Siting of panels for solar water heating

wrote:

sarah wrote: Andy Hall wrote: On 2006-12-03 11:02:36 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:
I'd argue that sorting your own waste has an important psychological impact.
if you believe so, youre free to do it. If otoh youre quite ill and this is not on your priorities, you need to be free to not do it. Why does nanny always think one course of action is best for all?

Nanny may not (I don't know, because I'm not one and I don't know any). But one course of action may well be best for all. That's why we have laws.

You may find that after a while there is no more psychological benfit in sorting, once youre perfectly well aware of the rubbish situation. There is no reason people ought to spent their whole life in that learning about their rubbish phase.

Oh, I don't know. Some people never learn. As Usenet demonstrates, time and time again :-(

It's *YOURS*. You (well, not you personally, John :-) bought the stuff, and you should have to deal with the results of your purchasing.
.. or pay someone else to do it.
OK. But only if you and those others who want that service pay for it *personally*. You can hire someone to come in and do it for you; you could do so tomorrow if you felt like it. The rest of us who prefer not to waste (ha) our money shouldn't have to pay anything towards provision of that service. I would work hard to vote out any of my representatives who suggested such a thing.
Ah, and thats important. Lots of people dont compost because there is no financial incentive to, and this results in masses of extra rubbish to dispose of and extra costs for us all. Why then do you not vote out people supporting this problem?

Who? My un-elected neighbours? How am I to vote them out -- with a lynch mob?

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.
Packaging is a signficant expense, as transport costs money and packaging takes up transport volume. Manufacturers do not therefore generally waste money on packaging. Its normally there because there is a reason it needs to be. The excess packaging myth results from popular lack of awareness of why its there.

I have never before heard of the 'excess packaging myth'. I'll try to remember not to note excess packaging when I see it next.

If the local authority wants it to be separated then they need to organise that.
If waste recycling were merely some whimsical initiative undertaken by UK local authorities, that would be fair. Unfortunately it's not. Recycling has been forced on them by EU directives
so not even a democractic decision, or even semi democratic.

Depends on your view of democracy. You voted in your MEP... didn't you? S/he voted for/against the regulations when the opportunity arose... or chose not to.

which are in turn a function of general (you may be excluded if you wish) recognition that we're running short of sites for bulk waste disposal
a classic untruth. There are areas of coastline begging for a ring wall of rubble to be laid down in the water and the area filled with garbage. The resulting land would pay us with its value, not cost us.
and that burying valuable resources or sending them up in smoke to generate heat and pollution is a Bad Thing.
What we buy is mostly made from oil and plants. From an energy use point of view, what difference does it make if we burn oil or burn oil derived waste?

That's a remarkably... general generalisation. It's the specifics that cause problems. Some of that oil-derived waste can be remade into useful stuff not easily made from renewable resources. Burning some of that oil-derived waste can generate remarkably toxic chemicals so the flue gases must be cleaned (additional cost/effort). A lot of what's made from oil and plants contains small or moderate amounts of valuable or dangerous metals which are wasted/hazardous if simply discarded in landfill.

I do agree the amount of stuff thrown away is excessive, but once items are no further use and thrown away, turning them back to energy sources, avoiding landfill use, does look like a sensible option.
TDP may change this picture.

TDP?
regards sarah
-- Think of it as evolution in action.

wrote:

sarah wrote: [-] 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.
why cant he have another option, such as not sorting and not recycling? Its not like the recycling option is beyond debate.
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your PoV), those responsible for recycling don't necessarily agree with you. And they're bound by the regulations anyway, so neither their opinions nor yours will influence the outcome.
does that mean they dont have power in democratically deciding this after all?

Yes.
regards sarah
-- Think of it as evolution in action.

wrote:

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.

? We're not just talking about sorting household rubbish.
regards sarah
-- Think of it as evolution in action.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-02 16:43:21 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Yes. Seen any parties offering the unbundling of state services ?
Not yet, but then elections are a little way away yet. Dismantling would be better, of course.

ROFL !

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. Understood - but slightly offended that you are more motivated by lack of choice than the environmental issues.
The point is that unless the market issues of choice are addressed as well as customers being convinced that proposed courses of action are genuine and have value, then they are not going to buy into the environmental issues to the extent that you might like.

I'm not convinced. It's true that people need to understand the issues, but I'm not sure we should offer any services that allow lower aggregate standards of environmental performance than we have now. The 'prize' just doesn't justify it.
For most people, the justification for separation and recycling seem to be a separate issue to 'choice'.

Some people are happy to sit back, pay their taxes and let the state run their lives for them.

The state commits bigger crimes than asking you nicely to separate your waste.

Others do not appear to require very cogent presentation of the justifications for various recycling and environmental actions and the single approach offered to address them.

And others require absurd standards of evidence while basking in their own ignorance.

Some people fall into both categories. I don't fall into either.

Excellent !

That does not mean that I do not think that activities to protect the environment aren't important, but simply that they need to be presented more honestly than they are being

Not sure that they are generally represented dishonestly...

and with the implications as well as the environmental implications considered.

Indeed. Can't argue with that.

Those include the economic effects in all aspects including the burden on the individual.

There is certainly no harm in costing these things, but there is no reason to expect the more sustainable option to be the cheapest one in the immediate term.

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. For most people, it takes seconds and costs no more to do. This makes it hard to sympathise with your position.
I'm not looking for sympathy. I don't agree that it takes seconds.

Well, per item, and sorted as thrown, it takes a fraction of a second per item around here. Then the bags have to go out every 14 days. Say 4 minutes per fortnight ?

There are the issues of assorted containers hanging around the place for weeks

Well - up to a couple of weeks anyway.

and the choice for the individual.

That's certainly an issue that gets you excited, but not most people I meet.

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, It needs to be done accurately for sure, but to criticise the people that prepare the data rather than the quality of the data itself generally seems to be a poor excuse for inaction.
Then it should be made clear by them that the data is inaccurate

Or at least what the limits of accuracy can be.

and that it is not possible to form the positions or implement the policies and procedures arising from them genuinely.

Depends what you mean by "genuine".
Sometimes the differences are gross enough that you don't need more than one significant figure... Usually I suspect...

That then begs the question of why they are being implemented, but of course that doesn't suit the activists.

Or the EU...
:) Fill your boots as far as I'm concerned...

The considerations that should be going into this are which things are worth doing and why and to provide solid evidence.

Agreed.

Then consideration should be given to a range of options that can be offered to the customer.

Yes - though you might take the trouble to see if the customer wants a choice, taking into the account the environmental consequences of the provision of multiple services / service levels.

All the time that the arguments continue to be based on weak data, poorly explained and only one option given, the whole exercise remains discredited.

Well - you bleat about it as discredited and more data would certainly be good, but most people seem happy to accept that there is a case to recycle, and from what I've seen, this seems to be correct, though I accept that there will be regional differences, and sometimes better alternatives.

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. Well, unless you plan to place some value on the environment which you don't seem to, that makes you more or less unable to make any of the sorts of sacrifice that may be necessary to make society sustainable, never mind the contraction and convergence agenda. A pretty mean spirited and selfish stance in my view.
You are making loaded emotional arguments that are saying that

I'm saying that if you can't even be bothered to sort your own rubbish, a low effort, low time commitment activity, you are not demonstrating that you value the environment, or are willing to make much sacrifice to support it.

- unless one participates in a set piece policy and implementation that one doesn't care about the environment. Untrue.

Unsaid, but I expect there is a correlation.

There can be many different ways of achieving objectives.

Indeed. And very few people, me included, will do all of the things that anybody might ever regard as 'green' - I'm not saying that everyone has to do everything, but as waste separation is a low effort activity, most people seem willing enough to undertake it.
What contribution are you making then ?

- unless one makes some kind of sacrifice, society isn't sustainable.

Well - probably not.

The concept of society is questionable

I think people have enough of a handle on it for it to be a useful idea, despite Thatchers deprecation of it.

anyway and contraction and convergence is unlikely to be a realistic goal anyway.

:) We'll have to see. Got any equitable alternatives in mind ?

Sacrifices tend not to happen, but rather a better and more acceptable alternative comes along to replace them.

That's certainly the way it goes if you are well resourced. Unfortunately, as a species, we are neither evenly or well resourced, at least with respect to the demands the technologically developed countries are placing on the planet.
Contraction and convergence of course seeks to address the matter of how evenly resourced people are.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

Alan Connor wrote:

On uk.environment, in , "Alan Connor" wrote: snip
Actually I wouldn't mind at all. i
You do not want to live by a landfill.
Trust me here.
I know exactly what's coming next. This lady is obviously another Beardmore, smart as a whip with the intellectual integrity of a sleazeball politician:
She'll say something like:
"A modern, well-designed landfill is perfectly safe and comfortable to live near."
No. Go spend a day adjacent to and downwind of one.
And those are _very_ expensive to create and maintain.
What does that mean: A whole lot things have to be mined and manufactured and powered to create and maintain them.
Of course, you don't see _that_ part of it.
NIMBY
But since you don't mind living near _all_ of the industry necessary to make your lifestyle happen, you won't mind living near the smelters and open-hearth furnaces and foundries and rolling mills and factories necessary to do the job.
And don't forget the iron ore mines, coal mines, and limestone quarries necessary to _begin_ the process of making steel.
Oh. And the coking plants.
And those landfills are still nothing but toilets. Nature being flushed down the toilet.
snip
Alan

As you're happiest supplying both sides of the argument, I'll leave you to it.
Usenet, eh?
regards sarah
-- Think of it as evolution in action.

Andy Hall wrote:

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.

You're missing the point. Consider increasing transport costs at a time of what is laughably termed 'energy insecurity'.

(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

Hm. I think

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?

Where it is for the benefit of all, certainly. Mind you, despite murder being a bad thing for society in general I think I could make a case for it to be legalised in some circumstances.

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.

I suppose that from your PoV, you are. You are wedded to the outdated notion that competition on the free market <spit> always results in the best of all possible worlds. You should get out more, or at least open your eyes and mind. As regards your demand that you be absolved from sorting your own rubbish for recycling: put your money where your mouth is.[1] If you think there's a market for the service, start a business supplying it. If you're too lazy to do that (or have a niggling doubt that there's insufficient demand), hire someone else to do it. But stop proselytising the free market <spit> while at the same time demanding that the publicly-funded local authority supply your chosen service at no extra charge (as quoted above "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.")
regards sarah
[1] Note my self-restraint.
-- Think of it as evolution in action.

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 07:31:44 +0000 someone who may be usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) wrote this:-

so not even a democractic decision, or even semi democratic.
Depends on your view of democracy. You voted in your MEP... didn't you? S/he voted for/against the regulations when the opportunity arose... or chose not to.

Not only that. The Council of Ministers, if it is still called that, also consists of people who have been elected. All these measures which UK Ministers whine about have been voted for by the Ministers.
-- 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 Tue, 05 Dec 2006 01:24:17 +0000 someone who may be Owain wrote this:-

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.

Have they? Perhaps you could indicate where. If you can't people may conclude that this is yet another of your distortions.
-- 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

David Hansen wrote:

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 01:24:17 +0000 someone who may be Owain owain47125@stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote this:-
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.
Have they? Perhaps you could indicate where. If you can't people may conclude that this is yet another of your distortions.
This may be related to 'It is an offence to remove, pick over etc. waste on

this site etc. etc. blah blah blah.' at bring (recycling) sites - Greater Manchester anyway.

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 08:10:40 +0000 someone who may be usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) wrote this:-

You are wedded to the outdated notion that competition on the free market <spit> always results in the best of all possible worlds.

It is not outdated. Rather it is a very simplistic model, suitable for O Grade economics but not something to rely on in the "real world". Unfortunately some party politicians cling to it, as they don't understand the limitations (and probably prefer something simple).
The model was developed around small family owned and run agricultural businesses in a small rural area. In such conditions there is equal knowledge of the market by all participants (they can see how the crops are doing in the fields and speak to the customers), no divergence between the objectives of managers and owners (they are the same people) and switching products is easy (sow a different crop).

-- 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

The message from Phil Bradshaw contains these words:

This may be related to 'It is an offence to remove, pick over etc. waste on this site etc. etc. blah blah blah.' at bring (recycling) sites - Greater Manchester anyway.

That's true almost anywhere. The trick is to make sure it doesn't apply to you by being friendly and helpful to the staff.
-- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"sarah" wrote in message

sarah
[1] Note my self-restraint.

Has to be a first time for everything :-)
Mary

"sarah" wrote in message

I know exactly what's coming next. This lady is obviously another Beardmore, smart as a whip with the intellectual integrity of a sleazeball politician:
I know sarah IRL and while she is smarter than any whip I know her

intellectual integrity is beyond reproach.
And we don't even always agree :-)
Mary

"Owain" wrote in message

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

When I was a child I loved searching the local mill dump for what to me were treasures.
That was during the war when treasures were few and far between for most of us, everything's relative.
Mary

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:30:34 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

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.

Have you asked for quotes?
Given that there is no impediment to your opting out of the public waste service [1], just as you could opt out of public schooling or health services, then you should be able to get lots of companies who are interested, especially if they are passing your door anyway on the way to industrial customers. I suspect that you will find the quotes are very much lower if you sort the waste into bins for them.
[1] though it would be advisable to select a contractor who will give you the appropriate paperwork, in case your waste is found later scattered around the countryside.
-- 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