Siting of panels for solar water heating

On 2006-11-27 07:48:05 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-27 01:46:14 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
That's fine. If they want to have waste separation, either they need to offer it as part of their service or to deregulate the market, or preferably both.
:) I doubt they see it that way.
I don't suppose they do, which is more prima facie evidence as to why there needs to be substantial culling in LAs.
To you maybe.

I did say pria facie evidence.

So why do you think that it is acceptable for a monopoly to force its paying customers, against their will, to take less service for more money and do half the work for the supplier into the bargain? Because behind the scenes there is a lot more going on to dispose of multiple waste streams in a more sustainable way.
There is another part of the problem. Weak justification, so make the discussion "behind the scenes" and inform the customers of the outcome after the decisions are made.
Any organisation will inevitably do much of its work out of public view, but that doesn't make the justification weak.

It does mean that it should be subject to scrutiny even more than if the whole process were public. Considering the incompetence, it is even more imperative.

There is more to it than end user convenience.
Unless there is end user convenience, it won't happen.
:) It already is.

Comprehensively and completely ]

On 2006-11-27 12:17:47 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:18:17 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> wrote this:-
I haven't ever noticed either on expanded polystyrene, for obvious reasons.
What obvious reasons? It's plastic.
The question is whether it's one of the types of plastic that is currently recycled in a particular area.

Fine. So if the local authority wants to differentiate over this issue, it can get it's employees sifting through these bottle.

Bottle tops sometimes have a 2 on them.
Sometimes, sometimes not.
So? If they have a two on them they go in with the other plastics for recycling, if they don't they go in the residual waste bin. Hardly difficult.

The issue is not whether or not it is difficult, but customer choice, payment made and service (not) supplied.

On 2006-11-27 21:03:24 +0000, meow2222@care2.com said:

Guy King wrote: The message <s46lm2lseksc094o7h09usbdr2sf3vprri@4ax.com from Peter Parry contains these words:
I'm sure other strategies will be used as appears to be happening where LA's are trying this. They include dumping rubbish by the side of the road and the favourite - using someone else's bin. The entertainment potential for playing "swap the rubbish" and sitting back to watch officious officials and irate householders rant at each other has not escaped some children.
If they introduce "charge by weight" round here I for one will be sneaking off to the Chief Exec's house with a couple of concrete slabs to secrete in his bin.
Not that we produce a lot of waste - the amount of non-recyclable stuff is about five kilos a week, but I know damned well the sort of mess that'll result if it's adopted.
Yes, its pretty unworkable. Whos are those 20 bags on the pavement? Who knows.
NT

As an illustration of how anal the whole thing becomes; some years ago, some friends living in Switzerland had a run in with the local authority in regard to putting out of bins at a specified time. The regulation was that it was not allowed to put out the trash more than 6 hours before an appointed collection time. For their particular road, this was at 1500 on a Tuesday. Unfortunately, most people left for work at around 0730 so there was no means to meet the silly rule.
The local authority, in their infinite wisdom decided that this was not acceptable and so enlisted the police to help. Of course, the question arose as to whom did the rubbish belong. So they enlisted the help of the local police who were then instructed (by their commander - who was really impressed) to look through the rubbish sacks for envelopes to see who the owner had been.
Some hours later, my friends arrived home and found a summons to appear in court - subject matter, Abfall.
Once the story came out, it hit the press and the headline was "ABFALLPOLIZEI!!! " plus a load of photos of cops in Marigolds.
The following week, the residents mixed enelopes among their bags, shredded them or flushed them down the bog.
The week after, the regulation was dropped.

On 2006-11-27 12:30:03 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 01:37:08 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> wrote this:-
So why do you think that it is acceptable for a monopoly
That assertion has already been shown to be bogus. You, or any other householder is free to contract with any authorised company to have your waste removed. You won'y get any money back from the "monopoly", as is the case with many such things.

Then it is wrong and should be changed. This is not an acceptable practice.

to force its paying customers,
That assertion has already been shown to be bogus. So far no householder has been forced to use the recycling facilities. That may change in the future, but it hasn't happened yet.

I am sure that there will be a strength of feeling to keep it that way. All that is then needed is to take local authorities out of the food chain.

against their will,
A subset of the customers will undoubtedly never be reconciled to the change, but they are undoubtedly balanced by those who welcome it. The vast majority are not bothered and appear to have made the change with little trouble.

Numbers? Survey? Did you ask?

to take less service
That assertion has already been shown to be bogus. People are still getting at least weekly collections. However, what is collected is not one general waste bin every week.

Not acceptable. All rubbish should be collected every week.

for more money
Many things are forcing increases in Poll Tax.

Err... poll tax was abolished, unfortunately.

However, the changes to waste collections are not what is making most of the increases.
and do half the work for the supplier into the bargain?
"Half the work"?

The local authority is being paid to provide a service and that is what it should do.

On 2006-11-27 15:23:19 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-27 02:12:01 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Well again, your only concern is that the 'customer' gets what they want in the short term. No. I think that the customer (and it is customer and not 'customer' - he *is* paying) But he is not the only one paying, nor necessarily the best informed of those that are.
Other people in the LA area are as well and should also be able to have the choice of where they buy.
It is the thin end of a very long wedge to suggest that because somebody allegedly doesn't know what they are doing that they shouldn't have choice. The next step is that they shouldn't have the vote either. While that may be true, unfortunately it isn't how democracy works.
Yes it's a wedge, but we justify legal boundaries around all sorts of stupidity from 'didn't know there was that much vodka in it' drunk driving to 'society is to blame' burglars and muggers. What makes you think that living unsustainably should be exempt ? It's hardly a victimless crime after all.

Nobody said anything about living unsustainably. The issue is around unproven cases and lack of freedomn of choice of supplier.

Bottom line is we don't have a very good democracy at the best of times, and the 'great and the good' of Europe and Westminster are slowly tying you up in environmental law, which on balance is probably a good thing.

No it isn't

should get what they want in the medium and long term as well. Even if that results in minimum spend and environmental damage.
I said that the minimum standard should be that required to meet the justifiable requirements at the time.
Well - that can only be judged when the minimum standards are agreed.

and should be judged by the paying customers.

Whatever is done, even if everything on the far horizon of what environmentalists might like for Christmas is done, there will still be environmental damage. The only way to completely reach that point would be the removal of the entire human race from the planet. Even then, other species would continue to have an impact on the environment unless you want to take the view that it only matters if humans did it.
Not really - my main concern is that we don't bugger things up so badly that a large proportion of the human race will be wiped out. Things are marginal enough for a lot of us as it is.

That is not an argument to throw a lot of untested, undemonstrated and unproved theories at people, and hoping they will stick, just in order to be able to claim that something is being done.
Completely bogus.

Ergo, we will always be in a situation where there are compromises and perfection will never be achieved.
Agreed. Perfection isn't a sensible goal here. Not falling flat on your face is however.

Fine. As long as each measure is properly presented and justified and a range of choices for execution provided, there is no problem,

Given that, it doesn't make sense to talk in terms of minimal spend and environmental damage. It doesn't matter how much money is spent, there will always be some.
To go on living we have to live sustainably.
When we can sustain the human population and the ecosystems that support it, talk to me about spending less on it.

When there are demonstrable things that can be done that genuinely do achieve something, give the customer a choice and an incentive as opposed to bullying; talk to me about spending something on it.

Therefore it comes to a set of tests of whether or not given initiatives and their execution are justifiable or not and whether people are willing to pay to address them.
Well OK, but it is amenable to Life Cycle Analysis so that can be determined area by area,

.. with measures initiated by area.

In some specific instances, it may be interesting to recycle. I am far from convinced that it is across the range of things currently in the frame for so doing.
So do the sums. If you can prove that there is no environmental benefit, I can be on your side. None of us are doing this for fun.

Until there is an incentive and a choice, I won't be doing it at all.

I suspect it is the case that waste collection is most efficiently achieved by a single provider, and all the evidence I know of indicates that separation of waste streams at source is more efficient than later separation.
That depends on your measure of efficiency.
Indeed.
I think that unless the customer finds the whole package satisfactory in the ways that matter to him, there is no point in talking about efficiency as measured by how much diesel the bin lorry uses etc.
I have to disagree. There are stake holders other than the waste producer.

There are. However, he who pays should have the largest influence.

While I think that that may be important, I am also concerned about the efficiency of spending my time messing around sorting through rubbish, looking up what it is, and putting it into whichever box. That takes an amount of time and I don't think is an efficient use of that.
It does take some time, but as been pointed out, not a lot.

I don't think that it's acceptable at all. That is my choice.

You can talk about big sticks if you like - I can live with that.
Even if this continues to extend into other areas?
It's already in other areas.

Even more reason for massive LA staff reductions.

I believe that it's possible to achieve the *genuinely important* objectives without any of those trappings, by encouraging people to do them and giving them choices as to how. Maybe - I'd like to think so, but I suspect you are too busy looking for excuses not to do anything to actually find out what it is best to do.
On the contrary. In respect to rubbish collection, if I choose to spend ages to sort through rubbish, put it in boxes and tie it with a green bow then I should be able to do that. If OTOH, I prefer to chuck everything into one bag, have someone collect it and they sort through it (for extra cost if they like), then I think that it's perfectly reasonable.
I thought you were objecting to additional cost ?

I am objecting to additional cost without choice. If I can choose between a number of private sector product offerings and not pay the public sector, then that's fine.

The outcome is the same, and I get to choose whether I want to spend my time doing this, or paying someone else to do it. This is not a difficult commercial concept.
Indeed, but the outcome may not be the same in the general case because the environmental impact of separating process and its staff may be significant.

I am interested in the service I get for the price I pay. General cases are irrelevant. The refuse collector can figure out his logistics/

That's fudge. It's always possible for the government no longer to provide something and not to pay for it. De facto, that has been done with dentistry. They simply haven't been honest about it.
:) Maybe, but if there were an explicit contract, it would be much harder to keep them on track.
Oh I disagree. It is accountability to the individual customer and competition that does that really quickly.
Like all the ISPs in the world are on track ?

Which track?

Enough relatively independent academics have looked at separation and recycling in a fairly sophisticated way to justify it I think, but it's not always easy to know which of the plethora of implementation options are the best. Hmm... As soon as "academics" start to look at something, we know that we are in trouble. Well - you may not like them, but I don't see any indication of better ideas from you, or of any detailed analysis that goes beyond your telling us what's obvious [to you].
It's not a case of whether or not I *like* them, but one of how connected are they to the real world.
If they want to run mathematical models and analyses and whatever else they want to do, that's fine. However, their output should be taken in the context of a data point, not the definitive criterion for decision.
Well, do you have any better data points your self ? I'm not sure that we should count hunch and bluster.

So why are you arguing on this basis?

On 2006-11-27 18:21:13 +0000, John Beardmore said:

No, but they seem to go on about it more. More to the point, they tend to be offended by state provision.
I see. I wouldn't say that state provision offends me. I just see it as largely unnecessary
Well - we can each judge the tone of your posts I guess.

I don't know where this "we" comes from. Is it you who is incapable of working things out for himself or are you simply assuming that to be the case for others?

After that, it starts getting pretty thin in terms of shared resources and things that actually *need* state involvement.
Yes, though there is probably much to be said for education, public health provision, health and safety, environmental protection the police etc...

Out of those, the only one that marginally may be worth doing in the public sector is policing and even that is marginal

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. Of course. But only when how to do so is presented honestly and properly. Indeed, but a 'dirty protest' doesn't really move the debate forward much.
Who said anything about a dirty protest?
Failure to separate waste, stone slabs in the CEOs bin, (OK, I know that one wasn't yours...).

Failure to separate waste is not a dirty protest. This is more moral bullying, which I am afraid won't wash.

If it is possible to sort mechanically, or otherwise *some* different types of plastic or metal, then I am sure that given thought and investment, other types can be as well.
I doubt it will be cheap, and it's likely to be energy intensive.

Let's see what happens when the drongos in the LAs are taken out of the food chain.

Costed alternatives and honest detailed criticism of assumptions and data might.
It might well. I'm not in the business of waste disposal and pay others to deal with it.
So why don't you listen to them ?

Just because I buy a service from somebody does not imply that I have to listen to what they suggest or demand that I do. Very much the reverse in fact.

On 2006-11-27 22:40:25 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-27 01:32:59 +0000, John Beardmore said:
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. Whether I want them from that supplier or not? That's certainly the way it is now.
Which is very wrong. There is no other transaction where the supplier takes money up front, doesn't tell the customer what he will get for it and then expects the customer to be grateful that he got anything.
Apart from most vague bundling deals, ADSL MAX etc, and all the other 'free at the point of use' services supplied by the state.

All of which is mid 20th century bullshit which is way past its sell by date.

Imagine what peoples' reaction would be if that happened in a shop. They wouldn't go there again. Yet they seem to think that it's perfectly OK when the state is doing it because it's "free" I worry about the level of IQ of some people if they can't see past that one.
Yes - but as we've said, this goes way beyond waste, and for that matter, way beyond state provision. Look at the way Microsoft used bundling against its competitors.

That's one of the risks of the market.

pup' not a service.
Did I have a choice of buying from them or not?
No, but nor do you know what you bought, despite your assertions that the terms should not be varied.

The issue is over choice of supplier, as has already been explained.

You don't even know I suspect, what you are being charged for waste, not the full details of the service provided on your behalf.
It really doesn't matter. The LA does not *need* to be in the business of collecting money to spend on waste disposal on my behalf. I can sort it out myself, thanks.
Possibly.
Funny that you can be arsed to do that, but not to toss cans in a sack.

Not really. I would look at price and service offers from a number of suppliers once or twice ay year and then they handle the rest of it.

That is nothing to do with tradition and everything to do with incompetence and unnecessary bureaucracy. No - it's based on tradition and your assumptions.
lack of competition is not an assumption, it's a fact.
Well - lack of 'free at point of use' competition anyway.

Lack of competition. The concept of free at the point of use is an umbrella terms for wastage, incompetence and inefficiency.

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 ? If I am paying, yes it does. It also seems to matter to a goodly number of people in the district. Good on them. You can take on the EU together then.
That's a lost cause.
Guess you're stuffed then !

Not really. It rather depends on what is implemented and how.

It's entirely reasonable that that concept be extended for all rubbish collection Not really - see above. There is no reason at all why not. Well - I can see one, so your inability to see one doesn't mean none can exist.
In this case one would have to scratch around a very long way to come up with a reason as to why there should be a de facto LA monopoly on domestic rubbish collection.
My guess is that most people are pretty satisfied with the present set up and really can't be bothered to find a better alternative.

Can't be bothered results in bad service and over payment all round. State run service provision is riddled with it.

There will always be a vociferous few, but where as I've met lots of people that want LAs to do better, you are the first one I've met who wants them out of the loop except in a licensing and policing role like they are already.

That's because I think laterally, outside the box and individually. If there is a way that "most people" want to do aomething, then I will automatically look for an alternative.

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. Ergonomics of delivery? What kind of greenspeak is that? Look it up if you're struggling. It's not particularly a green thing so it won't hurt you.
Google doesn't reveal anything meaningful. Do you mean some form of wheels to move the dustbin around so that the dustman (sorry refuse collection operative) doesn't put his back out or what?
There's an element of that, but it's to do with the design of the whole system, to deliver the best effect, for the least effort and resource.

.. and best value for the customer?

The fact remains - mobiles aren't driven from user to use periodically on trucks. The analogy is, to be charitable, weak.

Sigh. Wooden thinking.

The important thing is tht the customer receives the service that he is paying for.
:) No - that's only AN important thing. There are others.
It's the first and most important if customer support is important. Of course, if the approach is going to be one of riding roughshod over that and imposing legal remedies, it probably doesn't matter.
Point is that customer support isn't the only thing that's important, and all the development that's gone into the waste industry has been about handling and processing separate streams, not making the customer feel important.

Which is precisely why it is wrong an will fail unless there is choice or compulsion.

In fact what a lot of LA body language seems calculated to imply, is that making all this waste is a serious PITA.
Seems fair... ...If tactless...

Not fair at all and demonstrates the need for instant dismissal on grounds of gross misconduct for anyone involved in it.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:37:33 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-11-27 12:30:03 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 01:37:08 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> wrote this:-
So why do you think that it is acceptable for a monopoly
That assertion has already been shown to be bogus. You, or any other householder is free to contract with any authorised company to have your waste removed. You won'y get any money back from the "monopoly", as is the case with many such things.
Then it is wrong and should be changed. This is not an acceptable practice.

to force its paying customers,
That assertion has already been shown to be bogus. So far no householder has been forced to use the recycling facilities. That may change in the future, but it hasn't happened yet.
I am sure that there will be a strength of feeling to keep it that way. All that is then needed is to take local authorities out of the food chain.

against their will,
A subset of the customers will undoubtedly never be reconciled to the change, but they are undoubtedly balanced by those who welcome it. The vast majority are not bothered and appear to have made the change with little trouble.
Numbers? Survey? Did you ask?

to take less service
That assertion has already been shown to be bogus. People are still getting at least weekly collections. However, what is collected is not one general waste bin every week.
Not acceptable. All rubbish should be collected every week.
for more money
Many things are forcing increases in Poll Tax.
Err... poll tax was abolished, unfortunately.
However, the changes to waste collections are not what is making most of the increases.
and do half the work for the supplier into the bargain?
"Half the work"?
The local authority is being paid to provide a service and that is what it should do.

Are we also taking into account waste disposal from communal areas such as official council "tips", streets and unofficial sites such as suburban country lanes? In view of all the dumped stuff such as abandoned cars, this must amount to a not insignificant proportion of the waste disposal budget. Who's expected to deal with this stuff? Clearly the police don't give a toss about unofficial dumping. It would be a tad tricky to hard-charge for this :-)
-- Frank Erskine Sunderland

On 2006-11-28 00:12:15 +0000, Frank Erskine said:

Are we also taking into account waste disposal from communal areas such as official council "tips", streets and unofficial sites such as suburban country lanes? In view of all the dumped stuff such as abandoned cars, this must amount to a not insignificant proportion of the waste disposal budget. Who's expected to deal with this stuff? Clearly the police don't give a toss about unofficial dumping. It would be a tad tricky to hard-charge for this :-)

I think that one can look at which organisation has nominal responsibility .
For roads etc. it is the Highways Dept. typically, so they bear responsility for maintenance including dropped litter. They can buy the cleaning from an approved supplier of their choice.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:17:50 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-11-28 00:12:15 +0000, Frank Erskine frank.erskine@btinternet.com> said:
Are we also taking into account waste disposal from communal areas such as official council "tips", streets and unofficial sites such as suburban country lanes? In view of all the dumped stuff such as abandoned cars, this must amount to a not insignificant proportion of the waste disposal budget. Who's expected to deal with this stuff? Clearly the police don't give a toss about unofficial dumping. It would be a tad tricky to hard-charge for this :-)
I think that one can look at which organisation has nominal responsibility .
For roads etc. it is the Highways Dept. typically, so they bear responsility for maintenance including dropped litter. They can buy the cleaning from an approved supplier of their choice.
So the bill comes back to - the LA! Whichever way you look at it, Joe

Public is really paying, rather than the responsible individual who sorts (or not) his "personal" waste into cardboard/polystyrene/polypropylene/ toenail clippings or whatever.
-- Frank Erskine Sunderland

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-27 12:17:47 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said:
Bottle tops sometimes have a 2 on them. Sometimes, sometimes not. So? If they have a two on them they go in with the other plastics for recycling, if they don't they go in the residual waste bin. Hardly difficult.
The issue is not whether or not it is difficult, but customer choice, payment made and service (not) supplied.

Your view.
A better question might be
'What is it reasonable to ask of the people who create the waste ?'
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

Andy Hall wrote:

The question is whether it's one of the types of plastic that is currently recycled in a particular area. Fine. So if the local authority wants to differentiate over this issue, it can get it's employees sifting through these bottle.

I don't see why they can't put people on 'community service' doing this sort of thing.
Owain

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-27 07:48:05 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Any organisation will inevitably do much of its work out of public view, but that doesn't make the justification weak.
It does mean that it should be subject to scrutiny even more than if the whole process were public. Considering the incompetence, it is even more imperative.

I don't think there is generally any great culture of secrecy. I ask them things and they tell me.
Maybe you put their backs up ?

There is more to it than end user convenience. Unless there is end user convenience, it won't happen.
:) It already is.
Comprehensively and completely ]

Well - it's a good start when you think where we were a decade ago.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 27 Nov 2006 13:03:24 -0800 someone who may be meow2222@care2.com wrote this:-

Not that we produce a lot of waste - the amount of non-recyclable stuff is about five kilos a week, but I know damned well the sort of mess that'll result if it's adopted.
Yes, its pretty unworkable. Whos are those 20 bags on the pavement? Who knows.

Is the Republic of Ireland now covered with rubbish as a result of householders paying by the weight of bins?
-- 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

"Owain" wrote in message

Andy Hall wrote: The question is whether it's one of the types of plastic that is currently recycled in a particular area. Fine. So if the local authority wants to differentiate over this issue, it can get it's employees sifting through these bottle.
I don't see why they can't put people on 'community service' doing this sort of thing.

It demands a level of intelligence which not everyone has :-(
Mary

Owain