Siting of panels for solar water heating

"John Beardmore" wrote in message

I never had any trouble finding interesting things to do with a decent optical microscope. Another three orders of magnitude magnification shouldn't make the world any less interesting ! Think of it as a leisure activity, but I might find the odd commercial use.

I loved my optical microscope and used it on all sorts of fascinating bio materials. Then the skint farming daughter needed it to look for worms in her sheep faeces so now it's hers.
Bloomin' kids, they've permanently 'borrowed' all sorts of tools, we're left living in a primitive state, having to knap our own flint, spin our own yarn, make our own clothes by hand, even grow and cook our own food for goodness sake!
Life's 'ard.
Mary

"Guy King" wrote in message

The message <4568bd9b@nt1.hall.gl 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.

My meningioma section was fascinating. Didn't understand what everything was mind you. The surgeon had the slide prepared specially because he aid I couldn't have the whole thing and I sulked.
Mary

"John Beardmore" wrote in message

Competition almost always results in the customer getting what they want at the right price.
I want an electron microscope for 50p.
Capitalism expands the options. I was about to say it doesnt create the imposible, but actually it does, its because of capitalism we have 4G CPUs today. If computer manufacture were left to LAs we'd still be using the 286.
On the other hand, it's only because of micrsoft that we need 4G processors for writing letters.
What we write makes no more sense and is of little more consequence than it was when we wrote them on Z80 based systems !

Or with our quill pens.

Progress should not be the only game in town if it doesn't make what we do any more effective.
Yesterday shredders cost �8 and up. Today they cost �1, and sell, because someone realised customers wanted them and then managed to work out how to do it.
LAs dont even try in this respect. They dont even have the skill set.
Actually I think they do in many cases.

Yes, John, but you don't seem to understand that if one isn't doing it some folk assume that none of them does. It's called journalistic hyperbole or childish tantrums. Take your pick.
Mary

"John Beardmore" wrote in message

In message , Mary Fisher mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> writes
"John Beardmore" wrote in message In message , Mary Fisher mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> writes
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH FORTNIGHTLY BIN COLLECTIONS!
Can we all play ?
You have to throw a six to start :-)
Good job I didn't ! I'd just found /usr/games/banner on the Linux box...
changing subject - horrors!
We painted our sittiing room recently (yes, water based environmentally friendly paint so pure you can put the remains on your compost heap)
Hmmm... Very consistent with 'Directive 2004/42/CE on the limitation of VOCs due to the use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes' !
I'm sure you're right.
and I had to move all the stored board games.
I'd forgotten one, bought in the seventies I think, called POLLUTION. ISTR that the aim was to trade pollutants ...
EU ETS here we come !

Wot's ETS?
Mary >

On 2006-11-26 10:19:03 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:10:08 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote this:-
Oh - above you suggested that it was a tidiness issue ...
"I don't want to clutter the kitchen with assorted boxes for this type of plastic and that, ... "
Are there any more issues?
I'm not even sure what the "cost issue" is. On the one hand we are told that councils are 'reducing the number of collections' and thus reducing costs. On the other hand we are told that councils are employing 'armies of officials' and thus increasing costs.

This is why the solution is to fire the "armies of officials".
It is akin to companies who employ armies of accountants. They typically fail as businesses because for each person out making the money, there are two counting it.
The current structure of local authorities plus private contractors is wasteful. Take out the local authority element and apply the saving to the job rather than the measuring of it.

On 2006-11-26 10:21:03 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:07:48 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote this:-
You may be prepared to pay for this, others would rather do the simple task of sorting (and some rinsing) themselves.
I certainly would. It's hardly stretching even my little brain.
Indeed. With a single bin for residual waste, a single bin for recyclables (with the sorting being done at the kerbside) and a single bin for composting, I'm sure it is within the grasp of just about everyone.

Definition of recyclables?
Newspapers but not bundles of newspapers
(Some) plastic bottles but not the tops
Plastics but not styrofoam or carrier bags
Aluminium cans but not foil
etc. etc.
The clearest definition of recyclable I've seen so far is council refuse department, although I have my doubts about that.

"David Hansen" wrote in message

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:10:08 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote this:-
Oh - above you suggested that it was a tidiness issue ...
"I don't want to clutter the kitchen with assorted boxes for this type of plastic and that, ... "
Are there any more issues?
I'm not even sure what the "cost issue" is. On the one hand we are told that councils are 'reducing the number of collections' and thus reducing costs. On the other hand we are told that councils are employing 'armies of officials' and thus increasing costs.

Who tells us about 'armies'?
Journalists I bet.
Mary >

In message , David Hansen writes

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.

On what grounds ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-26 08:11:43 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said: On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:21:10 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> 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.
I know so. I'll tell you how I know as well. When he was ten, my son did exactly this as part of a project.

The LA work placements get younger every year !

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.
I have to admit that last time I went on a bus it was reminiscent of a corporation dust cart, but in other respects the two situations are not comparable.

If they get fined because coming at different times is seen as the avoidance of competition and an attempt to keep prices higher, it might be exactly analogous in legal terms.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-26 11:35:03 +0000, John Beardmore said:

I know so. I'll tell you how I know as well. When he was ten, my son did exactly this as part of a project.
The LA work placements get younger every year !

Mmmm.. Even at that tender age he very rapidly formed the opinion that he would never want to work in such a place.

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.
I have to admit that last time I went on a bus it was reminiscent of a corporation dust cart, but in other respects the two situations are not comparable.
If they get fined because coming at different times is seen as the avoidance of competition and an attempt to keep prices higher, it might be exactly analogous in legal terms.

If, however, it was part of the licensing arrangement, the issue would never arise.

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:55:04 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

If, however, it was part of the licensing arrangement, the issue would never arise.

Never?
PTEs plan bus services in their area, but have fallen foul of the so-called competition guardians.
-- 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 Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:31:55 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wrote this:-

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.
On what grounds ?

Arranging timetables together was deemed to be anti-competitive by the so-called competition authorities. The fact that bus companies face plenty of competition from other forms of transport was ignored.
-- 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 2006-11-26 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.

You could argue that environmental legislation across the EU is very much bucking the sort of environmental malpractice that market forces would create, and have created in the past.
You could argue that smokeless fuel regulations have bucked the market, but saved tens of thousands of people per year from death in smogs.
You could argue that the Montreal Protocol has bucked the market in CFCs by effecting a world wide ban.

Even those ultimately fail for the obvious reason that human nature will not sustain them.

It seems to me that the market can and must be 'bucked' on some occasions. To say it can never be bucked is mere right wing mantra, just as to suggest that everything should be provided through the state is left naive wing mantra.
It is pretty clear when you look at the tenders that LAs receive to process waste that there are a lot of problems with them, and a lack of joined up thinking from both collection and disposal perspectives. There may be a strong case for obliging them to do better, just as it is generally accepted in government circles that there is a strong case for getting the public to sort their own waste.
And these are not small contracts. For a small to medium city, you could be looking at 200,000 to 400,000 tons of material per year, and not only must the LA not collect more waste than that - it must generally provide at least some (large) minimum amount. This sort of thing in itself can support or destroy recycling schemes.
If in your scheme minimum quantities were not guaranteed, commercial risk would increase, and it seems hard to see how you would attract tenders without increasing prices.
Again - I look forward to the details of your plan.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:21:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

Here's the list from my local authority of what they would like to be put and not put in recycling containers::

The distinction between local and national arrangements has been discussed.
I chose the smallest council in Scotland and looked up its list, http://www.wascot.org.uk/html/clack_kerb.asp?wsa=forth which is
===================================================================
Currently 19,577 households in Clackmannanshire have been provided with a blue box for cans, glass, textiles and plastic bottles, a blue bag for paper and a brown bin for garden waste, as detailed below:
** Blue Box
* Cans (aluminium & steel) and clean foil * Glass (bottles & jars) * Plastic bottles with the PET or HDPE symbol (clear) * Textiles (blankets, clothes, curtains, pairs of shoes, sheets and towels)
*** Blue Bag
* Brochures * Catalogues * Computer paper * Contents of unwanted mail * Glossy paper * Leaflets * Magazines * Newspapers * White telephone directories
*** Brown Bin
* Clean cardboard * Flowers and plants * Garden prunings * Garden weeds * Grass clippings * Hedge trimmings * Leaves * Sawdust * Twigs & small branches * Wood shavings
===================================================================
That doesn't strike me as being complicated.

However, when it comes to plastics, I really don't want to deal with checking the list for every item being thrown away.

In Clackmannanshire it is simply a matter of checking whether there is a triangle with a 1 or a 2 inside it. Hardly complicated.

-- 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 23:08:36 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 17:11:13 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam 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.
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.

But legislation is also quite effective, and perhaps less perverse than bribing them with their own money that you have taken off them in taxation.
Although environmental taxation does seem to be on the rise...

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.

Well you are the one who is keen to cut LAs out of the picture.
Why not sort your own crap instead of forcing them to tax you to do it less well ?

I take a broader view.

:) Could have fooled me !

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.

Or possibly you are just too proud or idle. Or maybe you just produce too much rubbish.
I'm struggling to imagine that your contribution to society is of such value that it's better for us all to tax your commercial activities than have you put your rubbish instead of having you separate your wastes by using more than one bin. (How long would it take you anyway ??)

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.

Not if the total effort required to do the job is increased.

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.

It would be interesting to know how much of this bad publicity is actually true.

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.

Well at the moment they do neither. You don't have to sort your rubbish, but they make provision for you to do it if you want to.

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

Well - we need to look at all of it as objectively as possible.
It seems to me that the UK is running out of landfill sites in the sense that no more are being licensed rather than the sense that we are running out of holes.

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.

:) I trust that would involve having a clue about the technology.

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...

I hope so...
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore