Siting of panels for solar water heating

On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 11:02:36 +0000 someone who may be usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) wrote this:-

If you choose to jumble it all together to make one large horrid mess, you should certainly have to sort that out yourself.

That implies personal responsibility. It appears that the whiners would rather spend time whining about this "imposition" and dumping their personal responsibility on the council (though no doubt if the council asked for a fair payment to do the sorting they would whine about this too).
-- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In message , sarah writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes
that only demonstrates British political naivety again. Basic political principles tell us that an open private market will deliver more efficiency.
That my be your basic political assumption, but I'm not sure it's universal truth.
North Herts has apparently concluded that the privatised bus services are effectively operating a cartel ;-/

Surely not ??? Shock ! Horror !!
Maybe they have a monopoly ? Oh no ! That cannot be !
J/. -- John Beardmore

"John Beardmore" wrote in message

In message , sarah usenet@colddrake.co.uk> writes John Beardmore wrote:
I'd argue that sorting your own waste has an important psychological impact. It's *YOURS*.
Yes - but where do you draw the line ?
Do you want millions of people composting their own poo ?

I'd be happy with that as long as it were done efficiently.,

You (well, not you personally, John :-) bought the stuff, and you should have to deal with the results of your purchasing. If you choose to jumble it all together to make one large horrid mess, you should certainly have to sort that out yourself.
Yes, though taking personal responsibility like that may be a leap too far for those who want to out-source sharpening their own pencils.

:-)

Like Andrew, our waste is sorted (by me) as it is generated. No problem.
Works for us too.

And us.
Mary

"Phil Bradshaw" wrote in message

Do many householders read enough newspapers to produce a large bundle in a few weeks?
We don't read any. That saves paper, ink, time and being told what to think.
At the cost of being "Uninformed".
There are plenty of other ways to get informed.
You are correct.
There is television.
So far that's two sources of misinformation I can manage without quite happily.

Indeed.
I don't feel deprived because I'm not told (except here) what others think I should know - and not always true at that,
Mary

In message , Mary Fisher writes

"John Beardmore" wrote in message In message , sarah usenet@colddrake.co.uk> writes John Beardmore wrote:
I'd argue that sorting your own waste has an important psychological impact. It's *YOURS*.
Yes - but where do you draw the line ?
Do you want millions of people composting their own poo ?
I'd be happy with that as long as it were done efficiently.,

There's the problem !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 00:16:23 +0000, John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Peter Parry peter@wpp.ltd.uk> writes
Actually there are not. There are merely negative consequences for appearing not to meet them. Hence the new enthusiasm for collecting grass and other garden waste - by doing so the "recyclable" element goes up without doing anything worthwhile.
Can you prove this is the motivation, or is this conjecture on your part ?

There isn't anything to prove, why else would councils which for years had refused to accept garden waste in bins suddenly become all enthusiastic about collecting it as soon as they got targets for proportions of waste processed (not absolute levels). The government set a target to recycle 25% of household waste by the year 2000, the simplest way of achieving this was to collect more compostable material.
"Colchester Borough Council is committed to increasing the percentage of waste materials going to recycling and, as part of that policy, garden waste is now collected "
From a Hampshire document on waste disposal:- "The War on Waste campaign was launched on 18 October 1996...At first, a public relations company, Lee Peck Communications was employed to run campaigns...many effective promotions took place, but the cost was high...War on Waste workshops were set up...they take place every two months and are an opportunity for all the District, Borough and Unitary authority Recycling Officers to meet with County Council Promotions Team members, and the Communications Officer from Waste Services. Current and future promotions are discussed, partners are updated with information about campaigns...in 2000, we started to focus promotions on targeted campaigns to increase recycling through kerbside collections" I'm sure its all very ecologically worthwhile.
"In 2000, we started to focus promotions on targeted campaigns to increase recycling through kerbside collection [of garden waste]...[The] Cabinet member for neighbourhoods, said, "With the support of residents the council has reached a recycling rate of over 16%. We are urging residents to push even harder to increase the amount of rubbish that is diverted from landfill by using the garden waste collections" (Sandwell)

Selling paper to someone who transports it 300 miles and then ships it to Scandinavia is good - not because it achieves anything worthwhile but because it is a tick in the box for another false target.
I guess its merit depends on what the life cycle analysis says. Have you done one ?

No, but our local authority have. It showed the energy (and monetary) cost to be higher than that of producing paper from wood pulp. However it helped meet a recycling target and the fine for missing the target exceeded the cost of the process so it was "worthwhile".

I can't comment on the situation in Ireland because I know nothing about it. All I can say as ever to these tall and dark tails is 'get the evidence together', because no amount of tall tail is going to beat doing life cycle analysis to determine if recycling is worth doing or not.

Of course not - but who is doing the life cycle analysis? Where is the data? Around here the driving force is solely the economics of meeting arbitrary political targets by whatever means possible.

Your locals aside, there are plenty of quantitative ways to analyse the situation and none of them suggest that the current situation is sustainable.

They don't? Where is one with objective data on the subject? Most start with the premise that EU law is cast in stone and meeting that becomes an absolute necessity no matter what the cost. New, clean and efficient incinerators for rubbish disposal may have to be closed in the future because by using them as an effective way of getting rid of rubbish councils will fail to meet completely arbitrary "recycling" targets invented in Brussels and lose funding. This saves the environment?
-- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 09:30:48 +0000, David Hansen wrote:

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:38:32 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry peter@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote this:-
Hence the new enthusiasm for collecting grass and other garden waste - by doing so the "recyclable" element goes up without doing anything worthwhile.
So, are you saying that the decomposition of organic matter in landfill sites is the same as composting the same material?

No, I'm saying that material which previously councils refused to collect at all (even if it was in the normal dustbin) they suddenly became very enthusiastic about collecting once they realised they could bump up their proportion of "recyclables" by doing so.
-- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

In message , Peter Parry writes

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 09:30:48 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote: On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:38:32 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry peter@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote this:-
Hence the new enthusiasm for collecting grass and other garden waste - by doing so the "recyclable" element goes up without doing anything worthwhile.
So, are you saying that the decomposition of organic matter in landfill sites is the same as composting the same material?
No, I'm saying that material which previously councils refused to collect at all (even if it was in the normal dustbin) they suddenly became very enthusiastic about collecting once they realised they could bump up their proportion of "recyclables" by doing so.

If the net result is an environmental improvement, I'm not too upset about it either way.
I don't know enough LA waste staff from that era to know with statistical validity how much of their behaviour change might have been down to simplistic targets as opposed to a directive aimed at reducing organic material in landfill, but for a start, Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste[35] ("the Landfill Directive") might have set a tone for green waste separation:
"Provisions cover location of landfills, water control and leachate management, water and methane emissions control, and protection of soil. The Directive sets targets to reduce biodegradable municipal landfill to 75% of 1995 amounts by 2010, 50% in 2013, and 35% by 2020".
So - it seems to me that they had little choice. The argument from waste staff at Derby seemed to be that they had to start working towards green waste separation more or less as soon as the directive was announced because of how long it would take to get the infrastructure in place and change public behaviour.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 22:03:59 +0000, John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Peter Parry peter@wpp.ltd.uk> writes
Their history is in providing employment for their relatives and other unemployable's.
Not from what I've seen.

I suggest you look particularly at the old labour fiefdoms in South Wales and the North.

Their history is in waste and employing far too many people to do far to little.
There may be some waste. In some quarters there is also much over work. Much like any other community, there will be good people and bad.

Indeed, it is just that the proportions are somewhat atypical in local authorities with a far higher proportion of indolent and inefficient employees especially at management level. As more than one has said to me "To get promoted I need to make no mistakes. It doesn't matter how much good I do - promotion goes to the ones who don't get anything wrong. The simplest way of getting nothing wrong is to do nothing."

Wasn't it a Birmingham LA employee who was picking up tens of thousands of pounds in "productivity bonuses" despite being "off sick" for several years?
Not that I know of. Do you know of one ?

Chap called Ian Smith apparently. A street and traffic light technician who earned �91,000 last year, including a �20,000 bonus, despite being off sick the whole time. His pay is made up of �71,000 basic pay, contractual overtime of �4,718 and stand-by payment of �15,686. All were paid while he was on long term sick leave and all are regarded as pensionable pay. The council's final salary pension scheme would allow an employee earning �91,000-a-year to retire after 35 years service with a lump sum payment in excess of �200,000 and an annual pension of about �30,000.

Don't they have cleaner of street lights on GBP90,000?
I don't know. Can you prove that they do ?

See above. The roadworking force qualifies for hefty bonuses, in many cases amounting to �6,000 a year, paid regardless of performance. One employee was paid �53,000 for painting white lines on the road while another, described as a bollard cleaner, was paid �37,000, including an �11,000 bonus. Three "gully emptiers" received �36,000.
"Only in the crazy world of local government could anyone think it would be a good idea to pay a labourer �53,000 and a social worker �20,000. Yet those were the deals approved by senior councillors.
For years the politicians turned a blind eye to what was going on. Either they were scared to take on the powerful craft unions or, in the case of some Labour councillors, perhaps they truly believed the bonus system could somehow be justified." (The Birmingham Post)

There isn't a LA you could hold up as a model of how to "provide a service".
Nor would I, but nor is there a commercial organisation I would trust to deliver basic services in the public interest.

Who determines what is the "public interest"?

Indeed not - running an efficient, effective service would be a start, there isn't a single local authority in the UK which does that.
None are likely to be perfect for sure, but I don't see any better alternatives on offer.

As Andy has pointed out there are many far better alternatives. They are not on offer because they are prevented from being viable by the tax and service monopoly the local authorities have awarded themselves.
If LA monopoly is the way to go and with the present enthusiasm for renewable energy would you support the LA's taking on responsibility for supplying and fitting all solar panels on buildings using their own workforce and extracting a tax from all households to pay for it? Do you think this would raise standards and lead to a more efficient delivery of a better service? -- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

In message , Peter Parry writes

On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 00:16:23 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote: In message , Peter Parry peter@wpp.ltd.uk> writes
Actually there are not. There are merely negative consequences for appearing not to meet them. Hence the new enthusiasm for collecting grass and other garden waste - by doing so the "recyclable" element goes up without doing anything worthwhile.
Can you prove this is the motivation, or is this conjecture on your part ?
There isn't anything to prove, why else would councils which for years had refused to accept garden waste in bins

I don't think all councils refused it did they ?
But see other sub thread on the effect of the Landfill Directive. They may have had no choice at all ! That makes your "There isn't anything to prove" claim seem disingenuous, or perhaps simple ignorance.

suddenly become all enthusiastic about collecting it as soon as they got targets for proportions of waste processed (not absolute levels). The government set a target to recycle 25% of household waste by the year 2000, the simplest way of achieving this was to collect more compostable material.

It's not simple if you have to compost all that material. I've been on the edge of some of these discussions and the magnitude of the task is quite daunting. Even if you have the space to do the composting and can control methane emissions, eutrophication etc, you still have to work out what to do with a vast volume of low grade compost product that nobody much wants. One suggestion was to burn it... :)
As I recall, the way the various changes were put to use here were as follows:
regardless of the number of old round bins you had before, each household now to have one wheely bin for all waste.
This included green waste which was not separated, and was collected weekly. (This in the 80s.)
Much later (Late nineties ?) we were given a separate green waste wheely bin to be emptied, like the first one, every other week.
After that we were given other containers to use for paper, plastic, glass etc. (Early 200x ?)
At least in this instance I'm not sure that green waste collection was introduced or permitted to meet a target.

"Colchester Borough Council is committed to increasing the percentage of waste materials going to recycling and, as part of that policy, garden waste is now collected "

Well - individuals in Colchester may have seen it as a cynical way out, or may be willing to paint it as such. Others perhaps not or less so.

From a Hampshire document on waste disposal:- "The War on Waste campaign was launched on 18 October 1996...At first, a public relations company, Lee Peck Communications was employed to run campaigns...many effective promotions took place, but the cost was high...War on Waste workshops were set up...they take place every two months and are an opportunity for all the District, Borough and Unitary authority Recycling Officers to meet with County Council Promotions Team members, and the Communications Officer from Waste Services. Current and future promotions are discussed, partners are updated with information about campaigns...in 2000, we started to focus promotions on targeted campaigns to increase recycling through kerbside collections" I'm sure its all very ecologically worthwhile.

The kerb side collections may well be.

"In 2000, we started to focus promotions on targeted campaigns to increase recycling through kerbside collection [of garden waste]...[The] Cabinet member for neighbourhoods, said, "With the support of residents the council has reached a recycling rate of over 16%. We are urging residents to push even harder to increase the amount of rubbish that is diverted from landfill by using the garden waste collections" (Sandwell)

It's hard to comment without seeing the whole document. There may be something to be said for home composting if you use compost, but it's obviously pretty questionable if you don't. But green waste has to go somewhere. If LA are to collect it, it's better separated.

Selling paper to someone who transports it 300 miles and then ships it to Scandinavia is good - not because it achieves anything worthwhile but because it is a tick in the box for another false target.
I guess its merit depends on what the life cycle analysis says. Have you done one ?
No, but our local authority have. It showed the energy (and monetary) cost to be higher than that of producing paper from wood pulp. However it helped meet a recycling target and the fine for missing the target exceeded the cost of the process so it was "worthwhile".

Interesting. Where did they publish it ?

I can't comment on the situation in Ireland because I know nothing about it. All I can say as ever to these tall and dark tails is 'get the evidence together', because no amount of tall tail is going to beat doing life cycle analysis to determine if recycling is worth doing or not.
Of course not - but who is doing the life cycle analysis?

Increasingly LAs for a start.

Where is the data?

Don't know. Have you asked your LA for any ?

Around here the driving force is solely the economics of meeting arbitrary political targets by whatever means possible.

The point is that where the LCA indicates some other approach is better, it should be published and rubbed in the faces of the powers that be to avoid blind stupidity.
Two things can come from this - either recycling can be done better, (not always hard !), or some other process can be examined. It's probably also worth scrutinising the LCA process to see that the scope is right.
I'd be the first to agree that the simplistic use of targets is unfortunate, but that tends to be the only way government can get the process started. It was never going to happen spontaneously !

Your locals aside, there are plenty of quantitative ways to analyse the situation and none of them suggest that the current situation is sustainable.
They don't? Where is one with objective data on the subject?

Well - planet wide footprint calculations make pretty depressing reading, and future energy availability is very questionable for a start. You've no doubt seen reference to the WWF work from this news group ? It seems pretty clear that things have to change massively in terms of resource efficiency and energy efficiency.
What we are seeing with waste and building regulations is only the beginning. While I agree both are very blunt instruments that may result in unintended problems, if they are the only tool on offer I guess we have to tray and make them work as best we can.

Most start with the premise that EU law is cast in stone and meeting that becomes an absolute necessity no matter what the cost.

Research into the environment shouldn't be confused with EU law.

New, clean and efficient incinerators for rubbish disposal may have to be closed in the future because by using them as an effective way of getting rid of rubbish councils will fail to meet completely arbitrary "recycling" targets invented in Brussels and lose funding. This saves the environment?

:) Ah ! This is getting close to my heart. In Derby we had a proposal for a gassification / catalytic pyrolysis / scrubbing / chilling / ICE based EFW plant which was scuppered at least in part by local FoE.
The outcome might have been the right one, (or maybe not), but FoEs methods were to harness the publics dread risk of new technology and dioxins, so rational numerate arguments about LCA, energy and emissions hardly got aired at all, and trying to have that numerate debate at public meetings didn't endear me to quite a large proportions of the green community in Derby.
But don't take my support for numerate debate as unconditional approval.
Conversely, contractual commitments shouldn't be given to gassify waste where better pathways exist for it...
LCA time...
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Peter Parry writes

On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 22:03:59 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote: In message , Peter Parry peter@wpp.ltd.uk> writes
Their history is in providing employment for their relatives and other unemployable's.
Not from what I've seen.
I suggest you look particularly at the old labour fiefdoms in South Wales and the North.

Maybe, but I doubt it's common practice anywhere these days ?

Their history is in waste and employing far too many people to do far to little.
There may be some waste. In some quarters there is also much over work. Much like any other community, there will be good people and bad.
Indeed, it is just that the proportions are somewhat atypical in local authorities with a far higher proportion of indolent and inefficient employees especially at management level. As more than one has said to me "To get promoted I need to make no mistakes. It doesn't matter how much good I do - promotion goes to the ones who don't get anything wrong. The simplest way of getting nothing wrong is to do nothing."

Yes - I think we've touched on risk aversion as a problem earlier. No disagreement here.

Wasn't it a Birmingham LA employee who was picking up tens of thousands of pounds in "productivity bonuses" despite being "off sick" for several years?
Not that I know of. Do you know of one ?
Chap called Ian Smith apparently. A street and traffic light technician who earned �91,000 last year, including a �20,000 bonus, despite being off sick the whole time.

:)

His pay is made up of �71,000 basic pay, contractual overtime of �4,718 and stand-by payment of �15,686. All were paid while he was on long term sick leave and all are regarded as pensionable pay. The council's final salary pension scheme would allow an employee earning �91,000-a-year to retire after 35 years service with a lump sum payment in excess of �200,000 and an annual pension of about �30,000.

OK - seems a bit generous, especially the 71,000 basic which I find very hard to believe. What LA grade is that ?

Don't they have cleaner of street lights on GBP90,000?
I don't know. Can you prove that they do ?
See above. The roadworking force qualifies for hefty bonuses, in many cases amounting to �6,000 a year, paid regardless of performance. One employee was paid �53,000 for painting white lines on the road while another, described as a bollard cleaner, was paid �37,000, including an �11,000 bonus. Three "gully emptiers" received �36,000.

Yes - but equally some department heads with multi million budgets seem to be on about 29k.

"Only in the crazy world of local government could anyone think it would be a good idea to pay a labourer �53,000 and a social worker �20,000. Yet those were the deals approved by senior councillors.

:) Knowing the odd social worker...

For years the politicians turned a blind eye to what was going on. Either they were scared to take on the powerful craft unions or, in the case of some Labour councillors, perhaps they truly believed the bonus system could somehow be justified." (The Birmingham Post)

Maybe. Remuneration is kind of arbitrary at the best of times.

There isn't a LA you could hold up as a model of how to "provide a service".
Nor would I, but nor is there a commercial organisation I would trust to deliver basic services in the public interest.
Who determines what is the "public interest"?

Bloody good question, but it's not the same as shareholder interest.

Indeed not - running an efficient, effective service would be a start, there isn't a single local authority in the UK which does that.
None are likely to be perfect for sure, but I don't see any better alternatives on offer.
As Andy has pointed out there are many far better alternatives. They are not on offer because they are prevented from being viable by the tax and service monopoly the local authorities have awarded themselves.

That they are better is his assertion, yours and most of the political right. Some of us here and most of the political left seem to disagree.

If LA monopoly is the way to go and with the present enthusiasm for renewable energy would you support the LA's taking on responsibility for supplying and fitting all solar panels on buildings using their own workforce and extracting a tax from all households to pay for it?

Depends how many panels it gets on roofs I suspect. There is already considerable government intervention in the market through Clear Skies and the Low Carbon Buildings Program though.
LAs involve themselves too, but rather than paying out of taxes, the procedure has been to screw down supplier and installer profits through a tendering process which has not had good consequences in many respects. It's rather like the NHS with people doing a mixture of private and public work, opting in and out etc. Mostly out...

Do you think this would raise standards and lead to a more efficient delivery of a better service?

Well you tell me. Installer and supplier profits are sacrificed, but quite a few panels go on roofs that otherwise might not. There are pros and cons all around such schemes...
LAs also seem to be doing / supporting some very good evaluation work, e.g. demonstrating the limitations of small on roof turbines. That should raise standards...
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 14:04:30 +0000, John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Peter Parry peter@wpp.ltd.uk> writes
There isn't anything to prove, why else would councils which for years had refused to accept garden waste in bins
I don't think all councils refused it did they ?

Quite possibly not every one, but of the 21 councils I experienced before 2000 none would collect garden waste in bins.

It's not simple if you have to compost all that material. I've been on the edge of some of these discussions and the magnitude of the task is quite daunting. Even if you have the space to do the composting and can control methane emissions, eutrophication etc, you still have to work out what to do with a vast volume of low grade compost product that nobody much wants. One suggestion was to burn it... :)

However that OK - it's another, and separate, target and budget :-)

I guess its merit depends on what the life cycle analysis says. Have you done one ?
No, but our local authority have. It showed the energy (and monetary) cost to be higher than that of producing paper from wood pulp. However it helped meet a recycling target and the fine for missing the target exceeded the cost of the process so it was "worthwhile".
Interesting. Where did they publish it ?

On paper, I found it in the local library months ago. Next time I'm down I'll see if I can get a reference/copy.

Of course not - but who is doing the life cycle analysis?
Increasingly LAs for a start.
Where is the data?
Don't know. Have you asked your LA for any ?

For broadly similar information in the past - "not available for reasons of commercial sensitivity"

Around here the driving force is solely the economics of meeting arbitrary political targets by whatever means possible.
The point is that where the LCA indicates some other approach is better, it should be published and rubbed in the faces of the powers that be to avoid blind stupidity.

That may be why the then nulabor council felt it was commercially sensitive :-)

I'd be the first to agree that the simplistic use of targets is unfortunate, but that tends to be the only way government can get the process started.

Having got it started they show no signs of using anything else but similar crude targets for the future.

They don't? Where is one with objective data on the subject?
Well - planet wide footprint calculations make pretty depressing reading,

Of course - they are designed to.

You've no doubt seen reference to the WWF work from this news group ?

If WWF, Greenpeace, FoE or any of the other propaganda organisations declared it was raining I'd believe them only after I had had the liquid analysed. It would be hard to find a collection of people more thoroughly steeped in dishonesty and misrepresentation than that lot.

It seems pretty clear that things have to change massively in terms of resource efficiency and energy efficiency.

It isn't at all clear, it is certainly clear that we will need more energy but as the only practical solution to that is nuclear energy the propagandists won't have it mentioned. The enthusiasm with which greenwashers ditched their long time saint James Lovelock over the matter is illustrative of that.

What we are seeing with waste and building regulations is only the beginning. While I agree both are very blunt instruments that may result in unintended problems, if they are the only tool on offer I guess we have to tray and make them work as best we can.

That's the religious line, the "every little bit helps" fallacy. If every passenger on the Titanic had been handed a tea cup and told to start bailing they would all have been "doing their bit" but it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the final outcome.

Research into the environment shouldn't be confused with EU law.

Nor, in many cases should it be confused with science.

...FoEs methods were to harness the publics dread risk of new technology and dioxins, so rational numerate arguments about LCA, energy and emissions hardly got aired at all, and trying to have that numerate debate at public meetings didn't endear me to quite a large proportions of the green community in Derby.

Indeed, but that is the standard propaganda approach. Prevent or suppress discussion of facts (which might prove you wrong) and concentrate on the "message" no matter whether it is true or not. Play the man, not the ball and paint all you opponents as uncaring about the environment (and especially the "chilluns future"). -- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 13:36:17 +0000, John Beardmore wrote:

So - it seems to me that they had little choice.

We could always do what every other nation in the EU, and especially the French, do with directives they don't like which is imply ignore them. -- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:52:50 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry wrote this:-

So, are you saying that the decomposition of organic matter in landfill sites is the same as composting the same material?
No, I'm saying that material which previously councils refused to collect at all (even if it was in the normal dustbin)

The only problem with your assertion is that councils did collect garden waste everywhere that I came across, provided that it was in the correct bin or bag.
They did refuse it if it was in the wrong bag, but that was because they only issued a small number of bags in order to minimise the amount of refuse they uplifted.
-- 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 Sun, 3 Dec 2006 14:31:33 +0000, John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Peter Parry peter@wpp.ltd.uk> writes
Maybe, but I doubt it's common practice anywhere these days ?

Ever seen how many Jones's work for Cardiff Council? If that isn't irrefutable proof I don't know what is. Actually it is still common practice - in many places if you want to join the council work force (especially in particular depots) you need to know the right people to talk to.

His pay is made up of �71,000 basic pay, contractual overtime of �4,718 and stand-by payment of �15,686. All were paid while he was on long term sick leave and all are regarded as pensionable pay. The council's final salary pension scheme would allow an employee earning �91,000-a-year to retire after 35 years service with a lump sum payment in excess of �200,000 and an annual pension of about �30,000.
OK - seems a bit generous, especially the 71,000 basic which I find very hard to believe. What LA grade is that ?

No idea - he is a "lighting operative" whatever that is and a full time Trade Union official. Basically he is an electrician maintaining street lamps and changing bulbs.

See above. The roadworking force qualifies for hefty bonuses, in many cases amounting to �6,000 a year, paid regardless of performance. One employee was paid �53,000 for painting white lines on the road while another, described as a bollard cleaner, was paid �37,000, including an �11,000 bonus. Three "gully emptiers" received �36,000.
Yes - but equally some department heads with multi million budgets seem to be on about 29k.

Yes, all of which proves my point about ingrained incompetence :-).

Who determines what is the "public interest"?
Bloody good question, but it's not the same as shareholder interest.

Defining it might make a good starting point.

As Andy has pointed out there are many far better alternatives. They are not on offer because they are prevented from being viable by the tax and service monopoly the local authorities have awarded themselves.
That they are better is his assertion, yours and most of the political right. Some of us here and most of the political left seem to disagree.

So try it and see. It isn't difficult. For instance with your favourite rubbish why not offer a basic service where the householder has to put the effort into sorting all the rubbish into various categories, an enhanced service where they put all recyclables into one bin and the binmen sort it and a super service where the householder does nothing and the binmen sort it all? The services could be priced according to the effort needed to segregate the rubbish.
It won't be done, not because it wouldn't be popular or practical but because it doesn't meet the political propaganda need for "changing attitudes" so that people become ever more supine and accepting of any tax labeled as "green" which will go to fuel the gravy train.

If LA monopoly is the way to go and with the present enthusiasm for renewable energy would you support the LA's taking on responsibility for supplying and fitting all solar panels on buildings using their own workforce and extracting a tax from all households to pay for it?
Depends how many panels it gets on roofs I suspect. There is already considerable government intervention in the market through Clear Skies and the Low Carbon Buildings Program though.

Great success that has been - ask Windsave.

Do you think this would raise standards and lead to a more efficient delivery of a better service?
Well you tell me. Installer and supplier profits are sacrificed, but quite a few panels go on roofs that otherwise might not. There are pros and cons all around such schemes...

Well you would be out of a job for a start. There would be a standard fitting plan and a standard kit for all with a team of half trained overpaid monkeys fitting them. Oh, and a target of 20 installations a day.
The panels would be put up on the most convenient roof (N, S E or W) and pipes smashed through ceilings and nailed to the wall. There would be no controller and the system would leak. It also wouldn't work. Remedial work would be carried out within 3 years.
Have you had any experience of central heating put in by council DLO's?

LAs also seem to be doing / supporting some very good evaluation work, e.g. demonstrating the limitations of small on roof turbines. That should raise standards...

One can but hope.
-- Peter Parry. http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/