Siting of panels for solar water heating

The message from David Hansen contains these words:

In the UK there are charges for uplifts of such things in many areas. These charges have been in place for a number of years and I haven't noticed a rise in them being dumped somewhere.

Certainly have round here. People without cars, without sufficient funds to pay for disposal end up tipping stuff by the roadside. Of course - they do it even when they can afford it/have a car too.
-- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

John Beardmore wrote:

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:
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.

With a free market we run the risk that there will occasionally be one supplier that provides over 90% of the market. With the type of market we have with garbge disposal we run the certainty that there will only be one supplier. And whats worse, we cant choose whether to pay them or not, if you dont pay you land in court.
This is one of the 2 reasons it would be amusing to describe the MS scenario as a risk of the free market. The other is that MS's stranglehold is the direct result of a non-free market.
A non-free market in the US? Very much so, the exorbitantly priced heavily controlled legal market makes it uneconomic for smaller firms to sue MS, uneconomic to put the law into practice. The system is designed so that the written law of the free market will not be followed, it is designed to give the biggest players a legal stranglehold over everyone else.

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'll vote for that.

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.

So tell us, afai concerned youre welcome to that, but why do you feel an urge to dictate what the rest of us do, against our will? Maybe by the very same justification we should dictate what you do, and force you to have the service we want?
NT

"Guy King" wrote in message

The message <sluqm21kg16atemdrtktoelkhilcuo5urh@4ax.com from David Hansen contains these words:
In the UK there are charges for uplifts of such things in many areas. These charges have been in place for a number of years and I haven't noticed a rise in them being dumped somewhere.
Certainly have round here. People without cars, without sufficient funds to pay for disposal end up tipping stuff by the roadside.

How do they get it there?
And how do you know it's done by people without sufficient funds?
Mary

The message from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Certainly have round here. People without cars, without sufficient funds to pay for disposal end up tipping stuff by the roadside.
How do they get it there?

Drag it.

And how do you know it's done by people without sufficient funds?

If you lived round here, Mary, you wouldn't ask that.
-- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"Guy King" wrote in message

The message <456e08df$0$759$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.net from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:
Certainly have round here. People without cars, without sufficient funds to pay for disposal end up tipping stuff by the roadside.
How do they get it there?
Drag it.

You've seen 'em?
LOL!

And how do you know it's done by people without sufficient funds?
If you lived round here, Mary, you wouldn't ask that.

That doesn't answer my question though ... >

The message from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Drag it.
You've seen 'em?
LOL!

Yup - and had words with 'em about it. I've also made loads of trips to the dump for neighbours who otherwise have no way of getting rid of bulky items.

And how do you know it's done by people without sufficient funds?
If you lived round here, Mary, you wouldn't ask that.
That doesn't answer my question though ...

I did say that some was and some wasn't. I certainly know that one lot was 'cos my kids play with their kids and I know how the household is run.
-- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-29 00:33:29 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
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. It's called the view of the market. I'd rather the views of the consumer be heard. That doesn't always involve imposing a market on them.
So would I. The most effective way for that to be measured is by where they choose to spend their money.

Well - for the time being I choose to spend mine as I have been in the past, and would rather resources were not wasted duplicating that provision.

Some people may not voice it in these terms, but this is the essence of a commercial transaction. It could be represented as that, but it abandons the notion of government acting in the collective interest, and ignores any notion of social transaction.
Governments acting in the collective interest is one of the biggest lies of history and could be a fourth in the series "The cheque's in the post". Governments act in self perpetration and little more.

Seems to me they do both.

Social transaction - if there is such a thing, which I doubt - is not relevant to a deal being made for the collection of rubbish from my perspective.

:) You are no doubt entitled to your perspective.

If you would like to introduce a social transaction element into your agreement, then hopefully you can find a supplier to include it. Quite what that would be - who knows.?

There is one there already I think. That you have no sense of it comes as little surprise.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

Owain wrote: 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
Maybe because there are far more useful things to have convicts doing than this. Labour is worth money.
If recycling of sorted goods is going to work, companies buying the materials need to either: - sort them, at their own cost,

So I want aluminium and I have to buy mixed waste ?

- or accept payments from customers willing to pay for their rubbish to be sorted (this happens in the commercial/industrial garbage business) - or accept ready sorted garbage from those customers wiling to spend their valuable time sifting their garbage.

Well - it doesn't take long.

At present the nation is expected to put a sizeable amount of hours each week into rubbish sorting at home, for free, when the companies that get the sorted goods should be responsible for this.

Hours ?!?

If it really were a good value thing to do with ones time, this would work fine economically. The truth is it doesnt, it doesnt even begin to. Which means rubbish sorting is a very poor value way to spend ones time and labour.

Takes seconds round here !

This has a direct negative environmental impact, as those hours could be spent doing something genuinely useful, some of which things would inlude the things you want to see happen, such as installation of insulation, solar hw, working in socially positive jobs and so on.

Works for us !
I think one of the things that Peter Harper at CAT said a few years ago re waste separation was
"Quit while you're ahead !".
He explained this to mean
Separate everything that can quickly be separated.
Don't waste time on things with no residual value that nobody wants.
Works for me.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

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'll vote for that.

OK - good.

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.
So tell us, afai concerned youre welcome to that, but why do you feel an urge to dictate what the rest of us do, against our will? Maybe by the very same justification we should dictate what you do, and force you to have the service we want?

I have no more right to dictate than anybody else does. What we have been talking about is what we WANT, and the axioms that underpin our relationship with the environment and government.
But I do have a right to express what I think the priorities should be in making a determination, which I do. I contribute my thoughts freely to the debate in the hope, rather than expectation, that they will help what I regard as 'common sense' prevail.
I freely acknowledge that acting on my wishes would deny you access to uniformed sycophantic bin men and other perks of the market, but the very act of establishing a competitive market is also likely to undermine the environmental outcomes I seek, even if the service we have now continues to be available, so simply putting a market in place may deny me, and others, my preferred outcome.
I don't think there are any overriding 'rights' here. We should all have a right to make practicable choices, and we should all have a right to live sustainably as far as is practicable. In the technical sense of the word, this is a classic 'messy' problem.
I seek to address it by asking people the real value of the outcome they seek, and the real cost of the alternatives.
All of the above said, if somebody wants to put up a detailed LCA case for a market based solution that indicates real net environmental benefits, I'm up for examining it.
I can certainly see the problem with f@pou services, but if I felt the urge to do something about bundled services and f@pou, (pronounce it 'fat poo' if it helps !), I'm sure I could find an example whose resolution would bring real benefit, rather than one which might well not.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

Andy Hall wrote: On 2006-11-27 22:40:25 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
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 shows just how politically clueless our population has become.

Or that alternative bin collections are seen as really underwhelmingly dull and / or pointless !!

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.
Does that mean you would like to be able to decide what others get instead of them deciding?

No - it means that I want to point out that I think, (as do some others !), that there are other important things.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-30 02:20:16 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-29 00:33:29 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
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. It's called the view of the market. I'd rather the views of the consumer be heard. That doesn't always involve imposing a market on them.
So would I. The most effective way for that to be measured is by where they choose to spend their money.
Well - for the time being I choose to spend mine as I have been in the past, and would rather resources were not wasted duplicating that provision.

That's fine. However, provision is not being duplicated (because of different services) and if there are more vehicles required likely to be smaller ones anyway.
Obviously, one would hope that you wouldn't seek to reduce the choice of others who do not have the same order of priorities in terms of the impact of additional choices of supplier.

Social transaction - if there is such a thing, which I doubt - is not relevant to a deal being made for the collection of rubbish from my perspective.
:) You are no doubt entitled to your perspective.

Of course.

If you would like to introduce a social transaction element into your agreement, then hopefully you can find a supplier to include it. Quite what that would be - who knows.?
There is one there already I think. That you have no sense of it comes as little surprise.

Oh I do. For the moment, the supplier is offering the service that I want (although his choice is limited) to one thing which is not good). Secondly, I would prefer to negotiate my own deal rather than letting the LA do so for me and applying its markup.

On 2006-11-30 03:01:53 +0000, John Beardmore said:

I have no more right to dictate than anybody else does. What we have been talking about is what we WANT, and the axioms that underpin our relationship with the environment and government.

Ultimately, these are the axioms that underpin most things. If people experience too many things not to their liking, they will take action. This begins with choosing to buy elsewhere, including behaviour at the ballot box. It also includes people ignoring stupid legislation, as we are starting to see.

But I do have a right to express what I think the priorities should be in making a determination, which I do. I contribute my thoughts freely to the debate in the hope, rather than expectation, that they will help what I regard as 'common sense' prevail.

It may seem like common sense to you, but I would prefer to take the a la carte menu and to choose which things I believe to be worthwhile and leave aside things that I don't. I am not interested in people who can't come with definable cases for actions and outcomes attempting to run my life for me.

I freely acknowledge that acting on my wishes would deny you access to uniformed sycophantic bin men and other perks of the market, but the very act of establishing a competitive market is also likely to undermine the environmental outcomes I seek, even if the service we have now continues to be available, so simply putting a market in place may deny me, and others, my preferred outcome.

That's fine, but then you will understand that others will not hold that view and will make decisions not to co-operate with schemes where no choice is on offer.

I don't think there are any overriding 'rights' here. We should all have a right to make practicable choices, and we should all have a right to live sustainably as far as is practicable. In the technical sense of the word, this is a classic 'messy' problem.

The issue here is around the definition of practicable. For me, that strongly includes the amount of time taken and the economic factors. Any of these things have to pass those two tests first. If they don't, then for me they are not practicable.

I seek to address it by asking people the real value of the outcome they seek, and the real cost of the alternatives.
All of the above said, if somebody wants to put up a detailed LCA case for a market based solution that indicates real net environmental benefits, I'm up for examining it.

That would need to be done by a set of impartial and disinterested people, and one is quite unlikely to do so. I would count environmental benefit as anything that results in more *sensble* recycling provided that there are choices in how that is implemented in terms of the impact on the customer. I am not going to buy into anything that doesn't meet the economic and convenience factors first.

meow2222@care2.com wrote:

Owain wrote: 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
Maybe because there are far more useful things to have convicts doing than this. Labour is worth money.
If recycling of sorted goods is going to work, companies buying the materials need to either: - sort them, at their own cost, - or accept payments from customers willing to pay for their rubbish to be sorted (this happens in the commercial/industrial garbage business) - or accept ready sorted garbage from those customers wiling to spend their valuable time sifting their garbage.
At present the nation is expected to put a sizeable amount of hours each week into rubbish sorting at home, for free,

Em. It doesn't take long to separate waste at domestic level especially if said waste is limited by avoiding taking home too much in the first place.

when the companies that get the sorted goods should be responsible for this.

And will pay (far less) for mixed feed stock accordingly. Or go elsewhere.

If it really were a good value thing to do with ones time, this would work fine economically. The truth is it doesnt, it doesnt even begin to. Which means rubbish sorting is a very poor value way to spend ones time and labour.

If rubbish comes 'mixed' then yes: diminishing returns kick in.

This has a direct negative environmental impact, as those hours could be spent doing something genuinely useful, some of which things would inlude the things you want to see happen, such as installation of insulation, solar hw, working in socially positive jobs and so on.

Take 10 busted metric pallets, dismantle same, build (a) 1 compost bin of ~1 cu metre capacity to suit available space, (b) temporary storage shelving to tidy up the workshop and (c) have enough boards left to make a cold frame using glass from a scrap double-glazed door.
:-)

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:27:21 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wrote this:-

those customers wiling to spend their valuable time sifting their garbage.
Well - it doesn't take long.

Indeed. I think the main thing needed is a little organisation, just like many things.
As Phil said the main thing is to reduce the amount of packaging and the like taken into the house and reuse some of it. After that it depends what the scheme is on one's area. If there is a scheme where staff sort a mixed box at the kerbside then anything recyclable just goes into a suitable container, to be taken out when convenient. If there are separate bins then it makes sense to have separate containers (or a multi- compartment container) corresponding to each bin, which are taken out as necessary. The containers can be canvas or string bags hung on hooks, some sort of box or even just little piles somewhere convenient.
Properly organised one has the item in one's hand and instead of throwing it in a residual waste bin one throws it in the appropriate container.
Taking things out to put in a box or bin beside the residual bin is no more difficult than taking things out to put in the residual bin. Wandering past a recycling point and dropping things in can generally be organised as part of another trip.
If some people really think this is too difficult or takes too long then perhaps they should ask their local waste advisor to give them some advice.

-- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:07:55 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wrote this:-

That shows just how politically clueless our population has become.
Or that alternative bin collections are seen as really underwhelmingly dull and / or pointless !!

I think that is the case. I imagine if it was considered a good idea then the Tories (either the pre 1997 ones or the post 1997 ones) would have extended the market idea from business to dwellings. That is what was done with electricity and gas, but I see no sign of it being considered for waste.
People are free to stand for election on a manifesto which includes such a change, should they think it would be popular with the voters. If they get enough votes then they would presumably try and put it into action. I don't think there would be many votes in it, but the public would decide.
-- 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