|
Siting of panels for solar water heating
"David Hansen" wrote in message ... On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:36:56 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- This is complete and utter bull****. Excellent, more personal abuse. Fortnightly bin collections are not acceptable. Ah, proof by assertion. As others have said, experience seems to be that switching to collection of residual waste once a fortnight initially causes loud complaints by some, but the silent majority have no problem with it. I'm happy to be loud. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH FORTNIGHTLY BIN COLLECTIONS! Mary -- 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 |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
"John Beardmore" wrote in message ... I'd settle for 3 licensed operators with each having a different collection day on a given street. OK - by this implies that there will be a licensing process and tendering process to select the three. More bureaucracy. And more emissions. Mary |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
On 2006-11-25 12:42:53 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 11:56:52 +0000, David Hansen said: On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:41:34 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall :- Has still to propose, in some detail, something better. I don't *have* to anything. There are already plenty of ideas; the most obvious of which is to take the local authorities out of the food chain. Hardly a detailed proposal for what should replace them. I didn't set out to provide a detailed proposal - simply an outline of what obviously needs to be done. |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
On 2006-11-25 12:49:59 +0000, John Beardmore said:
I think you'll find there is more than one solution. One might be for you to sort your own waste in a responsible way. That's not necessary or interesting to do. I already pay for a refusal disposal service - I don't therefore expect to have to do half the job myself. Of course if FoE and others would like to volunteer to go and sift through the stuff at waste transfer stations on Sunday afternoons, I'd have no objection at all. No doubt you would be willing to exploit them, but I doubt they'd have time to sort through all the waste people like you produce and can't be bothered to sort themselves. Too busy with more buckets of greenwash? I might even buy them a packet of biscuits at Christmas. Good to see such a responsible attitude ! They'll have to separate the packaging themselves, though. |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
On 2006-11-25 13:31:56 +0000, David Hansen
said: On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:27:46 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- When things are different in different places some people whine about how it should all be standardised to avoid confusion. However, when things are standardised the same people whine about how they are straight jacketed by a centrally imposed system. Which means that the solution is for everything to go into one collection container and for it to be sorted by those being paid to do it. That is one solution, though even then there are two options about where the sorting is done. The first option is the Stalinst one of a central "facility" at which to do the sorting. I assume this is the option you are in favour of. Sorting out compostable and other waste at such a "facility" is a rather dirty operation. I didn't mention Uncle Joe - you did. I really don't care whether it's a centralised or decentralised facility. I pay for a disposal service and I expect the supplier of that to deal with these issues. That's what I'm paying them to do. The second option is to do the sorting at the container, with staff sorting the contents of the container into a multi-compartment vehicle. If one provides a separate bin for compostable waste, which is taken off separately to a composter, then the sorting operation is very much less dirty. One could then provide two containers, to be collected on alternate weeks. One container is the one for residual waste and one for recyclable waste. The second option seems a lot better to me. I really don't mind what they do. I expect to be able to put out all of the rubbish, each week, and for it all to be collected. I don't expect to do half the job of the refuse collector. I may wish to use some material from the garden to make compost for the garden, but don't expect to be compelled to do so. |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
On 2006-11-25 12:51:39 +0000, Huge said:
I do wonder if the State is that marvellous, why it isn't prepared to compete against private enterprise. Because it knows full well that it can't. The culture and level of competence means that it has to overstaff and to bring in large amounts of outside consulting etc. to achieve the requirements. The inevitable result is overpricing and poor quality. The only way to defend that is not to have any competition so that people have no comparison points. And in this particualr case, there's no reason whatsoever why the local Council shouldn't sell a "Home Care" package that people could choose to buy or not, as they wish. Absolutely. |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
On 2006-11-25 13:34:39 +0000, David Hansen
said: On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:03:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- Of course people can arrange their own waste collection agreements in exactly the same way that they buy food, gas, electricity, telecommunication and most other commodities. People tend not to consider these things too carefully. Rather they stick with what they know. The number of people who have not switched gas and electricity suppliers is a case in point. Many people have better things to do with their lives than switch suppliers. Agreed. It's something that I spend ten minutes on max. once a year. If local authorities wished to license themselves as one of the options, then that would be fine, so long as it's an optional service and the customer can choose to by elsewhere and not pay for the council product. |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
On 2006-11-25 13:02:59 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 11:02:44 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 01:44:09 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 00:52:39 +0000, John Beardmore said: Why can't I opt out of the payments if I don't want to buy the service, but choose my own while still complying with the EPA (above)? Same reason you can't opt out of buying Trident but keep a few grenades under the kitchen sink I guess. Different issue I think. A parallel one I think. Not really. Well - no doubt anybody reading this will understand the analogy and recognise the extent of its limitations. That's good, because there's little to compare between domestic refuse collection and the defence of the nation. Perhaps there is another clause saying that the local authority or its representative is the only "authorised person" No - it's to do with having waste transfer licenses. Fine, so no need for a restriction. Well - you seem keen to have three players selected to provide the service. That's hardly unfettered capitalism. There will certainly be people kept out of what you claim is a very lucrative market. Three was a number chosen as being sufficient to have competition. It could be ten, or an unlimited number. The economic equation is smple enough Today, I pay £X to the local authority of which an amount goes for rubbish collection. The local authority subcontracts to a private firm to do the work but in addition employs a large department of people who are supposed to be administering it, but in practice do very little of any value. The private firm still makes a profit or it would not be doing the work. If the unnecessary overhead of the local authority is taken out of the loop, the firm can do more for the same money or deliver the same for less money. Unless the LA have a useful QA function. Depends how much you trust the private contractors to do it right if unpoliced. That could be done by a very small number of people or could also be outsourced to an independent private organisation. The only people to lose out would be the bureaucrats in the local authority who aren't adding any value in the first place. They should view it as an opportunity to find something gainful to do. That would be a benefit to them as well as to the population as a whole. Maybe in some instances, but I'm not convinced it's true in the general case. You haven't met many local authority employees, have you....? Perhaps the authority chooses not to use multiple contractors and to offer the customer a choice. It might have discretion to do that. I'm still not convinced it would result in better service or greater efficiency. Competition almost always results in the customer getting what they want at the right price. I want an electron microscope for 50p. Almost... Check out your local Aldi. They are bound to have a Christmas offer on one. Just for you. Just today. I doubt it. So try Lidl - they may have |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
On 2006-11-25 13:37:53 +0000, David Hansen
said: On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:17:03 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- No it isn't. The comment was about the statement being complete and utter bull****, not the person who made it. Of course if you wish to feel inadequate because you made it, that's your affair. Excellent, mind reading as well. How you arrive at that conclusion from what I wrote, I have no idea...... Don't take up mind reading for a living, you aren't very good at it. I have no intention of doing so, so the matter doesn't arise. As others have said, experience seems to be that switching to collection of residual waste once a fortnight initially causes loud complaints by some, but the silent majority have no problem with it. It may be where you live. Ah, another attempt at personalisation. I wasn't writing about you, I was writing about where you live. My comment has nothing to do with where I live, rather it relates to a couple of postings by others in this thread. That's OK then - so basically a couple of postings in a newsgroup takes us to the inevitable conclusion that the silent majority have no problem with poor service? This must mean that since a cow is a four legged animal, all four legged animals must be cows.... |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 12:42:53 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 11:56:52 +0000, David Hansen said: On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:41:34 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall :- Has still to propose, in some detail, something better. I don't *have* to anything. There are already plenty of ideas; the most obvious of which is to take the local authorities out of the food chain. Hardly a detailed proposal for what should replace them. I didn't set out to provide a detailed proposal - Indeed. simply an outline of what obviously needs to be done. Yes - it is an outline, but until the details are known, it's not obviously better than the situation we have now. Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
In message , Mary Fisher
writes "John Beardmore" wrote in message ... How much energy is used raising a moderate amount of water to say 55 degrees, (and the tail end of the washing up water will probably do !), as opposed to melting glass ? 55C ???? That's VERY hot for washing up - unnecessarily so. But with a solar water heat very little energy need be used to get water hot enough for washing up. Yes - I'm inclined to agree, but people do get very up tight about Legionella. They do, without considering that Legionella has to get into the system to be a problem. I understand it's fairly ubiquitous, but normally prevented from building up or killed by copper concentration, lack of nutrients, and being washed through the system. This concern has a huge energy cost. Some cooks seem keen to have washing up water hot enough to blister skin too... I know. And then wear gloves to protect their hands from it. Daft I call it. :) As an IOSH member I couldn't possibly comment ! Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 12:49:59 +0000, John Beardmore said: I think you'll find there is more than one solution. One might be for you to sort your own waste in a responsible way. That's not necessary Not necessary in the same sense as eating or breathing. Perhaps necessary in the same sense as not cutting down all the trees. or interesting to do. Many things that we need to do to survive are not hugely interesting. I already pay for a refusal disposal service - I don't therefore expect to have to do half the job myself. The requirement has changed a lot in the last 20 years. Would you rather 1) sort it your self 2) waste a lot of it or 3) pay to have somebody else do a more difficult and expensive separation and bill you for it ? You seem unwilling to consider option 1 and by default do option 2. If in the end option 3 is imposed on you, I shan't grieve. Of course if FoE and others would like to volunteer to go and sift through the stuff at waste transfer stations on Sunday afternoons, I'd have no objection at all. No doubt you would be willing to exploit them, but I doubt they'd have time to sort through all the waste people like you produce and can't be bothered to sort themselves. Too busy with more buckets of greenwash? Even FoE zealots need time off. I might even buy them a packet of biscuits at Christmas. Good to see such a responsible attitude ! They'll have to separate the packaging themselves, though. I'm sure they can manage that. Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
In message , Mary Fisher
writes I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH FORTNIGHTLY BIN COLLECTIONS! Can we all play ? Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
"John Beardmore" wrote in message ... In message , Mary Fisher writes I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH FORTNIGHTLY BIN COLLECTIONS! Can we all play ? You have to throw a six to start :-) changing subject - horrors! We painted our sittiing room recently (yes, water based environmentally friendly paint so pure you can put the remains on your compost heap) and I had to move all the stored board games. I'd forgotten one, bought in the seventies I think, called POLLUTION. ISTR that the aim was to trade pollutants ... Mary |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
"John Beardmore" wrote in message ... Some cooks seem keen to have washing up water hot enough to blister skin too... I know. And then wear gloves to protect their hands from it. Daft I call it. :) As an IOSH member I couldn't possibly comment ! I give in. What's IOSH - Inspectorate of Safety Hazards? Mary |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
"John Beardmore" wrote in message ... In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 12:49:59 +0000, John Beardmore said: I think you'll find there is more than one solution. One might be for you to sort your own waste in a responsible way. That's not necessary Not necessary in the same sense as eating or breathing. Perhaps necessary in the same sense as not cutting down all the trees. or interesting to do. Many things that we need to do to survive are not hugely interesting. Especially those things which women traditionally do. Like feed men, clean up after them and wash their pants. Unless they have disposable ones of course ... I already pay for a refusal disposal service - I don't therefore expect to have to do half the job myself. It's hardly half! |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
On 2006-11-25 16:47:35 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 12:42:53 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 11:56:52 +0000, David Hansen said: On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:41:34 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall :- Has still to propose, in some detail, something better. I don't *have* to anything. There are already plenty of ideas; the most obvious of which is to take the local authorities out of the food chain. Hardly a detailed proposal for what should replace them. I didn't set out to provide a detailed proposal - Indeed. simply an outline of what obviously needs to be done. Yes - it is an outline, but until the details are known, it's not obviously better than the situation we have now. It really isn't rocket science to work out that if one takes out a non productive cost element from a product or service, it can be delivered to the customer for less money, or the customer can get more for the same money. |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
On 2006-11-25 17:11:13 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 12:49:59 +0000, John Beardmore said: I think you'll find there is more than one solution. One might be for you to sort your own waste in a responsible way. That's not necessary Not necessary in the same sense as eating or breathing. Perhaps necessary in the same sense as not cutting down all the trees. Now you are extrapolating into other areas that have nothing to do with the point being made. If there is some value in sorting waste (and I think that's highly questionable in the first place but let's accept it for the moment), either I can do it or I can pay someone else to do it. I prefer the latter. The outcome does not depend on whether or not I do it or someone else does it, therefore it is bogus to suggest that taking responsibility requires the individual to act directly. or interesting to do. Many things that we need to do to survive are not hugely interesting. ... and this is one that I don't even need to do, therefore I am even less motivated to do it. I already pay for a refusal disposal service - I don't therefore expect to have to do half the job myself. The requirement has changed a lot in the last 20 years. Who has changed the requirement? Would you rather 1) sort it your self 2) waste a lot of it or 3) pay to have somebody else do a more difficult and expensive separation and bill you for it ? or 4) develop the technology to do 3) more efficiently such that 1) is unnecessary. You seem unwilling to consider option 1 and by default do option 2. If in the end option 3 is imposed on you, I shan't grieve. There is no need for option 3) to be more expensive provided that administrative cost savings can be made and suitable technology is developed. Of course if FoE and others would like to volunteer to go and sift through the stuff at waste transfer stations on Sunday afternoons, I'd have no objection at all. No doubt you would be willing to exploit them, but I doubt they'd have time to sort through all the waste people like you produce and can't be bothered to sort themselves. Too busy with more buckets of greenwash? Even FoE zealots need time off. I might even buy them a packet of biscuits at Christmas. Good to see such a responsible attitude ! They'll have to separate the packaging themselves, though. I'm sure they can manage that. Cheers, J/. |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
On 2006-11-25 17:44:41 +0000, Owain said:
Andy Hall wrote: There still is 20p deposit on Barr's Irn-Bru bottles. I have about £4's worth under the sink as Emergency Savings. I don't seem to see them here - only plastic bottles. Perhaps only the sugary version is in glass, or do they do the non sugary one in glass as well? Perhaps they only do the glass bottles in Scotland. It's hard to imagine a non-sugary version of the product. It certainly exists. I don't know what the sugary one is like because I only buy non-sugary drinks. |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
On 2006-11-25 17:50:45 +0000, Owain said:
Andy Hall wrote: Why can't I opt out of the payments if I don't want to buy the service, but choose my own while still complying with the EPA (above)? You could, if you're a business, because business rates don't include waste disposal. That would be a good solution. Unfortunately, typically one is not permitted to run a business from home, at least not in a way that secures business rates. Perhaps there is another clause saying that the local authority or its representative is the only "authorised person" If so, it's a monopoly. Perhaps the authority chooses not to use multiple contractors and to offer the customer a choice. Again a monopoly. Yup, and not a very good one. I think my bins have been emptied once in the last five weeks. At that point, assuming I had already been giving the head of the department daily dyspepsia for the previous four weeks, I think I would be delivering the bags of rubbish to the reception of his office and arranging the press to be in attendance. |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
Andy Hall wrote:
The simple solution would be for an arrangement that each company collects in different areas on different days. That would take a ten year old an afternoon to work out. That might be why its not done then. NT |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
"Owain" wrote in message ... Mary Fisher wrote: And more emissions. Not necessarily. They could combine it with other service, eg home shopping delivery. Swap a box of shopping with a box of clean recyclable waste, and a sealed plastic bag for smelly non-recyclables. Perfectly hygienic. I acquire almost all my rubbish from Tesco; they might as well take it away again. :-) I don't get any rubbish from Tesco. Haven't paid them for years. Mary Owain |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
John Beardmore wrote:
In message . com, writes Do the council have a monopoly ? Lets give you another example then, should make it easier to see. Lets say you were forced to pay for breakfast at a certain eatery on the way to work, you had to pay whether you used the service or not, and once you'd paid you cold eat as much and often as you wanted, or not at all. But you paid the same. Now, having paid, you're likely to eat there. This is a monopoly in practice. Sure someone else could sell you food, but since you've already been forced to pay for this place, its monopolistic. This is how council garbage collection works. Agreed. But while its an anti competitive practice, it's not strictly a monopoly I guess. With a monopoly, if you want the product you have to pay the company. If you dont want it, you dont pay. With LAs you're forced to pay regardless. Its worse. There is a set of people who, in a free market, would invest a little time energy and money into reducing recycling and self disposing waste, and just call a private rubbish co on the odd occasion to dispose of a batch of waste. The state system strongly disincentivises this, it causes the waste and pollution we see today. AND charges people for the privilege. NT |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
John Beardmore wrote:
I guess to some extent this situation has perhaps arisen to address a need from an era when the private sector did not offer waste collection services, but imperfect though the present situation is, I'm not sure that having three providers working the same streets would be more efficient, reduce congestion, or otherwise be too smart. The ones with a cell between their ears would swap client collections so that it was one company one vehicle at each collection time. This could be automated by computer easily. Companies that didnt swap for efficiency would see higher costs, and go out of business. In any other area private enterprise competes, and working out solutions to problems is part of that competing. The most successful at delivering what the customer wants wins. People running upmarket B&Bs dont want rubbish piling up for 1 or even 2 weeks and ponging. People on benefits dont want to pay for weekly collections when fortnightly is good enough, and they have more important things to spend on. Some would consider monthly more than enough, etc. With choice we can all choose what fits our needs and wishes, thus delivery of service will be efficient in this respect. LA collections are simply going to be the wrong product for a significant proportion of its customers, because they dont give any choices, and customers circumstances differ. Also LAs dont predict or satisfy customer wishes adequately. They dont offer a choice of collection intervals and prices, they dont adress poor operator behaviour, and they dont strive to improve their service. With private collection we would see everything from thrice weekly collections from the rear of your property in a cleanly painted quiet engined wagon with suited operators in Chelsea to minimum cost collection every 3 weeks by 17 yr olds employed by PoundGarb company, who wouldnt stray further than the pavement and wouldnt sort anything. In each case, the customer gets what they want and choose, and they choose according to service and price. LAs are so uncompetitive it never even occurs to them to offer any variation in service at all. NT |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Andy Hall writes Competition almost always results in the customer getting what they want at the right price. I want an electron microscope for 50p. Capitalism expands the options. I was about to say it doesnt create the imposible, but actually it does, its because of capitalism we have 4G CPUs today. If computer manufacture were left to LAs we'd still be using the 286. Yesterday shredders cost £8 and up. Today they cost £1, and sell, because someone realised customers wanted them and then managed to work out how to do it. LAs dont even try in this respect. They dont even have the skill set. NT |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:36:56 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:- Fortnightly bin collections are not acceptable. Ah, proof by assertion. As others have said, experience seems to be that switching to collection of residual waste once a fortnight initially causes loud complaints by some, but the silent majority have no problem with it. You've interviewed a statistically significant sample of them? Or do you just presume anyone who doesnt complain is ok with it? Most people dont complain in most instances. Round here our LA has not questioned people about their rubbish collection wishes, and there are no collection options, so they have no way of knowing. There is just about no attempt to giv people what they want (which implies being wiling to pay for) NT |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
In message , Mary Fisher
writes "John Beardmore" wrote in message ... Some cooks seem keen to have washing up water hot enough to blister skin too... I know. And then wear gloves to protect their hands from it. Daft I call it. :) As an IOSH member I couldn't possibly comment ! I give in. What's IOSH - Inspectorate of Safety Hazards? Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 16:47:35 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 12:42:53 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 11:56:52 +0000, David Hansen said: On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:41:34 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall :- Has still to propose, in some detail, something better. I don't *have* to anything. There are already plenty of ideas; the most obvious of which is to take the local authorities out of the food chain. Hardly a detailed proposal for what should replace them. I didn't set out to provide a detailed proposal - Indeed. simply an outline of what obviously needs to be done. Yes - it is an outline, but until the details are known, it's not obviously better than the situation we have now. It really isn't rocket science to work out that if one takes out a non productive cost element from a product or service, it can be delivered to the customer for less money, or the customer can get more for the same money. Indeed, though we differ in that you believe that the LA layer contributes nothing, and having seen it up close, I'm not sure I agree. Without seeing what you propose in detail, I can't say if you cover all the bases or not. Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
"John Beardmore" wrote in message ... In message , Mary Fisher writes "John Beardmore" wrote in message ... Some cooks seem keen to have washing up water hot enough to blister skin too... I know. And then wear gloves to protect their hands from it. Daft I call it. :) As an IOSH member I couldn't possibly comment ! I give in. What's IOSH - Inspectorate of Safety Hazards? Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. I was close :-) Mary |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
In message , Mary Fisher
writes "John Beardmore" wrote in message ... In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 12:49:59 +0000, John Beardmore said: I think you'll find there is more than one solution. One might be for you to sort your own waste in a responsible way. That's not necessary Not necessary in the same sense as eating or breathing. Perhaps necessary in the same sense as not cutting down all the trees. or interesting to do. Many things that we need to do to survive are not hugely interesting. Especially those things which women traditionally do. Like feed men, :) All in favour say 'Aye' ! clean up after them :) You might think that - I couldn't possibly comment. and wash their pants. :) Terrible thing those pants... Unless they have disposable ones of course ... They'd have to be compostable... I already pay for a refusal disposal service - I don't therefore expect to have to do half the job myself. It's hardly half! Agreed ! Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
On 2006-11-25 20:45:46 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes It really isn't rocket science to work out that if one takes out a non productive cost element from a product or service, it can be delivered to the customer for less money, or the customer can get more for the same money. Indeed, though we differ in that you believe that the LA layer contributes nothing, and having seen it up close, I'm not sure I agree. I've seen enough to be able to see that if many of the people were doing equivalent jobs in the private sector, they would be out of the door. Standards are very disappointing among LA employees from my observations. Without seeing what you propose in detail, I can't say if you cover all the bases or not. There isn't a need to cover all of the bases. Only those that actually make a difference. |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 20:45:46 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes It really isn't rocket science to work out that if one takes out a non productive cost element from a product or service, it can be delivered to the customer for less money, or the customer can get more for the same money. Indeed, though we differ in that you believe that the LA layer contributes nothing, and having seen it up close, I'm not sure I agree. I've seen enough to be able to see that if many of the people were doing equivalent jobs in the private sector, they would be out of the door. Standards are very disappointing among LA employees from my observations. Yes - there are some sad fossils, but we're going round in circles here. I won't bother to reiterate my view. Just take it as read that we'll have to agree to differ. Without seeing what you propose in detail, I can't say if you cover all the bases or not. There isn't a need to cover all of the bases. Only those that actually make a difference. I have the feeling that we'd draw up different lists. Nothing wrong in that per se, but I would want to see what you propose in detail before I'd consider voting for it. Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
In message , Mary Fisher
writes "John Beardmore" wrote in message ... In message , Mary Fisher writes "John Beardmore" wrote in message ... Some cooks seem keen to have washing up water hot enough to blister skin too... I know. And then wear gloves to protect their hands from it. Daft I call it. :) As an IOSH member I couldn't possibly comment ! I give in. What's IOSH - Inspectorate of Safety Hazards? Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. I was close :-) Yes - I don't inspect things, though occasionally audit them. That's more on the energy side than health and safety though. Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
In message , Owain
writes John Beardmore wrote: Competition almost always results in the customer getting what they want at the right price. I want an electron microscope for 50p. Almost... Have you tried those police auction websites? No. Do they often have EMs ? I do know somebody who got an SEM for £50 which worked after a fairly trivial fix. I'd go for that... Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
|
Siting of panels for solar water heating
On 2006-11-25 21:36:07 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 20:45:46 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes It really isn't rocket science to work out that if one takes out a non productive cost element from a product or service, it can be delivered to the customer for less money, or the customer can get more for the same money. Indeed, though we differ in that you believe that the LA layer contributes nothing, and having seen it up close, I'm not sure I agree. I've seen enough to be able to see that if many of the people were doing equivalent jobs in the private sector, they would be out of the door. Standards are very disappointing among LA employees from my observations. Yes - there are some sad fossils, but we're going round in circles here. I haven't changed my position. I won't bother to reiterate my view. Just take it as read that we'll have to agree to differ. OK. You wouldn't be an LA employee would you? Without seeing what you propose in detail, I can't say if you cover all the bases or not. There isn't a need to cover all of the bases. Only those that actually make a difference. I have the feeling that we'd draw up different lists. Nothing wrong in that per se, but I would want to see what you propose in detail before I'd consider voting for it. Certainly the whole issue should be made democratic. Currently, we vote periodically for people entrusted to do our bidding. I don't think that that is granular enough. In the area we've been discussing, there is little to no democracy at all. So.... why not make it so. For the local authority elections, it would be a simple matter to put different implementation alternatives on the ballot papers as well as the candidates. In other words, people who want to have a green package involving all the things you've described can vote for that. People who want the cheapest service can vote for it. Those who want a higher level of service and are willing to pay a little more *as long as it is delivered* can vote for that. The outcome would be interesting. My guess is that where I am, the percentages would be about 25/50/25 of the turn out respectively - bearing in mind that local elections are never well attended. This was why I came to the conclusion that it makes much more sense to allow people to buy the level of service they want, according to their circumstances and priorities. |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
On 2006-11-25 21:50:32 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Owain writes John Beardmore wrote: Competition almost always results in the customer getting what they want at the right price. I want an electron microscope for 50p. Almost... Have you tried those police auction websites? No. Do they often have EMs ? I do know somebody who got an SEM for £50 which worked after a fairly trivial fix. I'd go for that... But what would you use it for? |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
In message , Mary Fisher
writes "John Beardmore" wrote in message ... In message , Mary Fisher writes I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH FORTNIGHTLY BIN COLLECTIONS! Can we all play ? You have to throw a six to start :-) Good job I didn't ! I'd just found /usr/games/banner on the Linux box... changing subject - horrors! We painted our sittiing room recently (yes, water based environmentally friendly paint so pure you can put the remains on your compost heap) Hmmm... Very consistent with 'Directive 2004/42/CE on the limitation of VOCs due to the use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes' ! and I had to move all the stored board games. I'd forgotten one, bought in the seventies I think, called POLLUTION. ISTR that the aim was to trade pollutants ... EU ETS here we come ! Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 21:36:07 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-25 20:45:46 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes It really isn't rocket science to work out that if one takes out non productive cost element from a product or service, it can be delivered to the customer for less money, or the customer can get more for the same money. Indeed, though we differ in that you believe that the LA layer contributes nothing, and having seen it up close, I'm not sure I agree. I've seen enough to be able to see that if many of the people were doing equivalent jobs in the private sector, they would be out of the door. Standards are very disappointing among LA employees from my observations. Yes - there are some sad fossils, but we're going round in circles here. I haven't changed my position. Nor have I. I won't bother to reiterate my view. Just take it as read that we'll have to agree to differ. OK. You wouldn't be an LA employee would you? No - and wouldn't want to be. Without seeing what you propose in detail, I can't say if you cover all the bases or not. There isn't a need to cover all of the bases. Only those that actually make a difference. I have the feeling that we'd draw up different lists. Nothing wrong in that per se, but I would want to see what you propose in detail before I'd consider voting for it. Certainly the whole issue should be made democratic. Currently, we vote periodically for people entrusted to do our bidding. I don't think that that is granular enough. Agreed. In the area we've been discussing, there is little to no democracy at all. In fact, there is no democracy in most areas. Saying 'left a bit' or 'right a bit' every few years doesn't come close. So.... why not make it so. For the local authority elections, it would be a simple matter to put different implementation alternatives on the ballot papers as well as the candidates. Yes - but as LAs deal with so many issues waste would be lost in the noise. You really need voting on a per issue basis, including consent to pay - otherwise people will vote for micro budget with macro deliverables. In other words, people who want to have a green package involving all the things you've described can vote for that. People who want the cheapest service can vote for it. Those who want a higher level of service and are willing to pay a little more *as long as it is delivered* can vote for that. The outcome would be interesting. My guess is that where I am, the percentages would be about 25/50/25 of the turn out respectively - bearing in mind that local elections are never well attended. You may be right, though I'd be quite happy to take the less sustainable options off the agenda. In other words, you can pick a rate of collection, the uniform the people that collect ware etc, but your waste will be separated. Either you will do it or you will be billed for its having been done. This was why I came to the conclusion that it makes much more sense to allow people to buy the level of service they want, according to their circumstances and priorities. I'm not sure that meeting minimum environmental standards should be optional, but above, we seem to confusing voting for a particular single solution and allowing people to choose from a palette of solutions. Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore |
Siting of panels for solar water heating
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 21:50:32 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Owain writes John Beardmore wrote: Competition almost always results in the customer getting what they want at the right price. I want an electron microscope for 50p. Almost... Have you tried those police auction websites? No. Do they often have EMs ? I do know somebody who got an SEM for £50 which worked after a fairly trivial fix. I'd go for that... But what would you use it for? I never had any trouble finding interesting things to do with a decent optical microscope. Another three orders of magnitude magnification shouldn't make the world any less interesting ! Think of it as a leisure activity, but I might find the odd commercial use. Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter