Siting of panels for solar water heating

In message , Andy Hall writes

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.

Road miles...

(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

To consultants... :)
Or cheap dweebs.
Maybe the LA should inspect the outsourced inspectors and make sure they inspect all the things that ought to be inspected ?
But seriously, what does aggregation mean here ?
If there are three companies to inspect, you still have to inspect three companies. Unless 'aggregation' means that somehow you don't.
Or do you mean that only some statistical indicators get inspected rather than the practices of individual companies ?

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.

And your point is ?

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
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?

:) Fine by me !

If you choose to jumble it all together to make one large horrid
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.

Behind you !

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.

And attempting to deliver better environmental performance.

Which means the cost of refuse disposal would rise.
Doesn't have to.

If you think you can justify opting out.

If you want to buy refuse disposal where you do half of the work, you can.

Half ?

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.

And I care about the environmental impact of how the job is done.

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.

Well as ever - get numerate then we can form our own opinions when we've heard both sides of the story.

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.

Quite so.

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.

Indeed, but you may not like the direction in which they are changing.

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

:) In one or two respects, 'I wish' !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , sarah writes

Andy Hall wrote:
[1] Note my self-restraint.

:) Noted !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , sarah writes

Mary Fisher wrote: "sarah" wrote in message
[1] Note my self-restraint.
Has to be a first time for everything :-)
Damn. Believe me, I've got a brilliant riposte to that, I just can't post it for posterity. My vaguely Victorian upbringing triumphs over free speech yet again...

Oh do tell !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-05 08:10:40 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:
Consider increasing transport costs at a time of what is laughably termed 'energy insecurity'.
I don't accept that the approach does result in increased transport costs.

Not have you made any case to support the notion that it wouldn't.
Rather you have denied it rather unconvincingly and hidden behind the notion that you 'weren't really making a proposal at all' when pushed...

Certainly moving volumes of so called material for recycling half way around the planet does.

So stick in the LCA and measure the outcomes.

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.
Never mind about "society". It's a bit of a problem for the victim as well.

:) Yes, but 'society' has so much longer to dwell on it !

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.
Not outdated at all. The free market has stood the test of time.

Seems to be wanting in a number of areas, particularly around environmental exploitation, degradation and equity.

Ultimately, regulated environments don't work because people will find a way around them if they deem them to be too intrusive.

And unregulated ones do what's cheapest and 'hang the consequences'.
So what's the right compromise ?

But stop proselytising the free market <spit
.. are you going to stop proselytising the restricted one?

:) You started it !

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.")
At the moment they do provide the service that I am paying for, although not particularly well. At the point that they wish to reduce it by requiring an additional action on my part and not on theirs, it is a reduction in service.

Or an additional activity, depending on your perspective.
In the sense that sorting is a requirement that is imposed neither by you or the LA, neither of you is trying to reduce the service provided by the other - this argument is just emotional fluff. If you want to deal with the imposition, take yourself off to the EU and exercise your democratic right.
Rather, one of you is being asked, and may ultimately be required, to sort waste, and this is generally held to be something that is least resource intensive when done at source.
It is ultimately up to you and the LA to decide how this might be accomplished, but either way, you will pay, by the commitment of time or money, if, or perhaps when it becomes a legal requirement.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

sarah wrote:
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 don't have any market incentive to improve environmental practice.

and design engineers that know theirs,

But may not know much about the environmental issues their work raises.

and putting it into the hands of a government body that as often as not really doesnt.

Yes - here's the rub. The 'happy quango' may well know b.all() about the industrial processes. The knack is gluing the two together.

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,

Really ? Which part of building regs is this ?

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.

Maybe, but I wonder how many stay in service because people don't bother to change them ?

Then to take it further, this failed policy is not repealed but continued! A policy that wastes energy and costs money is continued.

Not totally convinced it has failed...

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.

So do the regulations require that the fittings be butt ugly ?

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.

Which is great in those areas that markets address well. The environment has generally not been one of them.

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.

Good ! Agreed !

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

Fair point, and not doubt all of our perceptions are influenced by the things we care to see optimised.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

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.

Possibly a fair point in limited circumstances.

You may find that after a while there is no more psychological benfit in sorting, once youre perfectly well aware of the rubbish situation.

But it's not done for educational / psychological benefit.

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?

Possibly because bad composting is not going to help the environment.

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.

Yes - though one of the reasons is that it contributes to product advertising. That doesn't seem like a great justification from the environmentalists perspective.

The excess packaging myth results from popular lack of awareness of why its there.

Quite so, but I don't believe there is no excess.

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.

Like speed limits and many other things we don't like.

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.

An interesting proposition, though I'd like to see the strategic environmental impact assessments taking landfill leechate into account.

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.

And metal.

From an energy use point of view, what difference does it make if we burn oil or burn oil derived waste?

Not a lot, but
a) there is a strong case for burning less oil,
b) materials like PET can be reused directly without the overhead of chemical synthesis from crude oil, and
c) the emissions from burning waste are much harder to manage in 'bonfire in a box' incinerator systems.

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.

Yes again, one for LCA !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

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:
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.

Or time.
But I think there are some things like eating and going to the toilet that we seldom depute to others. Maybe sorting our own waste might be seen in that light.

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

In any real sense ?

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?

:) This does assume a commercial sellers perspective.
I guess the whole point is that if product information spread by user recommendation rather than glossy boxes, products would have to sell themselves rather than the cardboard.
Inside many of us lurks the notion that
'if the product was any good, there'd be no need to advertise it'.
I know this has a number of flaws, but I guess there is also a nugget of truth.

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.

Quite so. I'm sure we are all aware of the limitations of 'representative democracy'.

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.

I think probably much more, but as ever LCA would indicate...

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.

Economic or environmental 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.

Yes, though hazardous materials are separated at source. Could be a reason for this...

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

Yes - normally referred to as gassification / pyrolysis plant I guess, though with some tweaks to tune the chain length of the hydrocarbons that come out.
There are people developing this in the UK too.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

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.

Agree totally !! (Refreshing change !)
Cheers, J/. (MIOSH !) -- John Beardmore

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes John Beardmore wrote: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes John Beardmore wrote: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-29 00:25:37 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , Andy Hall writes
And as already said, once people pay for disposal there will be a mass uptake of composting, which clearly will reduce collection footprint.
It might reduce collected volume, but if the composting is done badly at home, it may also give off a great deal of methane I suspect, so I'm not sure the footprint would necessarily fall.

Home composting can be expected to generate less methane than landfill. The footprint reduction is that all that composted garbage either doesnt get collected at all, or gets collected after composting, when its volume is much smaller. The reduction there is clear enough.

I'm tempted to call the other examples of demonopolisation, such as electricity, gas, phone.
Be tempted. But maybe this is more like delivered milk or groceries ?
And in both cases, private enterprise leads to improvements.
Take grocery delivery for example. One vehicle delivers to (at a guess) lets say 20 customers, and each vehicle goes to a geographic grouping of customers because of the profit motive.
Yes - delivering groceries might make more sense than all end users driving to the supermarket,
but that doesn't mean that each supermarket having a vehicle fleet covering each area has a lower delivery footprint than each area being served by a single vehicle from a single location.

What has that to do with the real world? If you want to bring a one vehicle fleet into the options, give us some numbers, lets see how it would work. I cant think how it could.

We need some numbers here - so lets say the customers of one van live 1 mile from the store, and on avergae 0.15 miles from each other. Now, traditional shopping means 20 cars each doing 2 miles, finishing the job in say 2 hrs. thats 20 vehicles and 40 miles travelled, and 40 manhours of labour.
A delivery van travels the 1 mile to customer A, then 0.15 miles 19 times, then 1 mile back to store. It takes 5 minutes per delivery and 10 minutes in traffic between each customer. So thats 4.85 miles travelled in total, or quarter of a mile per customer, one vehicle not 20, and under 20 minutes of labour per customer.
An analogy which would be utterly splendid if only we drove our own rubbish to the 'waste transfer station' !
But we don't. So it's toast !

The above is clearly part of an explanation as to why private enterprise leads to more efficiency, and is not a description of waste collection.

Now, we both know that under state monopoly control, supermarkets would not have started internet ordering and home deliveries. Under private enterprise, its been done and is a great success. And from one success, many will copy.
And yet somehow the LAs still manage to come round and collect waste once a week !

and?

You picked a good example.
Indeed ! Better than yours anyway !

mine was your example. Did you forget?

so you said, and I answered that one.
Well - if you were setting out to be convincing, you failed !

Not really, you're not the only one reading this, and people can get the input from all of us and make their own decisions. Its all part of the learning and informing process, whoever you do and dont agree with.

well, see above, but theyre already points that had been brought up before you wrote that, so its pretty well addressed really.
There are currently about 108 messages in this thread I haven't read and may never have time to.

ah

None the less what I have read from you and Andy among the other 932 messages hasn't been convincing so far.
What makes you think I'll regard your recent missives as the very model of good sense ?

What makes you think I would think that? What you think isnt my sole reason for writing. Sorry about that.

No - being told isn't enough. What you are told has to 'add up' and make sense !
but you werent exposed to other views on the matter.
I wouldn't bank on that.

I would bank on you not being exposed to all the relevant views. Universities are like that inevitably, because of the function they fulfil.

Well - it's certainly true that we all have our unique perspectives, but that doesn't make you right any more than it makes me wrong.

?

That depends on what you mean by "environmental foot print"
Are you going to tell us you dont see any issues with that definition?
Well - clearly it is prone to underestimate, but it seems to be a pretty useful and largely quantitative way of looking at the problem.
Uesful yes, quantitative yes, but properly addressing the issue I think no.
The reason being ?

http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6888 yes, the thread is 10 pages long, but most of its about something else (nuclear energy). Mainly pp 1,2,10 iirc.

Well again, given that footprint calculations tend to underestimate, I'd like to know how you think the sort of errors that the technique is prone to strengthen your case.

above link

Well you seem to be decrying environmental footprint because "The definition is individual".

I think youre confusing me with Andy there

I'm suggesting that given that the definition and concept are pretty clear, you might criticise particular elements of the method for failing to accurately account for all the impacts of an activity, and if you have a sound numeric argument, the technique can be refined.

I've offered another method with differing strengths and weaknesses in the link

But just to say "The definition is individual", (which it isn't), or "not everyone buys this approach", (so what ?), if pretty useless unless you plan to volunteer some better way to understand the situation.

I havent said that

its not that the solution is non-trivial, right now the issue is that the solution isnt available.
THE solution ??
the solution to climate change
But may things which may mitigate it are. There unlikely ever to be a SINGLE solution.

I can recommend reading the whole thing before replying

No-one can stand up and say 'heres the plan sir, this will work and stop climate change' and have their plan taken as realistic. Nobody has a workable effective plan.
Indeed,

I'm glad we've established that, because its rather key to the whole subject of climate change and how to resolve it.

but making the problem less bad less quickly seems smarter than making it more bad more quickly.

absolutely.
It is unfortunate that recycling items not worth recycling, plus using extra fuel, vehicles and labour to collect them only makes things worse.

But sensible waste disposal isn't a "Britain-only solution" any more than switching lights off using renewable energy.

this is true, but I'm not sure its really to the point. Unless youre proposing developing newer more efficient ways to deal with garbage. Which of course private enterprise would promote, by offering a profit reward plus opening the market up to innovators.

The whole geographical / administrative boundary thing is a total red herring.

Its one of the central issues in fact. One reason the present approach isnt working has a lot to do with this issue. This is one reason we need an approach that cuts right past this problem, ie an economic not a political solution.

The notion that everyone can achieve anything is the stuff of Disney films.
Indeed - you can't back thermodynamics. :)

?

The mass of people working 9-5 year in year out make it pretty clear it aint so.
Depends what they work on and how they work.

<shaking head>
some snipping:

The only real solution si to devise methods that both can be applied internatinally, and for which there is an incentive to apply them worldwide. The real climate problem solvers are not footprint assessments, but technology innovators.
AFAIK fusion is not one of the promising energy techs in the pipeline, so isnt part of the solution.
So what do you think will sort it ?

as I said, a future energy development. Youre not really asking me to gaze into a crystal ball and tell you who will win the race, or are you?

Whether you like it or not we are betting the farm.
I agree that we are doing, and I don't particularly like it.
There is no better alternative to that.
I don't think that view is universally held !

If you have an alternative, ie a proposition to solve the global problem, lets all hear it. I dont believe for a moment you have one that'll work in the real world.

2nd we have no other solution today than research. So we need to follow the R&D path, not waste our time money & energy on things that can never do it.
The less green house gas we emit, and the more slowly we emit it, the longer we have to get something half way decent out of an R&D process.

of course.

3rd there is plenty the average Jo can do to support such research. They can ask publicly for more research, they can raise funds for research programs, they can donate, they can set up prize funds for anyone that comes along with an energy solution that meets a given set of criteria - all these things accelerate the pace of technological change, and all (but one) are within anyone's grasp.
Yes - sounds much like the sort of stuff Eurosolar do.

The next step is for people to find out that this kind of thing really is the solution. Pointing out that the present political based approach is not really a solution is part of that.
Then to encourage more participation in such things. Then the need to evaluate such schemes with real care will pop up and hopefully get addressed.

4th there are loads of new techs coming out every year, check the patents if you dont believe me.
There are loads of new patents, but it's fascinating that you don't name a single one that looks more promising than fusion.

I'm surprised youre backing that one. But asking me to name which will be the winner of this race in the future is a bit unrealistic dont you think? If only we knew already :)
One could say windgen and solarthermal hold some promise, but what will win in each energy supply area who knows. For all we know it might turn out to be beaming down microwaves from Venus.

5thly energy technologies are being developed and improved already. Its already happening, so you cant say theres nothing ahead there.
I've never said there is no progress being made, but you have yet to identify any progress that is significant,

?? Do you not think nuclear significant? Or the great drop in price of windgen, leading to the present early days of mass rollout? Everyone knows these 2.
Surely youre aware of advances being made in wave energy, solar electric, solar thermal and so on? Each passing decade sees lower cost per watt in all these areas.

and seem dismissive of renewables and fusion.

Whatever gives you that idea? I've already said renewables are our future solution.
As for fusion, who knows what will win, but I wouldnt rate it top of the list as you do.

So - among all the patents you refer to, could you identify say 5 which you think really address the problem of climate change ?

I've already made clear its a future development that will address it, not a past one.

So in essence, you suggest we do noting to reduce our emissions,

I've never said any such thing. For years I've said quite the opposite in fact.

but ask for research to be done,

not quite

make some donations, and offer prizes to solve the worlds problems !
ROFL !

Maybe if you follow whats being said first.
I was assuming you were aware of the function of prizes, but now I cant assume that. Prizes to whoever get a lot of independants involved in the process that would not otherwise participate, which often yields results. Prizes have been and still continue to be a standard part of stimulating technological change. They have been used for centuries at least, and probably very much longer, and are still proving successful today (eg see DARPA competitions for robotic vehicles)

This problem isn't going to be solved by a single interest group,
It only takes one technology. That will come from one lab, so yes it will be.
Well - you just might be right.
Had cold fusion worked, something along those lines might have been a 'magic bullet', but I for one don't think we can rely on that sort of single solution,

Even though you accepted further up there is no other final solution than an affordable energy technology? (Unless you've been able to present another solution meanwhile)
There isnt anything magic about what we need, its just a case of continuing progress. Just a case of edging down the cost of some renewable to the point where its good for mass deployment. This is already happening bit by bit, and its most likely we will get there. The sooner the better.

and even if we get one, we have a better chance if emissions are reduced in the mean time.

definitely

but by characterising the problems and looking for opportunities to fix it at all levels.
Hmm. Thing is, there are no opportunities to fix it at almost all levels. There are none.
Well - none you seem to know about. But I guess we can't help wilful ignorance or disingenuous stance.

Well, I've invited you to present your proposal to solve the world climate change problem. If you manage to come up with one, one thats realistic and workable, I'll eat my hat and both the neighbours'. Until then I'll regard your comments there as completely off course.

The present approach sure isnt going to do it.
It sure isn't going to do all of it at present rates of progress.

I await your presentation then

The one thing that everyone will do the world around is adopt a new technology that is cost efficient and non-polluting. That is our solution.
It will be when there is one. IF there is one...

We have several renewable energy techs, some of which are already at minority-usable prices. The cost per watt of all renewable energy tehcs has been gradually coming down for a long time... So what do you think may happen to prevent a renewable becoming competitive with fossils?

In the distant future, energy reduction is not part of the solution. Its an interim measure only.
OK - so you concede that it has value as an interim measure then.

Concede, no, I've been promoting energy efficiency for years. You only need read my posts on halogen downlighters to see this.

Once energy is cheap in bulk and non-pollution, we can use much more than we do today.
Well - here you have much in common with the renewable energy community who take the view that once using RE, being profligate isn't a problem.
This is a sound point, except that your postulated sustainable energy source (TBA) doesn't exist,

We know that. We also know the evidence points firmly to the likelihood that it soon will.

and the capital cost of existing renewable energy sources is so high that it's more or less always cheaper to cut consumption than generate more energy.
Which takes us back to cutting consumption

yes, for now. It seems a shame your views on rubbish disposal and markets lead us in the opposite direction.
NT

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-10 22:50:34 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-04 02:54:50 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
Choice of supplier, service and price - I already told you that.
Hmmm... OK - well that may be your highest priority, but you may have to accept that your view isn't universally shared.

this is true of all the views on this thread, I'm not sure it really tells us much.

Are you telling me that you can't figure out that if you take service A and add admin cost B to it that the total isn't A+B?
No - I'm trying to tell you that you don't know the values of either A or B, or the ratio of A to B, nor have you come up with values of B' for your new proposed 'market place', nor values for C, D and E, the costs of the new service provisions, and not have you expressed any meaningful information about the environmental impacts of your scheme which you are utterly unwilling to consider in any detail.
As such it does seem reasonable to ask you to "get numerate about it", and in the absence of any numeric justification of your assertions, it doesn't seem utterly wild to suggest that it's "personal ideology" rather than an idea of substance or worth.

John, the mechanics of different markets have been well studied, neither Andy nor anyone else need rehash what has been well established over a good many years by various scholars on the topic. Your claim that the known merits of the capitalist markerplace are a personal ideology doesnt even begin to be true.
NT

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-04 16:39:38 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Well - he certainly isn't doing what you want, but may well be doing what he's employed to do.
By whom? Who is paying?
We all pay, but that doesn't mean you proposal would do the job better, nor necessarily even cheaper.

in a state owned marketplace it doesnt even mean the job needs doing. Let alone that the people who are paying wish to pay for it.
NT

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes
You appear to now be saying the LA is not so great after all.
Some are bound to be better than others.

Would you say someone who can actually do the job should be given a chance to do so?
Might be a better deal to sort the LA out.

Heh. Who will do that? Private entrepreneurs with a good deal more business sense have no access into the market or the LA. In a freer market everyone that thought they could solve the problem could try to do so, and the succeeders would and take over from the failers.
But you dont want that. I do.
NT

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes sarah wrote: Andy Hall wrote: On 2006-12-03 17:47:04 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said: Andy Hall wrote:
Indeed, but three large ones will still have to drive round your area each week where one does now, even if two of them don't pick up from you.
What does that do for road miles per bon lifted ?

This myth was addressed long ago in this thread.

Yes, but in your dream we'll have the same volume of waste, but three tenders to process, and three companies to police.

no, addressed before

I'm perfectly happy to have essential services provided by a single supplier ultimately responsible to me (the electorate).
this is another political myth.
A bit like the assertion that a cheaper service must necessarily use less energy. :) !

but not half as mythical as saying LAs must use the least energy of all options!

Or alternatively, the rubbish is processed the cheapest way, regardless of consequences.

its down to the customer and the law. Personally I'd be in favour of reducing customer costs, and can think of ways to do it while in the same measure increasing recycling.
The law determines the parameters garbage services work within, just as they do today.

I beg to disagree. If regulation forces manufacturers to reduce their packaging excesses, consumers will have to buy what's available.
the overpackaging myth
Not sure that it's a myth. Many things could do with a lot less packaging.

I cba.

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? How much would implementing *that* cost?
nothing. You leave the market to it,
And that makes it free ? Oh good !!

That makes it more cost efficient. The cost of deciding on price is a very small part of a large business operation's costs. Other differences will dwarf this one.

and people will buy from whichever firm does closest to what they want. It would result in economies rather than costs.
Yes - but that makes the preferred outcome cheap, not the most sustainable one.

it makes it whichever the people of Britain vote for on a yearly basis, it is the ultimate democracy.
I dont see any evidence for a lower cost service being non-sustainable, in fact I've seen quite the opposite so far.

What would happen in reality is that in the earliest days of the market, many types of service would be offered and chosen somewhere or other. This would provide a mass of real hard factual data about the various options, and analysis would show which was genuinely best for the economy, environment and so on,
Really ???

With private enterprise comparison and analysis are pssible. How well comparison is done varies of course. When you've only got one system, there is no possibility of comparison of the options, and nothing can be learnt, because there are no comparison facts to learn anything from.

and as consumers learn about this the choices would move toward the better options, according to the choices of the service user. None of this happens today, which is why we're still debating it.
And as we know from market observation, it tends to be the cheaper services that get large market share, not the astropriced ones.
Yes - but again, that makes the preferred (cheap !) outcome cheaper, and does nothing to the more sustainable options.

it makes sustainable options cheaper. The availability of comparison data also helps us see which is most sustainable IRL, instead of sitting here just theorizing about it.

why cant he have another option, such as not sorting and not recycling? Its not like the recycling option is beyond debate.
You could have options to poo in the street too, but you may not get huge popular support !

no real answer then.

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?
Well - you can lobby your democratically elected members using sound numerically supported arguments if you like.

I hope youre kidding, but I get the feeling you're not.
NT

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-05 08:10:40 +0000, usenet@colddrake.co.uk (sarah) said:
Ultimately, regulated environments don't work because people will find a way around them if they deem them to be too intrusive.
And unregulated ones do what's cheapest and 'hang the consequences'.
So what's the right compromise ?

Again this has long been known. Free markets with laws that prohobit the worst practices.

In the sense that sorting is a requirement that is imposed neither by you or the LA, neither of you is trying to reduce the service provided
by the other - this argument is just emotional fluff. If you want to deal with the imposition, take yourself off to the EU and exercise your democratic right.

thats emotional fluff if ever I heard it. You really seem in need of more understanding of politics.

Rather, one of you is being asked, and may ultimately be required, to sort waste, and this is generally held to be something that is least resource intensive when done at source.
It is ultimately up to you and the LA to decide how this might be accomplished, but either way, you will pay, by the commitment of time or money, if, or perhaps when it becomes a legal requirement.

it is asked yet unsupportable. Many consumers just say no.
NT

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes sarah wrote:
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 don't have any market incentive to improve environmental practice.

they certainly do, or have you seen no market driven product and environmental policy changes?

and design engineers that know theirs,
But may not know much about the environmental issues their work raises.

It would be laughable to claim LAs were the fount of environmental expertise.
Part of the product design process includes looking at environmental factors. Companies do compete for trade on these issues today.

and putting it into the hands of a government body that as often as not really doesnt.
Yes - here's the rub. The 'happy quango' may well know b.all() about the industrial processes. The knack is gluing the two together.

what place does govt have in it at all?

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.
Not totally convinced it has failed...

lol.

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.
So do the regulations require that the fittings be butt ugly ?

Are you even trying here? Do you understand that in a free market customers choose light fittings partly on appearance, whereas in a state mandate they choose whats available, and since sales volume doesnt depend on aesthetics, companies put nothing into aesthetics. And with bad aesthetics, people just remove the fittings.

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.
Which is great in those areas that markets address well. The environment has generally not been one of them.

Thats right - and true of state owned services too. Times have changed, and enough customers want environmental credentials that its a big part of private enterprise now. It would be bogus to compare private enterprise 20 years ago with state enterprise today.

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.
Good ! Agreed !
Welll I'd like to hear what works better and why. I cant promise to agree though.
Fair point, and not doubt all of our perceptions are influenced by the things we care to see optimised.

You mean youve got no system that works better after all? You actually havent yet given even one single valid advantage of state owned garbage disposal.
NT