Siting of panels for solar water heating

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message

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.

Cardboard and toe nail clippings will compost.
Mary

The message from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Cardboard and toe nail clippings will compost.

It's where a lot of ours go. Hair from hairbrushes, too, out of nesting season. During nesting season it just gets shoved in a tree and the birds bear it away triumphantly.
-- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On 2006-11-28 00:50:00 +0000, John Beardmore said:

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 ?'

That question would be "Which services would you like, for how long are you willing to commit to a deal and is price X acceptable?"

On 2006-11-28 01:31:48 +0000, Owain said:

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

Exactly. A better solution than ASBOs.

On 2006-11-28 02:46:16 +0000, John Beardmore said:

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 ?

If I am asking a question then no issue. If that question is in relation to lack of performance in respect of paid for services, then they may well feel under pressure from assertive questions. On the other hand, feeling under pressure is a good way to improve performance because it adds a sense of urgency

On 2006-11-28 00:36:07 +0000, Frank Erskine said:

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:17:50 +0000, Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam 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.

Well no. The specific question was about shared areas. That's different to the requirements for personal space i.e. there is a definable individual involved in the latter case.

Huge wrote:

On 2006-11-26, John Beardmore wrote: In message , Huge Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes 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.
I was thinking of
Huge <huge@axalotl.demon.co.uk
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse." The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
Yep, that's me.

So it's the infamous Hugh Davies!! I used to hang out on uk.transport about 10 years ago, and Huge was busy back then baiting the environmentalists. I stopped participating some time ago, due to the repetitive nature of the forum, but recently have seen a few cross posts on uk.railway. These got me wondering whether Huge was still around - great to see that you are! Have you mellowed at all over the last 10 years? I sure hope not ...

On 2006-11-28, Brian wrote:

So it's the infamous Hugh Davies!!

'Fraid so. "Infamous", eh? Gulp.

I used to hang out on uk.transport about 10 years ago, and Huge was busy back then baiting the environmentalists.

They haven't changed much. You only have to see David Hansen's posts here to see that. If they'd only get some education and stop treating environmentalism like some kind of bloody religion.

I stopped participating some time ago, due to the repetitive nature of the forum,

Nothing's changed. Especially Doug Bollen.

but recently have seen a few cross posts on uk.railway. These got me wondering whether Huge was still around - great to see that you are!

Why, thank you.

Have you mellowed at all over the last 10 years? I sure hope not ...

Mellowed? Hell, I've got worse.
Regards,
H.

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

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-28 00:50:00 +0000, John Beardmore said: 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 ?'
That question would be "Which services would you like, for how long are you willing to commit to a deal and is price X acceptable?"

:) Well - that's your view.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , David Hansen writes

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?

I did notice a certain amount of fly tipping of old furniture in the Wicklow mountains over the summer.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

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.

Well - remarkably there seem to be more than two of us in this thread, and WE, can each judge the tone of your posts.

Is it you who is incapable of working things out for himself or are you simply assuming that to be the case for others?

I'm not having any trouble and I doubt anyone else is.

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

Again - this is your view, and I don't get the feeling that it's widely shared !

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.

Oh there...

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.

Let's see what happens when you have the software, circuit diagram and the components list.

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 the other hand, I guess somebody who listens to his own rhetoric rather than the experts in the field may be short of a number of clues.
Anybody remember the slogan
Q: "What do you call a man that ignores medical advice ?"
A: "Kenneth Clark !"
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

"Guy King" wrote in message

The message <456c1f04$0$762$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.net from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:
Cardboard and toe nail clippings will compost.
It's where a lot of ours go. Hair from hairbrushes, too, out of nesting season. During nesting season it just gets shoved in a tree and the birds bear it away triumphantly.

Same here, and every couple of months when I cut my hair the compost benefits. Spouse is bald, most of the hair from him is from his long, curly beard.
A child was thrilled yesterday to see Santa riding a scooter!
Mary

-- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"John Beardmore" wrote in message

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-27 18:21:13 +0000, John Beardmore <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk 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.
Well - remarkably there seem to be more than two of us in this thread, and WE, can each judge the tone of your posts.

From the start.
It occurred to me that this thread would be even longer if two posters didn't live in my BS file.

Is it you who is incapable of working things out for himself or are you simply assuming that to be the case for others?
I'm not having any trouble and I doubt anyone else is.

Nor am I.

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
Again - this is your view, and I don't get the feeling that it's widely shared !

Not hereabouts.

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.
Let's see what happens when you have the software, circuit diagram and the components list.

Ooh, yes!

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 the other hand, I guess somebody who listens to his own rhetoric rather than the experts in the field may be short of a number of clues.

Perhspa he knows of a better 'ole ...

Mary

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-27 01:52:56 +0000, John Beardmore said:
:) People generally have problems with their own anti social :):)traits. It's not pretty to threaten people, but ultimately most behaviours are constrained by social norms which are expressed as law, and law in enforced through physical force and if necessary violence. Ah. so now we are bringing in the nebulous concept of "society".

It's closely linked to the notion of democracy.

Previously, communists used terms like "the people" as a nebulous label to justify the unjustifiable. I'm happy to leave pop political theory to those who give a damn.
The next step is to say that all are equal, followed by the tagline that some are more equal than others. Cheap shot and somewhat off the point.
Really. I thought it was rather to the point in the context of phrases like "antisocial traits" and "social norms", both of which reflect back to the era when such phrases were de rigeur.

The notion of norms is pretty well understood in social science circles and most others that care to think about it. Recognising that there are such things as norms doesn't automatically get you a job in the Ministry of Love.

What is new here is that what is considered normal waste disposal practice is being changed at one end by the likes of FOE, and at the other end by the likes of the EU, DEFRA, EA, DTI, LAs etc. In the end they will exercise the law against individuals who don't conform. To the totalitarian state?
:) That's a matter of opinion. Too close in some ways for sure.
Which is precisely why this needs to be highlighted for what it is.

It needs to be highlighted for all the things that it is and is part of. There is more to it than a political structure, however obsessed with the structure you are.

or is it basically that anything that looks vaguely green must be OK. Well, I've got an MSc in environmental decision making so I have put a bit of thought into this stuff.
I see. Does this include consideration of individual freedom of choice and the economic impacts of environmentalism? I don't mean the impact of the economy on the environment.

All of the above in fact. Wouldn't be much use otherwise.

As they are (albeit very badly drafted and implemented in some respects) matters of sustainability and survival, I'm not. Where things do *genuinely* relate to sustainability and survival, agree with you. However, I need to be convinced of that for each proposed measure. That is not happening - there is still way too much fluff. And also the proof is fairly mathematical and quite local specific.
How convenient.

Well - you'd prefer we expressed it as madrigals ?

So we have a one size fits all solution to a set of problems that vary by geography.

Or alternatively recycling is worthwhile more or less everywhere, though I think Lerwick justify their incinerator because shipping to the mainland for recycling doesn't generally make sense, and the incinerator emissions blow 'harmlessly' out to sea.

This is a great way to convince people of the case for environmental measures.

Well - it's not performance art !
Bottom line is, you are asking if and how the case for recycling can be demonstrated.
I'm telling you there is a technique, that allows impacts to be quantified, and the best you can do is say
"How convenient".
Well - yes it is. Nothing's perfect, but you don't seem to have anything better, fond of assertion and allegation though you are.

I guess that this part is kept quiet, though.

:) Well no political party would publish the output of a Wizard LCA in the party manifesto, but did you ask the question ?
In my experience, LAs that do use LCA are rather proud of it.

I also don't accept that disposal has to be done in a prescribed way by a local authority with me acting as front end contractor on their behalf and I have explained why Indeed, but I find your view rather unconvincing.
I'm not too bothered about that.

I would expect no less.

It seems to be born of bloody mindedness rather than any real desire to change in the best way possible.
The best way possible meets the objectives while bringing the customer with a choice of solutions. It doesn't come out of presenting one solution and compelling the customer to do that one solution in a particular way or else.

Well choice isn't a bad thing except where providing multiple services results in redundant duplicated equipment and journeys.

That's why I made the comment to you earlier that the environmental lobby continually shoots itself in the foot. I don't think it does. There's none so blind.... As those that do not look. So apart from your LA, have you actually researched this issue at all ?
Why would I care about what other LAs do?

To learn about the situation you claim exists would be a good start.

That's a matter for them, and I have no influence at all over it. I don't have a lot of influence over mine, but I do have some as a customer and as a voter.

Well your criticisms of LAs seem to be applied globally, and the changes you seem to be requiring extend beyond politics never mind your LA.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

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 wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
So where's the contract that says what the state will do for
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.

Well no - and it blows away your assertion that:
"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".

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.

Indeed.

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.

That there is more than one issue has also 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.

Well - it seems odd to me unless you have a quite astonishing number of cans !

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.

Also for 'access', 'relief of poverty', and 'facilitating change'.
Yes, F@POU services do distort markets hugely, but maybe sometimes it's worth it ?

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.

:) Well - you said "lost cause".

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.

Maybe - but do people think it's worth changing ?

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.

Let's not leap to conclusions...

If there is a way that "most people" want to do aomething, then I will automatically look for an alternative.

Then rant about democracy and claim we should all want it ?

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?

Well - if the duplication of provision and road miles are reduced, quite possibly.

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

Noticing the difference indeed.

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.

But I for one don't want sycophancy from bin men - I want to know that the waste I give them, sorted where appropriate, is disposed of with the minimum practicable environmental impact, even if that's not necessarily the cheapest option.

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

Oh there there ! Has somebody taken your toys away ?

and demonstrates the need for instant dismissal on grounds of gross misconduct for anyone involved in it.

ROFL !!
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore