Siting of panels for solar water heating

Thanks for your kookfart, Beavis.
-- <article not downloaded:
Info about "Alan Connor"
Alan "The Usenet Beavis" Connor is a good friend of Bigfoot: http://tinyurl.com/23r3f
A couple of years ago he was kidnapped and raped by Xena, the Warrior Princess: http://tinyurl.com/2gjcy
Beavis believes that the MSBlast virus of yesteryear was explicitly targeting him, for some inexplicable reason: http://tinyurl.com/ifrt
Beavis belongs to a UFO cult: http://tinyurl.com/2hhdx Beavis's life in a UFO cult: http://tinyurl.com/24jqm Beavis knows all about network security: http://tinyurl.com/5qqb6 And he's also a search engine expert: http://tinyurl.com/9pjnt
"But if you must know, Alans' name is Bruce Burhans, and he lives in Bellingham WA. To his hippie friends he calls himself "Tom Littlefoot" **Google Tom Littlefoot, Bruce Burhans and "Wildwood"**.
Bruce has some serious mental problems and spends a lot of time as an in-patient at the big mental hospital in Bellingham, when he's not hospitalized, he posts to usenet. In every group he posts to he comes off as some sort of expert in the subject at hand, and when anyone disagrees (and they will, he sees to that) he starts in on his trollery.
Again, Bruce is a true Professional Usenet Troll. It is his entertainment and it's what he lives for."
http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/fga.shtml http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=MQ9uxRYAAAAX2tAp-itjMPAOxLgFwCc3_gRbb05PKyTO4L-MEqh3HQ&hl=en http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/ http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/challenge-response.html http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html#CR http://www.gatago.com/authors_pgs/13650.html http://blog.bananasplit.info/?p=84 http://tinyurl.com/ifrt http://tinyurl.com/3h6a5 http://tinyurl.com/ys6z4
Also in the headers for alan to read.

On 2006-12-04 10:29:24 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:

Andy Hall wrote:
The whole premise was to have a range of services from a range of providers so that people can choose what they want and with local authorities taken out of the financial path between customer and supplier. If you want to continue as you are then that is accomodated.
That's *your* premise, not mine. Making a range of services from a range of providers available means no one can apply economies of scale

Yes they can, because there is the potential to cover larger geographical areas.

(and someone will have to regulate and inspect the suppliers, but that's another issue, sorry, set of costs).

That can be aggregated and outsourced as well

I'm perfectly happy to have essential services provided by a single supplier ultimately responsible to me (the electorate).

Fine. I'm not. Your choice is a subset of mine.

Alternatively, you have the option to select products based on the way that the manufacturer does the packaging. It's far better not to have the packaging disposal issue in the first place.
Quite. But until legislation forces it on the manufacturers, their marketing people, combined perhaps with a host of safety regs and transport requirements, and sheer laziness on the part of some consumers ensures the problem will persist.
There already is huge over-regulation in these areas. Adding more is unlikely to alter the behaviour of consumers who want to buy a) on price and b) on the attractiveness of the packaging.
I beg to disagree. If regulation forces manufacturers to reduce their packaging excesses, consumers will have to buy what's available.

I see. So now we have this interference extending into customer choice as well?

If you choose to jumble it all together to make one large horrid mess, you should certainly have to sort that out yourself.
Why? I pay for rubbish disposal.
And your rubbish is disposed of.
Then I'm happy. I am not happy if I am expected to do part of the supplier's work for nothing. Either they reduce the price or they do the work.
You're not thinking it through.

Yes I am.

No one sorted refuse in the past: you're requiring them to do additional work.

I haven't asked them to do anything. They are doing so as a result of attempting to meet questionable political targets.

Which means the cost of refuse disposal would rise.

Doesn't have to. If you want to buy refuse disposal where you do half of the work, you can.

Are you proposing a two- (or more) tier cost for refuse disposal, with one price for those of us who sort their own and another for those who prefer not to sully their hands with it?

Absolutely. That is one example of a choice and there could be many others.

How much would implementing *that* cost?

That would be a matter for the providers to work out and to factor into their customer offering.

Add the cost of providing sorting facilities, hiring people to do the sorting, working out how to charge for it... gods, they'd have to have *another* collection round for the dirty combined stuff, which shouldn't contaminate the sorted refuse, so they'd need more trucks and drivers... the cost would be (relatively) astronomical.

Nope, I'm afraid that if you don't want to sort your refuse yourself, the only effective solution is for you to hire someone to sort yours before you put it out.

Exactly. This is a service that a supplier could offer or could do it at a central depot. I don't care how they do it - I pay them to do a job.

I'd rather my council tax paid for library books, thanks.

So would I, which is why I suggested taking local authorities out of the financial path between supplier and customer. They add little or no value.

If the total effect of each recycling procedure is positive (including the whole lifetime of the product), then it may be worthwhile. I am not convinced that there are very many actual cases where this applies.
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your PoV), those responsible for recycling don't necessarily agree with you.

That's up to them.

And they're bound by the regulations anyway, so neither their opinions nor yours will influence the outcome.

Regulations can be interpreted and they can be changed. There is no need to slavishly follow every dotted i and crossed t emanating from Brussels unless your name is Blair, of course.

On 2006-12-04 11:28:21 +0000, meow2222@care2.com said:

sarah wrote:
Perhaps like most things we're not looking for the place to draw a line, but rather painting subtle shades of grey across a wide area :-) The competent and concerned get to do more, the rest follow according to inclination, ability and legislation.
surelt the competent have far more useful and important things to do with their time, like try to crack technological problems for one example.
NT

Precisely....

On 2006-12-04 02:35:50 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-29 01:17:13 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes
Absolutely. I would like to buy (or rather continue to buy) a service where the supplier deals with this stuff. I don't want to spend my time on it. If you would like to buy something which involves you in sorting through every item and putting into different places and tracking where it goes, be my guest. You could set up in business, and I would happily be your first customer. That doesn't deal with the notion that sorting at source is the 'least resource' way of getting things sorted.
Then you would be welcome to visit and sort through my dustbin each week.
It would still be more efficient for you to do it.

No it wouldn't. My work time costs considerably more than what it would cost for me to outsource it to a rubbish collection firm.

If I provide you with the service, I introduce overheads like getting your rubbish and me in the same place.
You could walk or use your bike.
From Derbyshire ??

Nope.

It would still be more efficient for you to do it.

See above.

is the one thing you are not. At least not beyond a rather self centred agenda.
I already explained to you that I am quite happy for separation of rubbish to take place, although I am far from convinced of the need and value for all of the different types being done. I am even willing to pay for that to happen - as I already do.
Not sure that you do in fact, but the whole issue is somewhat opaque, at least until you ask for figures which you may or may not get.

Therein lies another issue.

I am not willing to spend my time sorting through all kinds of different plastics, metals, paper and all the rest of it.
I object to being told that there is only one way that all of this can possibly happen and that I shouldn't have a choice of supplier and the ability to agree my own commercial arrangement with them.
I'm sure there are many ways it could happen, but there seems to be one clear winner in terms of environmental performance.

The customer needs to be the winner.

I think that both notions are bogus. If something relies on only being effective if there is no choice and a specific procedure has to be followed, it is highly questionable and in my view a very dangerous road to be traveling down.
:) This is a bit like saying there ought be a choice about ohms law or the ideal gas equation.

No it isn't.

I think sometimes you have to admit that from an environmental perspective there is a clear winner, that it involves a bit of input from you, and that you can't be arsed or want to argue.

It doesn't *require* input from me. It's not an issue of "can't be arsed", but an issue of choice and whether I wish to spend my time on one issue vs. another.

In answer to your other point... no I don'f think that that is a self centred position to take at all; rather the boot is on the other foot.
Well I sort my waste. That doesn't feel too self centred here.

For you, that may be the optimal solution. I haven't said that you can't do it. I would also like my optimal solution.

The point is - I can't make you do it, but I can say why I think it's a good idea, and am free to point out when I think your 'reasons' for not doing it are bogus.

That's your choice. I don't accept your limitation of choice or your approach.

On 2006-12-04 02:49:59 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-28 19:32:11 +0000, John Beardmore said: 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 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.
No it isn't. "Society" is a nebulous term which is orthogonal to democracy.
Not sure about 'orthogonal'.

It certainly isn't in alignment with it.

Democracy, in terms of current use in western Europe is much more closely aligned with freedom to choose.
:) Really ?
I thought it was about things being done in your name within (?) reasonable limits ?

Reasonable being the operative word.

... and this is supposed to be a recommendation? I don't hold social science in very high esteem at all, I am afraid.
Well that's too bad there's a lot of it about.

More's the pity - seems to attract people unable to do real work.

I suppose again it's one of those things that's not perfect, but the best tool we have for that particular job.
There are 'soft' problems that are not well served by solving differential equations.

An excuse for more fluff and imposition on personal freedom resulting from it.

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.
I'm not obsessed with anything in this field - I'm simply highlighting the shortcomings.
Well - you do seem to be concerned with the (?) monopoly and bundling aspects of the problem much more than the waste or environmental issues.

I already told you that those issues are a given as part of the service offering.

or is it basically that anything that looks vaguely green must be 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.
It's curious in that case that so much environmentalist propaganda and proposal chooses to ignore these very points.
Environmental decisions are made to support people and the things on which they depend.

Then they should be given the freedom to make them.

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 am not setting out to provide anything better, so there is little point in making criticisms on that basis.
So deal with the best tool we have then.

I would prefer to make my own choice of tool.

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.
Again. If different operators are offering different services, there is not duplication.
Nor is it necessarily lower aggregate footprint.

Nor does it necessarily increase it.

It may not duplicate services in the same sense that tow bus companies operating on the same route do not duplicate services, but it may travel more road miles and use more man hours even with fewer people on each trip than existing services.

... and it may not.

On 2006-12-04 11:47:57 +0000, Pete C said:

On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 11:30:42 +0000, Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam wrote:
If you choose to jumble it all together to make one large horrid mess, you should certainly have to sort that out yourself.
Why? I pay for rubbish disposal. If the local authority wants it to be separated then they need to organise that.
I doubt it's practical to open bin bags of mixed rubbish and separate all the recyclable stuff.
People in other European countries have no problem with separating stuff for recycling, why should we?

That's up to them.

I bet you could sort all the recyclable stuff from your rubbish in a tiny fraction of the time you spend posting to uk.d-i-y and worrying about ���� tools.

I *could*. I wish to have the choice not to, but for it to be done by the provider, not to be required to do so.

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:39:59 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

I bet you could sort all the recyclable stuff from your rubbish in a tiny fraction of the time you spend posting to uk.d-i-y and worrying about ���� tools.
I *could*.

Why not give it a try then?

I wish to have the choice not to,

At the moment you do.
-- 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 Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:22:26 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

Perhaps like most things we're not looking for the place to draw a line, but rather painting subtle shades of grey across a wide area :-) The competent and concerned get to do more, the rest follow according to inclination, ability and legislation.
surelt the competent have far more useful and important things to do with their time, like try to crack technological problems for one example.
Precisely....

I doubt if even ten minutes a week would make any difference to the solving of problems by the competent, especially as they can still think about these problems as they do the sorting.
-- 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 2006-12-04 13:03:31 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:39:59 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> wrote this:-
I bet you could sort all the recyclable stuff from your rubbish in a tiny fraction of the time you spend posting to uk.d-i-y and worrying about ���� tools.
I *could*.
Why not give it a try then?

Already explained.

I wish to have the choice not to,
At the moment you do.

Also already explained.

On 2006-12-04 13:06:00 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:22:26 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> wrote this:-
Perhaps like most things we're not looking for the place to draw a line, but rather painting subtle shades of grey across a wide area :-) The competent and concerned get to do more, the rest follow according to inclination, ability and legislation.
surelt the competent have far more useful and important things to do with their time, like try to crack technological problems for one example.
Precisely....
I doubt if even ten minutes a week would make any difference to the solving of problems by the competent, especially as they can still think about these problems as they do the sorting.

You are missing the points...

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:12:08 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

You are missing the points...

No. I don't accept them, but that is a different matter.
-- 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 , Andy Hall writes

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.
Actually no, it's not that this is difficult in the final analysis but that it is unnecessarily overcomplicated and inconvenient for dubious value.

Well - you couldn't actually do any meaningful separation and have it any simpler !

I have no idea who a "waste advisor" is. Is it yet another person paid for from council tax with pie in the sky ideas about the rality of what people require?

Well - as you say, you've got no idea.

I would be very pleased to have a conversation with such a person, but it would be along a few simple lines:
1) How is he going to offer me a choice of disposal services?
2) How is he going to reduce the cost?
3) How is he going to deliver the above with less use of time on my part?
If he has good answers for all of the above, then there is a basis for discussion. If he doesn't, then I will want to know who his boss is and who the budget holder is for his position because he isn't doing his job properly and should be removed from the payroll..

Well - he certainly isn't doing what you want, but may well be doing what he's employed to do.
I guess your attitude here suggests and inability to resolve 'what you want', the 'single path of righteousness' and 'statutory duty'.
But you can always go and rant...
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-27 01:43:12 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-26 13:13:21 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 12:51:39 +0000, Huge said:
I do wonder if the State is that marvellous, why it isn't prepared to compete against private enterprise.
Because it knows full well that it can't. The reality is that it doesn't get the opportunity. Precisely. That's because it spends most of its time legislating and regulating to protect its position rather than actually doing somehting useful. This is tosh. Cite one bit of waste legislation on the last decade that "protects the position" of government. Or indeed any at all.
The comment was about the general behaviour of government.

Well - waste is what we were talking about.

The inevitable result is overpricing and poor quality. The only way to defend that is not to have any competition so that people have comparison points. This strikes me as a political belief rather than an observation based on what can be observed in the town hall. One only has to look in a few places to see a consistent malaise. Guess I just look under different rocks.
Perhaps that's where you are going wrong. The malaise is in broad daylight for all to see.

I know what you mean in some departments, but it's not universal. I'm going to support the people in LAs that are worth supporting.

Supply and branding can be applied in almost any sector. So for example, SITA could offer a range of waste collection services that I might like to buy; or I can buy a different package of services from the local authoriity but operated by SITA. It just requires a little imagination and application of business principles. Yes - though I'm not sure what the point is or how it helps.
Sigh.
Didn't your environmental studies course have anything about business principles..?

Well up to a point, but they don't generally encourage the provision of redundant services to gratify and ideological lust for choice where any marginal benefit from the provision of choice is swamped by increasing the environmental footprint of the service provision of a whole.

And calling it a "Home Care" package implies that there is more bundled into it than waste collection. I thought you only wanted to pay for what you used ?
So create "Home Care" bronze, silver and gold products.
Bronze is basic rubbish collection, silver includes collecting additional things such as garden rubbish etc. and gold includes rat catching and wasp nest destruction; or whatever. Just illustrations.

Hmmm... The only people to whom this kind of thing seems to appeal are those who seem to be obsessed by the provision of choice a matter of principle. Still - make it an election issue, and see how far you get. It'd be interesting to see.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:39:59 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

I bet you could sort all the recyclable stuff from your rubbish in a tiny fraction of the time you spend posting to uk.d-i-y and worrying about ���� tools.
I *could*. I wish to have the choice not to, but for it to be done by the provider, not to be required to do so.

Well that's the price of living in a more civilised country, and one where the democratically elected local/national government requires you to play a part.
If you want to choose not to participate, why not exercise your right to move to somewhere like Peru? There an army of homeless children will scavenge from your rubbish at the dump, so nothing is required for you to do.
cheers, Pete.

Pete C wrote:

If you want to choose not to participate, why not exercise your right to move to somewhere like Peru? There an army of homeless children will scavenge from your rubbish at the dump, so nothing is required for you to do.

A small army of uk.d-i-y regulars have expressed the desire to scavenge at the dump in the UK but are prevented from doing so by H&S regulations.
Owain