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:21:10 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

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.

You may think so. However, bus companies that have arranged their timetables so that buses from two companies run alternately have found themselves hauled before those that supposedly guard competition and fined.
-- 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 14:41:58 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" wrote this:-

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.

Legionella is all around us. There are huge numbers of little things around us, one group of which is Legionella and one of the various types of Legionella can be very dangerous to us.
At normal temperatures the little things are largely dormant and no particular problem. Raise the temperature and the little things become more active and start to multiply rapidly. Leave the water at that temperature and they are in reproductive heaven, reaching huge quantities. Raise the temperature more and they die.
The greatest danger they pose is when high concentrations of them go into the lungs in the form of an aerosol, especially the lungs of a susceptible group.
Dealing with them is a matter of not panicking, but managing things to avoid large concentrations and aerosols being mixed with susceptible groups.
-- 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 23:41:11 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

This doesn't look at the complete picture. The other effect of operating in this way is that the sorting is being done, in effect, by free labour from the perspective of those with the accountable cost - i.e. the local authority.

Having a recycling box in the corner of the kitchen, perhaps beside a residual waste bin and the wormery, is hardly difficult for someone. The recycling box can be put out one week and the bin the other. Most people seem to manage this, it is interesting to ponder whether those who can't are unwilling or unable to do something so simple.
Why do you submit to the tyranny of placing your waste in a bin? Surely the company employees should have to pick it up from where it is convenient for you to drop it?

If they have to do it, then it adds to their cost, whether that is in labour or energy.

You may be prepared to pay for this, others would rather do the simple task of sorting (and some rinsing) themselves.
-- 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 15:35:31 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

I didn't mention Uncle Joe - you did.

Of course. However, the idea of things being done for/to people centrally, rather than people doing things locally themselves, is generally called Stalinist.

I really don't mind what they do. I expect to be able to put out all of the rubbish, each week, and for it all to be collected. I don't expect to do half the job of the refuse collector.

"I want. I want. I want."
-- 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 15:41:17 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

If local authorities wished to license themselves as one of the options, then that would be fine,

The private sector would claim that they couldn't possibly compete against the public sector, for a variety of reasons we are familiar with.
-- 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 uk.environment, in , "David Hansen" wrote:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 14:41:58 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" wrote this:-
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.
Legionella is all around us. There are huge numbers of little things around us, one group of which is Legionella and one of the various types of Legionella can be very dangerous to us.
At normal temperatures the little things are largely dormant and no particular problem. Raise the temperature and the little things become more active and start to multiply rapidly. Leave the water at that temperature and they are in reproductive heaven, reaching huge quantities. Raise the temperature more and they die.
The greatest danger they pose is when high concentrations of them go into the lungs in the form of an aerosol, especially the lungs of a susceptible group.
Dealing with them is a matter of not panicking, but managing things to avoid large concentrations and aerosols being mixed with susceptible groups.

The so-called 'environmentalists' tell us they are saving the planet.
But they aren't. And that's obvious as hell.
So they get used to telling lies.
And posting with a subject that announces to the world that they are discussing the siting of solar panels when they are in fact discussing disease-causing microbes doesn't strike tham as being odd at all.
Just business as usual.
Alan
-- http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/survival/index.html http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/linux-unix/index.html

Thanks for your kookfart, 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
Alan doesn't believe in anyone else's existence ...
Alan accuses practically everyone of being a troll/spammer. Apparently, Alan is the only real person in the newsgroups in which he posts.
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.