Siting of panels for solar water heating

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:02:18 +0000, David Hansen wrote:

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:54:25 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry peter@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote this:-
What about one? A little one doesn't take up much space http://www.originalorganics.co.uk/wormeries.htm
It's also far too small for a families waste
The big one or the small one?

The small one - recommended for a one person kitchen.
"If you want to be more exact in choosing the size of your worm box, the general rule is to allow one square foot of surface area for each pound of vegetative food wastes produced per week" www.rirrc.org

but it is very good for breeding fruit flies in summer.
Incorrect. Providing it is being operated correctly the worms are the only large scale living thing in it.

"Worms need to be kept moist but not soggy. If they dry out they will die, or if it�s too wet they will drown. Fruit and house flies can be troublesome if added food isn�t buried in the bedding." www.marlborough.govt.nz
"Fruit Flies: The only problem you are likely to encounter with your worm bin is a fruit-fly infestation--especially in the warmer months. To prevent this from occurring, add food gradually and bury within the pile. Take immediate action if you spot fruit flies; they are voracious reproducers, and if there are one or two at first, there will soon be many more!"
"What can I put in my worm compost bin? Worms Don't Like :- Meat and fish (worms will eat these but they are best avoided as they tend to putrify and attract rats and flies) Rice or pasta Baked beans Cheese Onions Cooked potatoes" http://www.wasteonline.org.uk
"Over the next few weeks, as we add more kitchen scrapings, the worms get to work. I can't resist a peek a couple of times a day to see whether they're all OK, but they mostly stay hidden beneath the kitchen waste. About once a week, I add a handful of lime mix (to help keep the acidity levels down) and worm treat (looks like muesli and helps to add extra fibre).
But I'm not that happy with their progress. Either they don't like what we are giving them, or we are giving them too much. Either way, they just aren't getting through it all and the growing mass of waste starts to rot and stink...
Fruit flies are starting to pester us in the kitchen and to compound matters a rat now seems to be regularly visiting our garden." http://money.guardian.co.uk/ethicalliving
"Question - There are lots of fruit flies in my bin Answer - Fruit flies help the process" www.ecodyfi.org.uk
"What are all these flies in the wormery ? The flies you can see are probably fruit flies, they are smaller than the housefly (about 3mm in size) and have brownish bodies, They wont harm the worms but can be a bit of a nuisance, as when you open up your wormery, a cloud of them appear. Obviously they are attracted to the vegetable matter so eradicating them is virtually impossible." www.wormcity.co.uk
"If you want to control the fruit flies (I'll be amazed if you ever get rid of them completely) then wrap your food waste in newspaper and add it to the bin that way. The flies then have nothing to lay their eggs on as they don't burrow and will decrease in numbers. Of course you could always look on them as extra help as the fruit fly maggots (and the white worms that also appear from nowhere) are eating your waste and therefore speeding the process up a little " www.itsnoteasybeinggreen.org/forum

You are perhaps getting confused with compost heaps.

Not in the slightest.
How do you control them in your wormery?

Next contestant please.

I think it's probably still a bit too soon for you to stop taking the dried frog pills. -- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:25:03 GMT, Guy King wrote:

Out of interest, what needs changing in a fruit-fly ridden compost heap?

The DDT obviously :-) -- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On 2006-11-26 13:13:21 +0000, John Beardmore said:

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.

Precisely. That's because it spends most of its time legislating and regulating to protect its position rather than actually doing somehting useful.

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.

It's a moot point. If I am paying twice as a customer, then none of them are a good reason.

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.

One only has to look in a few places to see a consistent malaise.

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 !

Not really. It means that the local authority can continue to offer services which people buy (not paid for out of council tax) in competition with independent firms. They may even outsource delivery.
This kind of thing happens in many sectors - telecommunications and financial services being two examples.
For example, I can get a credit card from American Express or I can get a British Airways one which is delivered and operated by American Express. Both allow me to buy things and have their terms and conditions. Each offers a different package of benefits and costs.
Supply and branding can be applied in almost any sector. So for example, SITA could offer a range of waste collection services that I might like to buy; or I can buy a different package of services from the local authoriity but operated by SITA.
It just requires a little imagination and application of business principles.

On 2006-11-26 17:05:28 +0000, John Beardmore said:

Fine - let the local council sell a package of waste disposal, vermin control, WHY?
Good question. But why complicate things with further product bundling ?

Because some customers like to buy bundled products...

and let those who want to buy it and those who don't make their own arrangements.
On the other hand, why encourage LAs into an area such as this which further grows their empire ?

Remember that this would be financially separate from the LA because it would not be funded from council tax but by people buying the service or not. Probably it would need to be an independent company, carrying the local authority branding, and with the local authority as shareholder. Profits could perhaps go into local authority coffers, but losses could not be made up from them - any borrowing would need to come from the market.
This would be needed so that there is no subsidy of the LA branded product from public money.
Given that trading environment, which is, after all, how it should be, it would be very interesting to see how small the number of people would become.

On 2006-11-26 13:42:37 +0000, John Beardmore said:

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.

No I can't, because I still have to pay. That is not the ability to opt out.
You might as well say that I can opt out of shopping at Tesco, but even if I do, I still have to pay them �50 a month.

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.

That is not a reason for not offering a choice.
If the business model of the incumbent supplier is sound, he should have nothing to fear.

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.

Yep. That would be a good start, and an easier one than tackling the health service first.

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

If you don't understand that......

On 2006-11-26 13:53:00 +0000, John Beardmore said:

It has nothing to do with emotion
I don't know. The term monopoly has connotations which border on the criminal in many quarters.

This is hair splittingly close to it.

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.

Do I have the option of not paying?

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.

Funnily enough I have......

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.

Sigh... The LA should not be issuing and evaluating tenders where there is money involved. They don't understand the concept of value.

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.

The environmental performance aspect needs to be properly evaluated as well and cut down to what actually, really makes a difference and what does not.

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.

I am. The only exception that I can see as ultimately justifiable is defence. The concept of "free at the point of use" is a mid 20th century lie which is 50 years past its sell by date.

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 arrangement.
Accountability is to customers (as it always should be) and by renewal (or not) of license. Renewal would be based on meeting of *minimum* standards including minimum customer satisfaction scores.

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.

That needs to include the customer, since he is paying.

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/.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-26 15:39:08 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> writes On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:18:55 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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. Pretty much my take, thought tax on residual waste bins might be the next step if the pundits are to be believed.
It's very interesting to read talk of big sticks and things of this nature, when the correct solution is to provide the service that the customer wants to buy.

Depends where you are coming from.

Can you imagine what would happen if Sainsbury's began inspecting peoples' shopping when they enter the store and charging them if there is a box of Tesco cornflakes in their bag?
Yet this is the proposal here.

Hardly.

This amply demonstrates how discredited the whole thing is when it is perceived that there is a need to bully people in order to get them to conform with a questionable objective.

You think it's questionable. Most people accept it. I think we should do the LCA better, but at least the likes of LAs are starting to do that these days.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-26 13:06:57 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
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 !

It annoys me more than troubles me in the sense of paying twice to get good service.

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 !

Not a problem provided that they are instead of rather than as well as council employees and are competent.

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.

Maybe I have high expectations....

On 2006-11-26 13:37:06 +0000, John Beardmore said:

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 ?

Sufficient to be an electoral campaigning issue.

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 ?

That's very hard to split out for an individual service because of opacity and creative accounting.
On a top level, people see increases in council taxes and decreases in what they are getting. Strangely, they are not pleased about that.

On 2006-11-26 23:56:41 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 14:51:22 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 12:14:36 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> 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, ..... If they aren't on the list, residual waste...
Fine. I don't want to waste my time looking up numbers, figuring out which type of plastic,metal or paper product goes where, therefore it all goes in the one bag until this is properly organised.
Well - you are within your rights for the time being.

It will remain my practice until there is either competition or a price reduction

On 2006-11-26 23:55:58 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 14:48:09 +0000, John Beardmore said:
If you wish to convince others then you need to come up with convincing arguments. I don't need to convince anybody other than those who can deregulate the whole charade. They are among the set 'others'.
I prefer to focus on the subset of "others" who can actually change something, quickly and effectively.
I won't hold my breath.

I wouldn't. We are talking about government here.

Alternatively, I can continue to chuck everything into the (one) bin. For now...
In perpetuity.
We'll see...

See what?

This is purely and simply a cost issue and the attempts to dress up as anything else are laughable. The background has already been explained in some detail. Really? More greenwash.
:) You are free to regard it as such. Fortunately for every single one of us, the is no law against malformed opinions !
Coming to any other conclusion is hard to justify.
For you perhaps, but there are plenty of other mind sets out there.

I'm sure that there are, which is another reason that the customer should be able to purchase from a range of suppliers.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-26 15:53:46 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 08:43:14 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said:
I really don't mind what they do. I expect to be able to put out 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." I'm the customer. I pay. I should be able to choose. Regardless of your own political philosophy, you are also a person served by the state.
It isn't an issue of politics

I suspect most things are politics in some regard, and you seem to come at this with a fairly pre formed view, not uncharacteristic of the UK political right. It sounds like a bit knee jerk from the range of things you tell us are "obvious".
It's kind of as if you think you should be preaching to the converted, but haven't noticed that you aren't.

but of value for money.

As though that were the only thing that mattered.

For this you pay taxes.
Way too many taxes. There is relatively little that *needs* to be delivered by the state. Once defence is taken out, virtually nothing.

Apart from the maintenance of all shared assets.

You should be able to change all this within the democratic framework if enough people agree with you. Go on then... ...but don't count on my support.
I wasn't expecting it. However, I am sure that one day people will begin to realise the extent to which they are overpaying for third rate services.

Possibly. Hopefully they'll notice the need to live sustainably too.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On uk.environment, in , "David Hansen" wrote:

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:53:40 GMT someone who may be Alan Connor i3x9mdw@j9n35c.invalid> wrote this:-
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.
Yawn. It is called thread drift.

Great. You've just put a name to a form of bad Netiquette, and seem to think this justifies it.
Notice above that I have changed the subject because the subject has changed.
That's called "common sense" and "logic" and "good Netiquette" and "consideration of others".

What is mildly interesting is which of the various drifts in this thread that you have chosen to comment on.

No. That's not interesting at all. It's utterly irrelevant.
Which doesn't surprise me at all.
Welcome to my killfile, you fucking punk.
There's no way anyone could trust anything that an obviously dishonest person like you posts, anyway. I can just hear you after being called on posting disinformation to win an argument you had obviously lost:
"Yawn. It is called creative license."
Do the Usenet a favor and find something else to do.
And take that Beardmore motormouth with you.
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

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-26 13:34:53 +0000, John Beardmore said:
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 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 ?
A very good question. If they are not going to tell me exactly what I am supposed to be getting for my money, why are they expecting payment for it?

Because, all be they ill specified, they are providing you with various services.

In the absence of such, why do you assume you are entitled to any particular service or level of service ?
Another good question.

So you shouldn't be then.

In regard to refuse collection, they have provided, for decades, collection once a week of anything that I put out for them.

Well, not quite anything.
So essentially, your argument is based on nothing stronger than tradition and convention, the very arguments you seek to rubbish when you sack the town halls of England !

It all goes in bags and bins and that's it.

Or not.

I am not looking for a reduction in that level of service unless they are willing to reduce the price charged.

Doesn't really matter what you are looking for though does it ?

The question of entitlement would go given competition between collection firms with the customer paying directly. Then the equation is simple. If they perform, they get paid. If they don't, they don't get paid. If they don't perform too may times the customer goes elsewhere.

There is another 'equation' about citizens obeying the law and the consequences of not doing.

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 ?
In essence I would prefer the state to be out of the food chain and I will choose a service offering based on competitive prices from several suppliers.

Yes - I think we'd gathered that.

For example, if I want to dispose of a load of building materials today, I can order a skip. Yellow Pages and the internet are full of suppliers offering skips. There are different deals available and I can negotiate the best price and the most convenient delivery and collection arrangements.

Yes though skips differ from bins in that most people are filling their bins most of the time.

It's entirely reasonable that that concept be extended for all rubbish collection

Not really - see above.

in just the same way that other commodity services are purchased. For example, I can buy a mobile phone on a pay-as-you-go basis, or a commitment period. The longer I commit to, the better the deal or product offering.

Mobiles are not delivered once a week in trucks. Not is electricity, gas or land lines. Your analogy fails in the ergonomics of delivery.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

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.