Siting of panels for solar water heating

sarah wrote:

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

That sounds ideal at first sight, but the question is, whose opinion do we take on what is most beneficial? Nannying legislation means taking the decision out of the hands of business managers that know their business, and design engineers that know theirs, and putting it into the hands of a government body that as often as not really doesnt.
Let me give you a classic example of this. Nannying legislation says new builds must have an 'energy efficient' light fitting, and that it must only be able to take cfl tubes. So theyre put into all new houses, despite the fact that customers dont want them, and there is a real lack of fittings suited to the domestic market. Most house buyers object to the butt ugly thing and remove it once the inspections are over. So instead of this policy producing energy savings, it is merely producing a waste of time, energy and money all round. Then to take it further, this failed policy is not repealed but continued! A policy that wastes energy and costs money is continued.
Thats nannying. Now we can blame the customer if wanted, but in a freeish market it would be immediately realised that the solution was to develop fittings the customers liked. Under the present system, despite significant sales volume, there is a lack of incentive to do so, as theyre already selling just fine.
Lets compare what happens with failed policies in the private business sector. Either the business corrects it, and they try to, or they cease being a service provider, and those that come closer to what the buyer wants stay in business. The motivation to do well is much larger there, as the individual either prospers or loses it all.

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.

lol, I'll vote for that, in theory. Trouble is our state would pick the wrong ones. US has a fair bit of legalised killing.

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 You are wedded to the outdated notion that competition on the free market 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.

It doesnt, but nor does any system. Oh for a perfect system. but there really is none. A freeish market at least gives strong incentive and works relatively well. I dont know why or in what way you consider it outdated. Contrary to what someone else suggested, todays free market economy is not comparable to nor assumed to be like the original model of farmers and cottage workers. The understanding of freeish markets moved beyond that a long time ago.

You should get out more, or at least open your eyes and mind.

Welll I'd like to hear what works better and why. I cant promise to agree though.

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.

this is a classic debate technique that isnt logically valid. There is no real need for any of us to engage in business to have a valid case in debate.
NT

sarah wrote:

meow2222@care2.com> 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.

I dont believe thats why we have laws, nor do laws dictate one course of action for all. There are many examples where the law says some people can do x, some cant, and there are laws where what you can do depends on the individual circumstances.
Each of us has our own level at which we function, in the sense that some have achieved more than others. Eg some are trying to make ends meet while some put their energy into quite different things. A bit like a maslow scale. no, its gonna take too long, its really another thread. Lets just say different people have different things they can best do with their money.

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 :-(

Right, which makes it pointless for them to be forced to sort.

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?

no, the people in power that dictated the present system. In a freeish market everyone woud have an economic incentive to compost, so suddenly it would become far more popular.

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.

Are you trained in packaging design? Do you fully undertand why what is done is done? If not, are you in the best position to know when its excessive and when its not?

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.

Sounds like another thread's worth there too. I dont accept the public decided on it, but would take too long to talk it through.

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.

yes, and I think thats not hard to deal with. Anything of value can be collected separately, when its of sufficient value to justify so doing. In reality there isnt much like that, maybe ali cans is all.

Burning some of that oil-derived waste can generate remarkably toxic chemicals so the flue gases must be cleaned (additional cost/effort).

yes, I believe thats been dealt with though, and I'm told incineration does make economic sense.

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.

yes, though recovery still isnt worthwhile. Discard them in ocean landfill and you have less toxin problem and more end value. Incinerate them and you have some return instead of cost. There are already separate procedures in effect for hazmat.

TDP?

a real must read story, and might yet change the whole picture. Eg: http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/zwaste2.html
NT

Owain wrote:

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

is that truth or excuse though? How hard is it to sign a preprinted waiver? How hard is it to buy electrical goods after showing evidence of being in the trade? Etc.
And why is laying out the possibly saleable rubbish so much more hazardous than it is when its done at jumble sales, second hand goods shops and so on? I'm far from convinced.
NT

Guy King wrote:

The message <457563d5$0$763$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.net from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:
When I was a child I loved searching the local mill dump for what to me were treasures.
A friend and I in the mid 70s used to retrieve Flymos from the dump and make 'em work again. Made a nice income from that which was very welcome to a couple of teenagers.

this kind of thing is educational and gets kids into subjects at which they later do well. So now its illegal, and we have armies of bored clueless kids instead. Thanks Nanny.
NT

David Hansen wrote:

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.

doesnt sound like comprehension to me
NT

meow2222@care2.com wrote:

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. is that truth or excuse though? How hard is it to sign a preprinted waiver?

A waiver *might* indemnify the tip operator against a civil claim but would not prevent the criminal prosecution under H&SAWA.
In any activity in the workplace there has to be a risk assessment:
Is there a risk of injury or death to the public if they are allowed on the tip? -- Yes.
How can that risk be reduced? -- Don't allow public on the tip.

How hard is it to buy electrical goods after showing evidence of being in the trade? Etc.

Apart from H&SAWA there is all the legislation around only conveying 'waste' between licensed waste handlers. What happens to the 'waste' when it becomes 'useful' again I don't know.

And why is laying out the possibly saleable rubbish so much more hazardous than it is when its done at jumble sales, second hand goods shops and so on? I'm far from convinced.

Jumble sales and the like are done by people wanting to sell things for money. Council tips are run by councils.
Owain

David Hansen wrote:

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 01:37:41 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
Sems to be about 1 per week, and the fines are not minor slaps on the wrist either. ISTR �400 for a single item of junk mail in with the waste paper.
I find that hard to believe.
I suspect the OP is referring to the following
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,,1925467,00.html
=================================================================== Environmentalists yesterday criticised a council for prosecuting a man who put the wrong kind of rubbish into a recycling bag. Friends of the Earth said the case of Michael Reeves, who has been ordered to pay �200 for putting a single sheet of paper in a bag reserved for glass and tin, could put others off recycling.
Mr Reeves, from Swansea in south Wales, said he would not attempt to recycle again. He was backed by other residents who said the council ought to be putting more resources into keeping the streets clean rather than chasing people who were trying to do the right thing.
The saga began when a recycling team spotted a sheet of paper in a green bag outside Mr Reeves's flat - a bill with Mr Reeves's name on it. He denied he had put it in the green bag but was fined �100 with �100 costs by Swansea magistrates.
Friends of the Earth Cymru, the Welsh arm of the environmental group, said the prosecution sent out the wrong signal. Spokesman Julian Rosser said: "I feel a case like this can really damage recycling.
"If someone persistently puts the wrong things into the wrong bags, and is warned, then we would support prosecution." But the "one-off offence was very, very minor." Mr Reeves, a 28-year-old local sports journalist, said: "I am very angry. I still deny putting that piece of paper in the bag." Swansea council said most people managed to sort their waste. "It's not rocket science," said a spokesman. "The bags are labelled clearly."
=================================================================== and bizarrely, some people want these folk to have a monopoly on their

waste services!
NT

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-12-04 16:48:31 +0000, John Beardmore said:
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.
You must spend a lot of time looking.

or not looking a all, and just assuming

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.
Not in touch with reality then...

Its odd how many put whatever theyre taught on a pedestal. The 'well..' paragraph above describes some real naivete.

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.

I suspect many will opt for the 'wet paper medal' home care package. This should cut costs, staff use, vehicle miles, energy use and pollution greatly.

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.
I think it will....

I dont believe it'll happen any day soon, as recycling is a vehicle for taking more of our money, using it to pay for services that companies then profit from. And that games been going on for along time. The Olympics is another example.
NT

On 6 Dec 2006 04:18:20 -0800 wrote :

A friend and I in the mid 70s used to retrieve Flymos from the dump and make 'em work again. Made a nice income from that which was very welcome to a couple of teenagers.
this kind of thing is educational and gets kids into subjects at which they later do well. So now its illegal, and we have armies of bored clueless kids instead. Thanks Nanny.

Now we have Flymos (like the 15-month old one in my garage) which are destined for the dump because they are unfixable.
-- Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On 6 Dec 2006 04:21:07 -0800 someone who may be meow2222@care2.com wrote this:-

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.
doesnt sound like comprehension to me

Doesn't it.
Well, people can draw their own conclusions from that.

-- 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 2006-12-06 12:49:16 +0000, meow2222@care2.com said:

Andy Hall wrote: On 2006-12-04 16:48:31 +0000, John Beardmore said:
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.
Not in touch with reality then...
Its odd how many put whatever theyre taught on a pedestal. The 'well..' paragraph above describes some real naivete.

Quite amazing. I've always considered education to be about finding out things for one's self, questioning them and sifting the important and influencing from the dross. The last thing that I have felt it to be was being fed a package of goods and treating it as sacrosanct. I suspect that that is one reason for my not wanting to buy unquestioningly into mindless ecobabble for the sake of it.

On 6 Dec 2006 02:58:01 -0800 someone who may be meow2222@care2.com wrote this:-

There appear to be rather a lot of assumptions behind your remark.
Any extra container than the main black binbag one has to take up more space, it cant fail to.

You are assuming that people have a "main black binbag". Next contestant please.

Outside the "junk" should be inside suitable containers, a bin or box, rather then bags.
Maybe you should tell our LA.

They don't provide a bin or box for recyclables? Where is this council?

And how do these "fill up with neighbourhood rubbish"?
people put junk in them

Really. How do they manage this?
-- 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 6 Dec 2006 04:39:40 -0800 someone who may be meow2222@care2.com wrote this:-

and bizarrely, some people want these folk to have a monopoly on their waste services!

There is only one "minor" flaw with your assertion. Councils don't have a monopoly. Unlike the situation with gas and electricity bills some years ago any householder can contract with any supplier to deal with their waste.
However, as with roads, education, defence and many other things the householder will not get a discount if they don't use the government provided service.
-- 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 2006-12-06 13:54:50 +0000, David Hansen said:

On 6 Dec 2006 04:39:40 -0800 someone who may be meow2222@care2.com wrote this:-
and bizarrely, some people want these folk to have a monopoly on their waste services!
There is only one "minor" flaw with your assertion. Councils don't have a monopoly. Unlike the situation with gas and electricity bills some years ago any householder can contract with any supplier to deal with their waste.
However, as with roads, education, defence and many other things the householder will not get a discount if they don't use the government provided service.

So a monopoly.
Private armies seem not to be appreciated for some reason, so let's leave that one aside.
However, if I use a toll bridge or toll road I pay for them, otherwise I don't.

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 12:23:54 +0000 Owain wrote :

Jumble sales and the like are done by people wanting to sell things for money. Council tips are run by councils.

Jumble sales are run by organisations who aren't worth suing. There's a certain breed of lawyer who make money suing over uneven pavements: they would have a field day with people injuring themselves (for real or otherwise) on things got from the dump.
-- Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk