Siting of panels for solar water heating

On 2006-12-15 14:29:10 +0000, David Hansen said:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:24:03 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall andyh@hall.nospam> wrote this:-
We are currently in much the same position as we were with gas and electricity some years ago. Large users can select a provider. In the case of waste, unlike electricity and gas some years ago, small users can also select a provider if they want.
No they can't unless they are also permitted not to pay the LA.
That is why we are in only much the same position, as opposed to the same position.

This is far from being *much* the same position - it's nowhere close. We already pay for the service twice because of paying the LA, and the private contractor. It would make far more sense to cut out the middle man.

However, as has been said already, if one opts to use private schools or hospitals one doesn't get a refund on state schools or hospitals.

One should.

In message , Phil Bradshaw writes

Guy King wrote:
The message <MsidnSK_-4MAsOjYRVnyuA@pipex.net from Phil Bradshaw <philbradshaw@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike 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.
Indeed. My son spotted some 486 computers in the white goods pile at one site and did an ask ... and got the nod to whip the CPUs out and a couple of other bits while I gave the site worker a hand sorting metal.

What on earth can you use 486 CPUs for these days ? Especially without the motherboards ?
Does he want a few more ? Got some pentiums too !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-10 22:50:34 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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.

Well - for a start, maybe it suggests that stating your own view as though it is absolute self evident truth, spoken with absolute self evident authority is a problem ?

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.

There may be good scholars and bad scholars, but if Andy or anybody else wants to gain popular support for his scheme, and in a democracy that's what he needs, first he'll have to tell us what he proposes, and in some detail, then he'll have to tell us why it's better, then we can make up our own minds.
Until then, I don't really care if you sleep with an economics text book under your pillow or not.

Your claim that the known merits of the capitalist markerplace are a personal ideology doesnt even begin to be true.

From what I've seen economics is not an exact science, and from what I've seen there are certain things it does not address at all, like protection of global commons ! These are well rehearsed arguments at MBA level. It seems a bit spurious to only trot out one side of the argument.
While there are things that
a) we value,
or
b) we depend on,
that are not represented by simple cash values, economics will never give a complete picture of any but the most artificial of situations that can be fully described by simple market mechanics.
It is specifically the failure to deal with or value environmental issues that makes the 'proposal' from Andy so questionable for so many of us.
Given that he seems unable to engage with anything other than wild allegations about local authorities and 'leaving it to the market', I suggest that his position is personal ideology - at least in as far as it doesn't seem to be a particularly balanced view, it doesn't seem to take the views of many stakeholders into account, and it's not shared by all, (I suspect most), of the population.
The mechanics of markets my be "well established", but that doesn't mean that introducing a market where there wasn't one [of the same type] before, will bring about a situation that will be universally seen as better. And if you want to bring about a situation that won't be seen as better universally, in a democracy, you need to start convincing the rest of us.
So start, or go whistle !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-15 01:49:16 +0000, John Beardmore said:
The rubbish is collected. What more do you want ? 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.
The point is that provision of the service that the customer wants is a pre-requisite to participation.

The service I want is the one I've got WITHOUT any other thanks.

You want a free market, but this seems to be more to do with your personal ideology than any particular lack of skill. It's not a personal ideology, rather a recognition of the natural order. That may be how you see it, but again, you may have to accept that your view isn't universally shared.
It would appear to be in the free world - possibly different in Myanmar and N. Korea.

There seem to be plenty of dissenting voices in this news group. I don't think any of us post from Korea, do you ?

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.
Sigh....

There there....

If you are unable to realise the basics of administrative overhead, then there is not really a basis for discussion.

I am quite able to realise it. You apparently are unable to measure it.

and sells it to the customer. The administration adds no value, A bold yet spurious assumption... It's an unnecessary cost. I am surprised that you think that that's spurious. I'm surprised you think it's unnecessary.
In the way that it is currently implemented, it is certainly unnecessary - we are paying twice.

I'm not sure I agree, but as you don't seem to realise what LA staff do do, or to know how much it costs, it's hard to take your protestations about it seriously.

so the customer might as well deal direcly with the supplier and cut out the middle man. Clear enough? Clear, simple, simplistic, but not in my view correct. It's hard to come to any other conclusion unless you believe that Father Christmas funds local authorities. Well - even you seem to envisage LAs continuing to have a role, and a thing is not rendered unnecessary by somebody having to pay for it !
Either the LAs or a central licensing body -

Well - either way, it has to be resourced.

certainly not at current staffing levels.

Well you seem to be keen to give who ever it is more work to do !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-04 16:39:38 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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.

Well - I suspect most of us think that it does.

Let alone that the people who are paying wish to pay for it.

Well - it's true that most people will avoid tax where they can, but most people still want their rubbish taken away.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Phil Bradshaw philbradshaw@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike> writes Guy King wrote:
The message <MsidnSK_-4MAsOjYRVnyuA@pipex.net from Phil Bradshaw <philbradshaw@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike 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.
Indeed. My son spotted some 486 computers in the white goods pile at one site and did an ask ... and got the nod to whip the CPUs out and a couple of other bits while I gave the site worker a hand sorting metal.
What on earth can you use 486 CPUs for these days ? Especially without the motherboards ?

It was a number of years ago.

Does he want a few more ? Got some pentiums too !
Heh. Most probably not!

On 2006-12-15 19:02:49 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-15 01:49:16 +0000, John Beardmore said:
The rubbish is collected. What more do you want ? 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.
The point is that provision of the service that the customer wants is a pre-requisite to participation.
The service I want is the one I've got WITHOUT any other thanks.

Then I'm pleased for you. I am sure that you will have no objection to others having what they want to have as well.

You want a free market, but this seems to be more to do with your personal ideology than any particular lack of skill. It's not a personal ideology, rather a recognition of the natural order. That may be how you see it, but again, you may have to accept that your view isn't universally shared.
It would appear to be in the free world - possibly different in Myanmar and N. Korea.
There seem to be plenty of dissenting voices in this news group. I don't think any of us post from Korea, do you ?

Who knows? I frequently post from all sorts of obscure places.

If you are unable to realise the basics of administrative overhead, then there is not really a basis for discussion.
I am quite able to realise it. You apparently are unable to measure it.

There is no need when it is self-evident.

and sells it to the customer. The administration adds no value, A bold yet spurious assumption... It's an unnecessary cost. I am surprised that you think that that's spurious. I'm surprised you think it's unnecessary.
In the way that it is currently implemented, it is certainly unnecessary - we are paying twice.
I'm not sure I agree, but as you don't seem to realise what LA staff do do, or to know how much it costs, it's hard to take your protestations about it seriously.

The council tax payers where I live are taking it very seriously and are pushing for detail of what each department actually does do and the costs involved, including the duplications that arise from the use of management consultants.

so the customer might as well deal direcly with the supplier and cut out the middle man. Clear enough? Clear, simple, simplistic, but not in my view correct. It's hard to come to any other conclusion unless you believe that Father Christmas funds local authorities. Well - even you seem to envisage LAs continuing to have a role, and a thing is not rendered unnecessary by somebody having to pay for it !
Either the LAs or a central licensing body -
Well - either way, it has to be resourced.

Of course, but not anything like the wasteful levels it is today.

certainly not at current staffing levels.
Well you seem to be keen to give who ever it is more work to do !

If this means more work per local civil servant then I'm very keen on the idea; or even better less work by them in total and substantially fewer heads.
>

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-15 19:02:49 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-15 01:49:16 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
The rubbish is collected. What more do you want ? 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. The point is that provision of the service that the customer wants is a pre-requisite to participation. The service I want is the one I've got WITHOUT any other thanks.
Then I'm pleased for you. I am sure that you will have no objection to others having what they want to have as well.

I'll support what I think is justified thanks. Sometimes there is more to life than giving everybody what they want just because they happen to want it.

You want a free market, but this seems to be more to do with your personal ideology than any particular lack of skill. It's not a personal ideology, rather a recognition of the natural order. That may be how you see it, but again, you may have to accept that your view isn't universally shared. It would appear to be in the free world - possibly different in Myanmar and N. Korea. There seem to be plenty of dissenting voices in this news group. I don't think any of us post from Korea, do you ?
Who knows? I frequently post from all sorts of obscure places.

Well - I think you'll find that most of us are based in the UK.

If you are unable to realise the basics of administrative overhead, then there is not really a basis for discussion. I am quite able to realise it. You apparently are unable to measure it.
There is no need when it is self-evident.

Not good enough I'm afraid.

and sells it to the customer. The administration adds no
A bold yet spurious assumption... It's an unnecessary cost. I am surprised that you think that that's spurious. I'm surprised you think it's unnecessary. In the way that it is currently implemented, it is certainly unnecessary - we are paying twice. I'm not sure I agree, but as you don't seem to realise what LA staff do do, or to know how much it costs, it's hard to take your protestations about it seriously.
The council tax payers where I live are taking it very seriously and are pushing for detail of what each department actually does do and the costs involved, including the duplications that arise from the use of management consultants.

Well - all of that can only be good !

so the customer might as well deal direcly with the supplier and cut out the middle man. Clear enough? Clear, simple, simplistic, but not in my view correct. It's hard to come to any other conclusion unless you believe that Father Christmas funds local authorities. Well - even you seem to envisage LAs continuing to have a role, and a thing is not rendered unnecessary by somebody having to pay for it ! Either the LAs or a central licensing body - Well - either way, it has to be resourced.
Of course, but not anything like the wasteful levels it is today.

Maybe, but we only have your assertion for that, and you seem to have no more than limited local observation and prejudice to justify your position.

certainly not at current staffing levels. Well you seem to be keen to give who ever it is more work to do !
If this means more work per local civil servant then I'm very keen on the idea; or even better less work by them in total and substantially fewer heads.

Well - we won't know what might be possible until you detail your proposal will we ?
Cheers. J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

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.

I've nothing against a little 'evolution in action', but I'd hate to create short termist, hire and fire, 'quarterly profits' culture that was focussed on minimal cost, minimal provision, and minimum environmental standards.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-15 01:59:17 +0000, John Beardmore said:
I thought you were the one that wanted to add wagons, road miles and multiple service providers ?
Nope. That was your supposition in terms of adding road miles.

Well - it seems like a reasonable supposition, and you seem unable to refute it.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:08:56 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-12-15 19:02:49 +0000, John Beardmore said:

I'm not sure I agree, but as you don't seem to realise what LA staff do do, or to know how much it costs, it's hard to take your protestations about it seriously.
The council tax payers where I live are taking it very seriously and are pushing for detail of what each department actually does do and the costs involved, including the duplications that arise from the use of management consultants.
I thought that every LA publishes performance indicators on the web,

together with estimated and revised costing for each directorate. Mine certainly does.
-- Frank Erskine

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

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.

Not in any plausible way.

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

Only with vague waffle.

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!

Straw man. All I've expressed is the concern that the proposed scheme would increase fuel used, congestion, number of vehicles and staff used to do the same job etc.
At the moment, I think they are obliged to chase 'bast value', which I guess gives them a lot of scope for subjective consideration.

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,

This is fine as long as the people at the sharp end don't have their wages cut just because some suit fancies better first quarter figures.

and can think of ways to do it while in the same measure increasing recycling.

Maybe. Go on then...

The law determines the parameters garbage services work within, just as they do today.

Possibly, though I suspect the law would need to be changed to allow this unbundling of services. Hopefully there would be no loss of environmental stringency in the process.

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.

Maybe because it's true.

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.

Key word there is COST.

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

I had in mind the delivery of multiple services rather than the submission of prices.

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'm not sure that democracy is much better for 'saving the planet' than capitalism, but I don't remember when we last had a referendum about waste services, never mind one per year !

I dont see any evidence for a lower cost service being non-sustainable, in fact I've seen quite the opposite so far.

Well - you've asserted same, but I'm not at all convinced. I don't call what I've seen you write as 'evidence'.

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.

Actually I don't see any evidence at all that private business is at all good at making environmental performance data public, either in sufficient detail, or in a timely way.
And if the data isn't generally available, saying "comparison and analysis are possible", while formally true is utterly missing the point. In the real world, this information is generally not available.

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.

If it can be measured, it can be improved. 'Continuous Improvement' doesn't requite competition.

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.

Not if they aren't chosen.

The availability of comparison data

What availability would that be ??
Is that a promise ?

also helps us see which is most sustainable IRL, instead of sitting here just theorizing about it.

IRL ?

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.

I guess the real answer is that most people are happy enough to recycle what they can easily, and while not ecstatic about LA waste services, don't really want to think about alternatives foisted upon them.
At the end of the day, LCA will indicate where materials aren't worth recycling, and should be able to give a clue as to the best way to dispose of them.
In a sense, it doesn't require a debate, such as doing the LCA in each locale. Maybe when you have the LCA data there might be something to 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?
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.

Well - you seem keen on democracy... ...but less able to come up with plausible figures.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-12-15 21:42:58 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
The point is that provision of the service that the customer wants is a pre-requisite to participation. The service I want is the one I've got WITHOUT any other thanks.
Then I'm pleased for you. I am sure that you will have no objection to others having what they want to have as well.
I'll support what I think is justified thanks. Sometimes there is more to life than giving everybody what they want just because they happen to want it.

I see. That doesn't seem like a particularly democratic viewpoint to me.

You want a free market, but this seems to be more to do with your personal ideology than any particular lack of skill. It's not a personal ideology, rather a recognition of the natural order. That may be how you see it, but again, you may have to accept that your view isn't universally shared. It would appear to be in the free world - possibly different in Myanmar and N. Korea. There seem to be plenty of dissenting voices in this news group. I don't think any of us post from Korea, do you ?
Who knows? I frequently post from all sorts of obscure places.
Well - I think you'll find that most of us are based in the UK.

So am I. However, I do have the opportunity to broaden my horizons.

If you are unable to realise the basics of administrative overhead, then there is not really a basis for discussion. I am quite able to realise it. You apparently are unable to measure it.
There is no need when it is self-evident.
Not good enough I'm afraid.

You disappoint me. Didn't they teach you basic economics on this eco course of yours, or would that have been too inconvenient to the cause?

and sells it to the customer. The administration adds no A bold yet spurious assumption... It's an unnecessary cost. I am surprised that you think that that's spurious. I'm surprised you think it's unnecessary. In the way that it is currently implemented, it is certainly unnecessary - we are paying twice. I'm not sure I agree, but as you don't seem to realise what LA staff do do, or to know how much it costs, it's hard to take your protestations about it seriously.
The council tax payers where I live are taking it very seriously and are pushing for detail of what each department actually does do and the costs involved, including the duplications that arise from the use of management consultants.
Well - all of that can only be good !

Oh definitely. Then the questions will be asked as to how and when this will be reduced.

so the customer might as well deal direcly with the supplier and cut out the middle man. Clear enough? Clear, simple, simplistic, but not in my view correct. It's hard to come to any other conclusion unless you believe that Father Christmas funds local authorities. Well - even you seem to envisage LAs continuing to have a role, and a thing is not rendered unnecessary by somebody having to pay for it ! Either the LAs or a central licensing body - Well - either way, it has to be resourced.
Of course, but not anything like the wasteful levels it is today.
Maybe, but we only have your assertion for that, and you seem to have no more than limited local observation and prejudice to justify your position.

From what I hear, the waste is quite widespread. Council tax levels have gone up all over the country and the return has not increased to match it.

certainly not at current staffing levels. Well you seem to be keen to give who ever it is more work to do !
If this means more work per local civil servant then I'm very keen on the idea; or even better less work by them in total and substantially fewer heads.
Well - we won't know what might be possible until you detail your proposal will we ?

I already have. The proposal is to remove local authorities from the food chain in waste collection and for it to be replaced by licensed free enterprise operators.

In message , Andy Hall writes

In the case of electricity and gas there was some agitation for small users to be allowed to do the same thing. There is almost no agitation in the case of waste and few if any small users have taken up the option they already have.
That's because there isn't an option.
Do you really believe in the case of electricity or gas that users would pay for an alternative supplier in addition to their present one?

Guess they might pay a second standing charge if the unit rate on the second one was low enough.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-12-15 22:08:00 +0000, Frank Erskine said:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:08:56 +0000, Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam wrote:
On 2006-12-15 19:02:49 +0000, John Beardmore said:

I'm not sure I agree, but as you don't seem to realise what LA staff do do, or to know how much it costs, it's hard to take your protestations about it seriously.
The council tax payers where I live are taking it very seriously and are pushing for detail of what each department actually does do and the costs involved, including the duplications that arise from the use of management consultants.
I thought that every LA publishes performance indicators on the web, together with estimated and revised costing for each directorate. Mine certainly does.

They should, but the level of detail isn't there.
For example, my local highways department, in order to carry out a survey for traffic planning and distribution hired an outside firm to do most of the work while staff members sat in the office. This was unknown to most councillors until they were made aware of it. It's but one example of paying twice because those employed to do the work are lazy, incompetent or both. In terms of the published figures �X appeared as opposed to the �X/2 that it should have cost.