Siting of panels for solar water heating

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes John Beardmore wrote:
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.
I think you'll find lots of people recognise that state action is at times doing things that they dont think need doing.
A well known example would be the prosecution of a market trader selling in pounds and ounces. If that LA were in the free market they'd be history after that one.

I doubt it. Prosecuting people for using obsolete units is a pretty small part of an LAs work.

But today's LAs can continue to act like tinpot dictators without regard for democracy, and at times they do.

Yes - but there are far more serious abuses than waste collection.

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.
thats not the issue, the issue is over things that the people dont think need doing.

Then what was your point about "people who are paying wish to pay for it" ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 15 Dec 2006 16:40:55 -0800 someone who may be meow2222@care2.com wrote this:-

Its just a nonsense argument being brought up again, despite it being dealt with much earlier on in the thread.

It wasn't dealt with convincingly earlier in the thread and it hasn't been dealt with convincingly now.
-- 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 2006-12-16 03:06:02 +0000, John Beardmore said:

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.
Well - did people vote for speed limits and taxes ?

Do they pay for speed limits?

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?
They touch on the limitations of seeing performance purely in terms of economic indicators.

"Touch on"... I think that that says it all.

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 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.
How, when and IF.

It'll be a *when*. No doubt about that. The incompetence needs to be exposed.

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.
Is this not due to a decrease in central government funding for LAs as opposed to simple embezzlement ?

I don't think that anybody suggested that anyone was doing anything illegal. Nonetheless, the massive increases have to be investigated.. In absence of further information, one has to ask the questions as to why. It's very easy to hide behind the "someone else's fault" argument. However, the alarm bells ring as soon as one sees external consultants being brought in to do work that should be being done internally. If it happens in one place and department then it will probably be happening elsewhere. In my example of a traffic scheme, I also learned that the same firm of management consultants had sold their services to at least 4 other surrounding local authorities.

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.
Still sadly lacking in detail.

I didn't set out to provide detail, just the principle and the reasons for it.

On 2006-12-16 07:55:12 +0000, David Hansen said:

On 15 Dec 2006 16:40:55 -0800 someone who may be meow2222@care2.com wrote this:-
Its just a nonsense argument being brought up again, despite it being dealt with much earlier on in the thread.
It wasn't dealt with convincingly earlier in the thread and it hasn't been dealt with convincingly now.

So why do you keep making what is an erroneous argument?

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

Andy Hall wrote:
Therein lies the problem. We all pay, yet we are not told what we are paying for but are simply expected to continue to write ever increasing cheques (used metaphorically).

Queried in other message.

If a private company operated like this they would lose a lot of business.

Depends what the activity is.
Of the cost of provision of waste services goes up because of legislation that applies to a whole sector...

They would be replaced by another business that saw the opportunity to offer what people voted for.

....It's not as if other businesses would be able to offer a deal that was much better.

Telling the customer what the purchased service is is an expected basic thing in capitalism.

Which assumes that capitalism is all there is.

Yes there are some companies that dont, so you can have that if you wish. But needless to say businesses that tell you whats being offered hold the great majority of the marketplace in their area.

Transparency is good, but IME, businesses tell you what they want you to know and are not good at either financial or environmental detail - certainly no more transparent than LAs.

This unfortunately is how far LAs are removed from good business practice.

Which embeds the assumption that they are, or should be businesses.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

meow2222@care2.com wrote:

I think the basics of capitalism are already well known. To get factual, wages in the private sector are mostly higher than in the public sector, despite services being delivered more competitively. Feel free to wonder why.

Not always true in low-wage areas (like most of Scotland) where public sector wages are nationally agreed.
However, the public sector has traditionally enjoyed job security and final salary pensions, which compensate for lower wages.
Owain

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-15 21:45:44 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes
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.
So would I. It should be based on these principles:
- short, medium and long term recognising that if the short term isn't done properly, there will be no long term

Good...

- staffing levels to match the level of business. This inevitably means hiring people when business is good and letting them go when it's not.

Or at least redeploying them.
Though again, this assumes that LAs are a business. Seems to me that the number of bins needing to be emptied will be the same in good times and bad, even if the volume of waste falls.

This is far better than carrying excess cost and putting the business under. Again this is sonething that the public sector is not good at doing because the customers are obliged to keep funding the inefficiency.

And again assumes that they are businesses that have a variable demand on their services.
Do you think we need less government during an economic down turn ? If so, why ?

- quarterly profits are important as are half year and annual ones. The occasional shortfall is allowable, but continued failure should result in change of management.

But while LAs should be efficient, they should not be about making a profit.

- cost should always be minimised while keeping the level of service that the customer is willing to buy.

Broadly.

This does not mean minimal provision or minimal environmental standards.

Well, unfettered capitalism would probably opt to provide the thing that providers can make most profit out of, and ignore the environment utterly.
I am not aware of any significant environmental progress that has not been driven by legislation. Are you ?

Customers should be able to buy the service appropriate to them and for the best price.

In many situations, yes.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes John Beardmore wrote:
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.
Andy answered this pretty good.

:) I'll judge that my self thanks. Your accolades mean little.

But lets look from another angle.
If we look at the reality of free markets, there is a spread of standards. There is everything from cheap and basic (eg MG metro) to sumptuous luxury (eg Rolls Royce, Ferrari). There are also a smaller number of companies serving smaller or niche areas (eg Citroen 2CV, skoda, Landrover, smartcar etc)
So what people purchase is more or less what they want. Its not perfect because there arent infinite choices, but there are core reasons covered in any book on free markets why its better than 100% state control. You only need look at Russia in the 80s to see what a state controlled command economy gets you, and thats what we have with LAs and garbage collection.
Point by point...

Warm generalisations, but when you say "why its better than 100% state control" you need to say in which respects it's better, because it may not be better in all respects, and different respects are given different weights by each of us.

but I'd hate to create short termist
well, companies only stay in business if they address the medium and long term issues too. Short termists dont stick around.

Hmm... Many companies I work with won't invest in environmental improvements unless they can get a pay back in under two years, sometimes in as little as 6 months. I wish they wouldn't stick around.

hire and fire,
hiring and firing is done on the basis of what staff the business needs to fulfil its services, and on whether the staff are competent. Compare with LAs where incompetents are usually either allowed to stay in the post or moved to another post.

Can happen I know !

So I wonder why you'd hate less incompetence and less cost waste.

I certainly don't endorse either, but it is important to be fair to both parties.

'quarterly profits' culture
every business needs to streamline itself financially. LAs dont need to, its why theyre so efficient. Again I wonder why you'd actively want such inefficiency and excess costs.

Well
a) they aren't businesses,
and
b) as far as I can see they have pretty tight internal financial controls.

was focussed on minimal cost,
why do you want a service at a price higher than it need be to fulfil all the requirements? Do you enjoy adding 0s onto your council tax cheques?

Not at all, but for example, I want
'buildings made to last'
not
'buildings made to win the next election that won't be affordable to heat in 30 years'.

minimal provision,
private companies provide whatever level of provision the customer wants - and since there are several companies, each purchaser can have a lot closer to what they want than with the command economy.

Depends. If the customer is an LA, they should be able to specify exactly what they and by way of a building or service.

and minimum environmental standards.
In the freeish marketplace, required environmental standards are laid down by law.

Which is not an aspect of capitalism !

That aspect of business is controlled by central givernment, not by businesses. So service providers cant fall below those and realistically expect to stay in business and out of the courts.

As long as the law is enforced, which it seldom is all that well.

Companies can choose to improve further on those standards,

Yes.

and many do.

Though much of it is greenwash.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-15 21:46:33 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-15 01:59:17 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> 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.
There is no point in measuring it either way.

The axiom
'if you don't measure it, you can't manage it'
has much virtue.

What actually counts is the total picture, not just one small part.

So presumably you either
don't plan to measure any aspects of the scheme,
or
you only plan to quantify the ones that you think people will want to hear ?
It seems to me that the 'picture' is made up of many facets, but that most of them are amenable to numeric specification and description.
If you're going to try and sell your scheme on the basis of inumerate spin and an emotional appeal to choice, I don't think you'll get a lot of takers.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

Andy Hall wrote: On 2006-12-15 08:33:34 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said:
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?
Its just a nonsense argument being brought up again, despite it being dealt with much earlier on in the thread.

Obviously the way it was dealt with didn't satisfy everybody.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , David Hansen writes

On 15 Dec 2006 16:40:55 -0800 someone who may be meow2222@care2.com wrote this:-
Its just a nonsense argument being brought up again, despite it being dealt with much earlier on in the thread.
It wasn't dealt with convincingly earlier in the thread and it hasn't been dealt with convincingly now.

:)
Yes - it gets a bit galling when people tell you that something is dealt with, when they don't want to talk about it any more !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-16 07:55:12 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said:
On 15 Dec 2006 16:40:55 -0800 someone who may be meow2222@care2.com wrote this:-
Its just a nonsense argument being brought up again, despite it being dealt with much earlier on in the thread. It wasn't dealt with convincingly earlier in the thread and it hasn't been dealt with convincingly now.
So why do you keep making what is an erroneous argument?

ROFL !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-12-16 22:45:01 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
So would I. It should be based on these principles:
- short, medium and long term recognising that if the short term isn't done properly, there will be no long term
Good...
- staffing levels to match the level of business. This inevitably means hiring people when business is good and letting them go when it's not.
Or at least redeploying them.

Only provided that the positions to which they are redeployed are viable and are beneficial to the business. If not, then they have to go.

Though again, this assumes that LAs are a business.

They should operate on business principles but don't. Probably because they don't know how to do so.

Seems to me that the number of bins needing to be emptied will be the same in good times and bad, even if the volume of waste falls.

True. However, if one company does not do a good job and loses customers, its market share will decline. If that isn't corrected, the consequences are obvious.

This is far better than carrying excess cost and putting the business under. Again this is sonething that the public sector is not good at doing because the customers are obliged to keep funding the inefficiency.
And again assumes that they are businesses that have a variable demand on their services.

They should operate as businesses.

Do you think we need less government during an economic down turn ? If so, why ?

Absolutely. We always need less government. This is even more true during an economic downturn because effort should be directed towards making money for the economy rather than spending it.

- quarterly profits are important as are half year and annual ones. The occasional shortfall is allowable, but continued failure should result in change of management.
But while LAs should be efficient, they should not be about making a profit.

It is possible for an organisation to run on business principles and for profit to be engineered to zero. There is, however, nothing wrong with making a profit.

- cost should always be minimised while keeping the level of service that the customer is willing to buy.
Broadly.
This does not mean minimal provision or minimal environmental standards.
Well, unfettered capitalism would probably opt to provide the thing that providers can make most profit out of, and ignore the environment utterly.

Nobody said anything about unfettered capitalism other than you.

I am not aware of any significant environmental progress that has not been driven by legislation. Are you ?

This isn't particularly relevant to the subject.

Customers should be able to buy the service appropriate to them and for the best price.
In many situations, yes.

In almost all situations unless there is a very good reason why not. Waste collection isn't one of them.

On 2006-12-16 23:04:23 +0000, John Beardmore said:

The axiom
'if you don't measure it, you can't manage it'
has much virtue.

Used appropriately.

What actually counts is the total picture, not just one small part.
So presumably you either
don't plan to measure any aspects of the scheme,
or
you only plan to quantify the ones that you think people will want to hear ?

Wrong on both counts.

It seems to me that the 'picture' is made up of many facets, but that most of them are amenable to numeric specification and description.
If you're going to try and sell your scheme on the basis of inumerate spin and an emotional appeal to choice, I don't think you'll get a lot of takers.

There's nothing emotional. It's a simple matter of customers being able to choose the type of service appropriate to their requirements.

In article , wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk says...

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-15 21:45:44 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes
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.
So would I. It should be based on these principles:
- short, medium and long term recognising that if the short term isn't done properly, there will be no long term
- staffing levels to match the level of business. This inevitably means hiring people when business is good and letting them go when it's not.

Or at least redeploying them.
Though again, this assumes that LAs are a business. Seems to me that the number of bins needing to be emptied will be the same in good times and bad, even if the volume of waste falls.

It can depend on the method of transfer.
My city has this deal...
Recycling - Certain materials (junk newspapers, beer cans, etc) are picked up for "free" each week. An official bin is offered for $10, but some people just put stuff out in supermarket bags next to their neighbour's bins. My vague understanding is that there is an exchange with the collection company. They don't charge the city for pickup, but they take all profits from selling the stuff to recycling facilities.
Official City Coucil Rubbish Bags - Put in whatever you want, within safety limits. You must use the Coucil's distinctive printed yellow bags, which are sold at supermarkets and dairies. They cost more than plain plastic bags, because their price contributes to the budget for rubbish collection and tip (dump) costs. There is apparently an additional line item on the yearly rates (property tax based on percentage of house/flat value.)
There is also an experimental business compost program. They charge less for pickup, but they require sorting. Good for a supermarket.
There is also at least one private company picking up wheelie-bins. Those may contain biodegradable scraps or regular rubbish. I don't need one, so I don't know the options.
There is a local company (not gubmint-owned) that apparently receives the city's biodegradable's (including some material from the sewage plant), and which sells lawn/garden compost, fertiliser, etc.
Anyway, you say:

the number of bins needing to be emptied will be the same in good times and bad, even if the volume of waste falls.

In my area/system, I can influence this:
Filter my recyclable to my "free"-pickup bin.
Reduce my rubbish volume, so that my use of Council bags is less frequent. Personally, I might only fill four a year.
This also involves directing my biodegradables to my own garden. Compost for me, and I can't participate in the business program, anyway.
In hard times (socially or personally) I might resort to a small once-a-month bag of rubbish (can't recycle or compost) stuffed into to the nearest public bin. The kind that is there to reduce litter. Maybe 100-litres. And emptied by the city. And I might justify that by saying, "My tax dollars paid for it already." And my city of a half-million apparently only has one cop assigned to enforcing that particular no-dumping rule.
-- Want Freebies? http://www.TheFreeStuffList.com/ Check The Free Stuff List