Siting of panels for solar water heating

On 2006-11-26 11:59:57 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:55:04 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> 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.

Which is a further illustration of local government incompetence. They should have involved said "competition guardians" at the outset.
In addition, the issues are hardly comparable. The discussion point here was about different refuse collection operators collecting in given streets on given days and times. With that the issue is of frequency of collection (e.g. once per week for each operator) - the day or time is unlikely to be that important.
With a bus service, passengers want to travel at specific times to specific places. Organisation of access to given areas needs to be more carefully planned so that over time there is an equitable access to potential passengers.

On 2006-11-26 12:03:40 +0000, John Beardmore said:

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. I wouldn't. Nobody was suggesting that there shouldn't be *some* degree of environmental legislation, just that it needs to be done in the context of economic reality and applicably to the areas in question.
Looking on a larger scale, we read of China opening a new coal fired power station each week. Why? Because they need the energy to run their economy and coal is cheap. How has that come about? Ultimately because people in the West want to buy goods cheaply.
It's dishonest for the EU, and indeed anyone subscribing to their blanket environmental legislation to pat themselves on the back when they aren't doing anything to address the far more serious issues of pollution in other parts of the world.

You could argue that smokeless fuel regulations have bucked the market, but saved tens of thousands of people per year from death in smogs.

In Britain yes. What about in countries where coal is still heavily burnt?

You could argue that the Montreal Protocol has bucked the market in CFCs by effecting a world wide ban.

That doesn't really matter since there are viable alternatives for most applications that don't add up to a major cost for the customer.

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's really more of an observation. Ultimately, and it may take decades, market conditions always prevail. The only reason that the examples you cited appeared to work is because there were alternatives at the same cost, technological advancement that made them a non issue anyway, or because the scope was limited in such a way that success could be claimed even though the overall effect wasn't worth bothering with.

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.

Of course there's a strong case for obliging them to do better *provided that* it is *genuinely* worth doing.

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.

You are still thinking inside the box. The local authorities should not be seeking tenders because that implies that they are in the financial food chain between customer and supplier. That isn't necessary. They simply need to lay down the mandatory *minimum* standard that a supplier must meet in order to be awarded a license. The operator produces a plan which demonstrates an ability to do that. The operator may then market to the customer base offering services with prices. Competition between operators would control price levels, there is no need for LA involvement in that. The LA would periodically inspect each operator to ensure that minimum standards are being met. Customers would police operators in terms of service by shopping elsewhere if it is unsatisfactory.

Again - I look forward to the details of your plan.

You're going to wait a long time. I already said that I am not setting out to do one.

Cheers, J/.

On 2006-11-26 12:14:36 +0000, David Hansen said:

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.

Styrofoam, plastic bottle tops, margarine tubs, carrier bags, ..... ?

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

John Beardmore wrote:
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.
The ones with a cell between their ears would swap client collections so that it was one company one vehicle at each collection time. This could be automated by computer easily. Companies that didnt swap for efficiency would see higher costs, and go out of business.

And companies that did would loose their differentiation. The only difference the client would see is the name on the invoice.

In any other area private enterprise competes, and working out solutions to problems is part of that competing. The most successful at delivering what the customer wants wins.

Up to a point.

People running upmarket B&Bs dont want rubbish piling up for 1 or even 2 weeks and ponging.

Well there are plenty of firm that will collect commercial waste for a fee.

People on benefits dont want to pay for weekly collections when fortnightly is good enough, and they have more important things to spend on. Some would consider monthly more than enough, etc. With choice we can all choose what fits our needs and wishes, thus delivery of service will be efficient in this respect. LA collections are simply going to be the wrong product for a significant proportion of its customers, because they dont give any choices, and customers circumstances differ.

In reality you have the choice of not putting the bin out of you don't want it emptied so I don't think low volume waste produces have much to fret about.
There is more of an issue for high volume producers, and I guess that part of the idea of this sort of scheme is to put some pressure on them to produce less unsorted waste, or to sort more of it.
If people want to be profligate and irresponsible waste producers, that is still permitted, but they will be under more pressure than others to sort their waste, or pay to have it disposed of by a third party.
That's fine by me. Why should those of us with less profligate life styles subsidise the cost ?

Also LAs dont predict or satisfy customer wishes adequately. They dont offer a choice of collection intervals and prices,

I'm still not convinced this is economically viable or environmentally beneficial.

they dont adress poor operator behaviour,

They do in my experience, though it can take two or three phone calls to convince them that you mean it.

and they dont strive to improve their service.

Once a contract is in place all they can do is make sure that agreed service levels are delivered.
When contracts come up for renewal, there is generally a spate of haggling over price / facilities / disposal provision / recycling targets and methods etc.

With private collection we would see everything from thrice weekly collections from the rear of your property in a cleanly painted quiet engined wagon with suited operators in Chelsea to minimum cost collection every 3 weeks by 17 yr olds employed by PoundGarb company, who wouldnt stray further than the pavement and wouldnt sort anything.

Quite so, but I'm not sure that they should have the option not to sort to some extent, though it will always be cheaper and less energy intensive to sort at source.

In each case, the customer gets what they want and choose, and they choose according to service and price.

How many consumers actually give a damn as long as bins are emptied often enough ?
What sort of cost per week are we haggling over here ?

LAs are so uncompetitive it never even occurs to them to offer any variation in service at all.

I figure that maybe service user requirements have got more diverse over time.
Maybe one solution would be to have them collect 'often enough' but charge by weight collected ?
Of course - the 'Polystyrene Off Cut Company Limited' would be delighted.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-25 13:02:59 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 11:02:44 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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.
That's good, because there's little to compare between domestic refuse collection and the defence of the nation.

Except in the area highlighted. The point is that there are loads of areas where the state provides a service free at the point of use for which we all pay. This obviously troubles you, but it's part of a much wider picture than waste !

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.
That could be done by a very small number of people

I'm not sure that our LA has more than two or three working on it directly as it is.

or could also be outsourced to an independent private organisation.

Ahh !! More consultants then !

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.
You haven't met many local authority employees, have you....?

Loads as it happens. But my experience seems rather different to yours.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:16:25 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" wrote this:-

I've switched (using the existing supplier) to green generation. Don't know how it works but I've stated my preference.

There is much debate about this, but the key is whether a particular tariff encourages more renewable generation or not. Some large company tariffs just put money into a fund, which may or may not be used to increase renewable generation. The large companies have often been unable to explain in detail what the fund is for when asked detailed questions.
Even non-fund tariffs have problems. All suppliers have to source a (rising) percentage from renewable supplies. If this percentage is say 10% then, provided that not more than 10% of their customers opt for a 100% green tariff (assuming all customers consume the same amount of electricity), all a large supplier has to do is shuffle other customers onto non-green electricity and they can then fulfill their obligations to their 100% green tariff customers, without doing anything other than what they are required to do anyway.
Small green electricity suppliers can't pull this trick off, even if they wanted to, so they get additional renewable generation installed. As a result they are well worth looking at if interested in this sort of thing.
There are two approaches to additional generation. One is to build it directly, the Ecotricity approach, the other is to encourage others to build it, the Good Energy approach. Both have advantages. These two companies also have different approaches to the retirement of ROCs.
-- 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 2006-11-26 12:18:55 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
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.

Better not to take it from them in the first place. This avoids the administration.

Although environmental taxation does seem to be on the rise...

Soft touch. Easy money.

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 ?

The point is that I should have the choice of selecting a supplier/service who will do this and paying them directly (not via the LA), or one who provides a basic service whereby I do half of their work for them.

I take a broader view.
:) Could have fooled me !

Well let's face it, the greenwashers have done a pretty good job :-)

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.

Not really. I'm far from idle. I simply want to spend my time on more productive things that sorting rubbish.

Or maybe you just produce too much rubbish.

I produce only the rubbish that results from the things I buy. Before you make the next suggestion of altering patterns of consumption; forget it.

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 ??)

I am not setting out to "contribute to society" other than via taxation and my own choice of charities and voluntary activities that I do. I certainly don't need "society" to value my efforts or not - just my customers. They do.

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.

As long as the cost is covered, it's irrelevant.

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.

and how much else is never discovered.

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.

That's good. As long as they don't attempt to compel me to do it and continue to collect it all weekly, I have no problem. The moment that they attempt to change any of that, they will have a major fight on their hands. Local councillors are very aware of that from most residents.

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.

Of course. I never make investments without thoroughly reearching first.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-25 12:51:39 +0000, Huge said:
I do wonder if the State is that marvellous, why it isn't prepared to compete against private enterprise.
Because it knows full well that it can't.

The reality is that it doesn't get the opportunity.

The culture and level of competence means that it has to overstaff and to bring in large amounts of outside consulting etc. to achieve the requirements.

I'm not sure if this is down to competence or culture and structure.

The inevitable result is overpricing and poor quality. The only way to defend that is not to have any competition so that people have no comparison points.

This strikes me as a political belief rather than an observation based on what can be observed in the town hall.

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.
Absolutely.

But what do you include in this ? This sounds horribly like the water companies trying to sell you insurance in case your rising main leaks !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:47:49 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

The local authorities should not be seeking tenders because that implies that they are in the financial food chain between customer and supplier. That isn't necessary. They simply need to lay down the mandatory *minimum* standard that a supplier must meet in order to be awarded a license. The operator produces a plan which demonstrates an ability to do that. The operator may then market to the customer base offering services with prices.

I wonder what proportion of householders would welcome yet more spam, this lot of spam trying to convince them to use one waste contractor compared to another?
I suspect that not many would welcome it and they would much rather let the council deal with this (and moan occasionally about how useless the council are).
-- 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 12:59:32 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

In Clackmannanshire it is simply a matter of checking whether there is a triangle with a 1 or a 2 inside it. Hardly complicated.
Styrofoam, plastic bottle tops, margarine tubs, carrier bags, ..... ?

Simply a matter of checking whether there is a triangle with a 1 or a 2.
I haven't ever noticed either on expanded polystyrene, for obvious reasons. Bottle tops sometimes have a 2 on them. I can't recall ever noticing either on a margarine tub. I have seen some plastic bags with a 1 or a 2 on them, can't remember which. 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

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:18:55 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wrote this:-

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.

Shhhh. That doesn't fit in with Daily Wail sound bites about the rubbish Talaban and thus you must be lying:-)
ISTM that the current voluntary approach is working reasonably well, despite the odd council cockup and refusenik. With luck the stick will not need to be deployed too often, though it may need to be deployed in the end.
The stick for those who contaminate bins is a difficult matter and it has probably been used too early.
-- 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 , Huge writes
I take it this is the same excellent Huge as used to hang out in uk.environment ?

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.

This is a pretty general question, and a long way from "Siting of panels for solar water heating", but which bit of the state ?
Maybe start another thread, or at least retitle it ?

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.

Indeed - but this is likely to be seen by some as the state poking its tendrils into, and regulating, an area traditionally in the private sector, and generic home care is quite a different issue to emptying bins !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-25 13:31:56 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:27:46 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> 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.
I didn't mention Uncle Joe - you did.
I really don't care whether it's a centralised or decentralised facility. I pay for a disposal service and I expect the supplier of that to deal with these issues. That's what I'm paying them to do.

So where's the contract that says what the state will do for you ?
In the absence of such, why do you assume you are entitled to any particular service or level of service ?

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.
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 may wish to use some material from the garden to make compost for the garden, but don't expect to be compelled to do so.

So in essence, you expect to able to dispose of any amount of any kind of waste, and it to be the states problem regardless of material, mixture, or quantity ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-25 11:27:55 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> 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.....

Petty squabble or what ?

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.

Would that be many like minded people ?

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.

So how much are they paying, and what is the service costing to deliver ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:00:46 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wrote this:-

And companies that did would loose their differentiation. The only difference the client would see is the name on the invoice.

To be fair the petrol companies have been conning customers in this way for a very long time. However, in their case the petrol from the nearest refinery is put into branded petrol stations. Sometimes the lorries used to transport the petrol from the nearest refinery are branded too.
With waste collection the lorries would presumably not be branded, but rather be painted in some neutral livery. Perhaps customer's bins could be branded, how wonderful. I suspect that the companies would argue too much about all sorts of things for this to work, but if it did it strikes me that it is little different from the council running it. There would be a bureaucracy to arbitrate and there would also be pressure to keep innovative new companies out of the cartel.

-- 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