Siting of panels for solar water heating

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-25 12:11:28 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> 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.

It's not a game. It may just be about protecting the environment.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

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.

Only if you can't opt out, which in this case you can.

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.

Not that most seem to want to.

There is no issue with bargaining power unless there is a monopoly as there is today.

Guess we've done this one to death, but be it better or worse than a monopoly, it is an aspect of state behaviour that is more akin to 'bundling' than a monopoly.
In effect you want to 'unbundle' waste disposal from the facilities we pay for out of taxes.

It doesn't require a big bureaucracy to organise people's lives for them.

?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-26, John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 12:51:39 +0000, Huge said:

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 ?

Whatever it is local councils want to do. Your point was that people CBA to shop round for waste, etc., and would prefer their local council do it. Fine - let the local council sell a package of waste disposal, vermin control, WHY? and let those who want to buy it and those who don't make their own arrangements.

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

On 2006-11-26, John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Huge Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes
I take it this is the same excellent Huge as used to hang out in uk.environment ?

Dunno. I've been on Usenet forever and the Internet since before it was called that, so I forget.

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

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 !

You misunderstand. I meant why not let the Council package up it's services and sell them, in competition to having people shop round for their own.
-- "Other people are not your property." [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:23:42 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

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.

Not necessarily. Instead they could be as incompetent as you frequently claim they are.
Pay per throw will probably happen, which will be great news for those who throw away large amounts of low density materials, like expanded polystyrene. Eventually they might go the same way as the post office, charging by size as well as mass.
-- 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 10:38:00 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 01:41:16 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam 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.
This is hair splitting.

See comment in other message on 'unbundling'.

It has nothing to do with emotion

I don't know. The term monopoly has connotations which border on the criminal in many quarters.

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.

Except in that you have the option of not using it.

If you consider the activity of the Competition Commission, this would qualify for its attention by any metre stick.

Bring it to their attention then.

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.

Possibly, though some LAs do consult the public when tenders are evaluated.

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.

Well - as long as they deliver the environmental performance ar the same or better efficiency.

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.

Hmmm... That pretty much rules out all 'free at the point of use' state provided services. I'm not sure that's a good idea.

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.

So who enforces the three providers only rule, and who selects them ? To whom are they accountable ?

Licensing would consist of a maximum price point to provide the minimum statutory requirement - and I mean the minimum, not some interpretation of it.

Well somebody has to interpret 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.

OK.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

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.

Good man !

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.

Agreed.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , David Hansen writes

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:31:55 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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.

OK - yes - we have discussions about the sanity of bus time tabling locally.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

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 wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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
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.

I guess it is.

Looking on a larger scale, we read of China opening a new coal fired power station each week.

Or so.

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.

Well to be fair, there is a not insignificant market too !

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.

Well there is the small matter of jurisdiction. You can't invade every country. It's hard enough to justify for oil, the notion of an EMAS Jihad is hard to stomach...

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?

We'll see how long it takes. In the mean time, the maret stays bucked in the UK.

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.

That's not what the refrigeration industry said to begin with.

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.

You might also argue that although it takes decades, legislation spews out of government until all activity is paralysed.
I'm not convinced that the Montreal Protocol will be revoked in the interests of 'the market', are you ?

The only reason that the examples you cited appeared to work is because there were alternatives at the same cost,

Not what the refrigeration industry said.

technological advancement that made them a non issue anyway,

A non issue or a commercial opportunity ?

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.

That seems a rather inumerate view ? Which example did you have in mind ?

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.

Quite so.

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.

To whom is it demonstrated ?

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.

OK.

Customers would police operators in terms of service by shopping elsewhere if it is unsatisfactory.

And if they are all 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.

Then you are not setting out a credible case for change.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

"David Hansen" wrote in message

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.

We can also put items with a 4 on them in the recyclable bin.
Don't all LAs tell householders about the triangles?
Mary

In message , Alan Connor writes

On uk.environment, in 2ejim2l27kfnht1q3qds5mmj1rkop8kaon@4ax.com>, "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.

That you don't know that concern about legionella has been part of the solar thermal debate comes as no surprise.
That you will use any pretext to recite your creed comes as no surprise either.
But it's still a disappointment when you pop up like a fat in trance to recite the same old guff.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

"John Beardmore" wrote in message

From my perspective, if I do this work it takes me time to do so.

So does arguing with folk on internet.

That is expensive either directly or in terms of lost opportunity cost.

So is arguing with folk on internet.

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 ??)

Not as long as typing posts.

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.

Oh - I was going to say that :-(
There's also the matter of people believing bad publicity ...

Mary

"David Hansen" wrote in message

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:16:25 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> 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.

We have to start somewhere.
Mary

In message , David Hansen writes

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:33:48 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> wrote this:-
That is neither here nor there, although I don't want to clutter the kitchen with assorted boxes for this type of plastic and that,
Why have different boxes for different types of plastic and whatever?

Certainly not necessary for most LA collections.
Different if you are taking it to recycling point perhaps.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-26 10:19:03 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> 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

What 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.

:) Another LA obsession...

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.

And if you don't measure it, how will you know your savings are being delivered rather than siphoned off ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore