In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?

Bill

Bill Wright wrote

In the interests of the conservation of materials and
energy, should not DIY, especially the repair of goods,
be a priority for the environmental movement?

Yes. But the problem is that younger people are much more
likely to be renting which makes DIY rather harder for them.

Certainly some of them are into DIY, most obviously with the fringe
loons that make their houses entirely out of scrap they can find.

On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?

It must present an interesting conflict for many a green... on the one
hand it is a very good fit with the political ideology, and yet on the
other the knowledge requirements and attention to detail required are
likely to be counter to the (lack of) thought process that makes much
green policy seem even plausible in the first place.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?

Bill

DIY often results in a great deal of unused product which a professional
would use on another job, as well as often entailing multiple visits to B&Q.

It also wastes plasters and bandages.

Cheers
--
Syd

On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?

Bill

I do, but it needs working at.

One of the worst excesses of DIY has to be single household tool
proliferation. So, this sort of thing:

http://www.brighthub.com/environment...les/54244.aspx

DIY on its own as it stands probably wastes more than it saves.

Also, skill sharing. IMHO DIY gets bodged because the DIYer doesn't have
the time/experience to get up to speed. It often takes me three or four
times to get things even remotely right, whereas some things seem more
natural. So share skills:

https://www.impossible.com

(don't know anything about them, but does seem to organise the principle
of skill sharing)

And then there's the issue of putting trades people out of work.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?


Well there is already a subset of them who are keen to promote the
"sharing economy" for tools - something I find hard to argue with if
it's true the average electric drill is used for less than 20 minutes in
its life[1]. Streetclub, Streetbank etc

[1] I suspect that should be "the median total use is less than 20
minutes" given a long tail of well-used drills will increase the mean,
even if trade use is excluded, but can't find the source of the claim.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 23/03/16 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?

Yes.

http://faircompanies.com

--
Adrian C

On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:

In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?


Well there is already a subset of them who are keen to promote the
"sharing economy" for tools - something I find hard to argue with if
it's true the average electric drill is used for less than 20 minutes in
its life[1]. Streetclub, Streetbank etc

[1] I suspect that should be "the median total use is less than 20
minutes" given a long tail of well-used drills will increase the mean,
even if trade use is excluded, but can't find the source of the claim.

someone probably interviewed their fellow journalists, one of whom owned one but gave up after one use.


NT

On 23/03/16 09:22, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?

It must present an interesting conflict for many a green... on the one
hand it is a very good fit with the political ideology, and yet on the
other the knowledge requirements and attention to detail required are
likely to be counter to the (lack of) thought process that makes much
green policy seem even plausible in the first place.


WTF is a 'green cause'

Mould?


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

In article ,
Syd Rumpo wrote:
DIY often results in a great deal of unused product which a professional
would use on another job, as well as often entailing multiple visits to
B&Q.

If you keep what is left over after DIY, perhaps fewer visits to B&Q?
But then a seasoned DIYer wouldn't go near B&Q anyway.

--
*(over a sketch of the titanic) "The boat sank - get over it

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 23/03/2016 10:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Syd Rumpo wrote:
DIY often results in a great deal of unused product which a professional
would use on another job, as well as often entailing multiple visits to
B&Q.

If you keep what is left over after DIY, perhaps fewer visits to B&Q?
But then a seasoned DIYer wouldn't go near B&Q anyway.

You're a right barrel of laughs.

Cheers
--
Syd

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should
not DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the
environmental movement?

It must present an interesting conflict for many a green... on the one
hand it is a very good fit with the political ideology, and yet on the
other the knowledge requirements and attention to detail required are
likely to be counter to the (lack of) thought process that makes much
green policy seem even plausible in the first place.

Very true with some.

Have a pal who is into 'green' Replaced his Mini which he'd bought new and
had done few miles (9,000 in 3 years) with an electric Smart car. Claiming
it will save money as well as the planet. It's one of these where you rent
the battery. The total cost per mile of his motoring must be horrendous.
But tries to wind me up about my gas guzzling ancient Rover. ;-)

--
*Whatever kind of look you were going for, you missed.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 04:38:40 UTC+1, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?

Yes. It is. There are many environmental groups running "Repair Cafes"
and similar.

Of course, from the point of view of the environment, there is no particular
advantage to ripping out that three year old kitchen yourself as opposed to
paying a builder to do it for you.

On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 10:22:04 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?

It must present an interesting conflict for many a green

Can't speak for any other Green, but I find no conflict.

... on the one
hand it is a very good fit with the political ideology, and yet on the
other the knowledge requirements and attention to detail required are
likely to be counter to the (lack of) thought process that makes much
green policy seem even plausible in the first place.

On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 09:51:31 UTC, RJH wrote:
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?

Bill

I do, but it needs working at.

One of the worst excesses of DIY has to be single household tool
proliferation. So, this sort of thing:

http://www.brighthub.com/environment...les/54244.aspx

DIY on its own as it stands probably wastes more than it saves.

Also, skill sharing. IMHO DIY gets bodged because the DIYer doesn't have
the time/experience to get up to speed. It often takes me three or four
times to get things even remotely right,

if it take you 4 times longer I can only assume you do it for fun. ;-)

So why don't people get pros in... the answer is usually cost.



whereas some things seem more
natural. So share skills:

https://www.impossible.com

(don't know anything about them, but does seem to organise the principle
of skill sharing)

Really , just seemed like an expensive place to shop.

£70 for an ipad case ! that's even more than Aple charge !

http://shop.impossible.com/collectio...hose-ipad-case


And then there's the issue of putting trades people out of work.

Not just trades peolpe but what of all those economic migrants looking for work or ayslum seekers who don't want benifits but want to work. :-)

In message , Robin writes
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?


Well there is already a subset of them who are keen to promote the
"sharing economy" for tools - something I find hard to argue with if
it's true the average electric drill is used for less than 20 minutes
in its life[1]. Streetclub, Streetbank etc

[1] I suspect that should be "the median total use is less than 20
minutes" given a long tail of well-used drills will increase the mean,
even if trade use is excluded, but can't find the source of the claim.

Huh! One of our local comedians wanted to borrow a chain saw to remove a
tree stump.


--
Tim Lamb

On 23/03/2016 09:51, RJH wrote:

One of the worst excesses of DIY has to be single household tool
proliferation. So, this sort of thing:

http://www.brighthub.com/environment...les/54244.aspx

Just an ideologically left-wing way of putting the toolhire companies
out of business.

Bill

On 23/03/2016 09:57, Robin wrote:

Well there is already a subset of them who are keen to promote the
"sharing economy" for tools - something I find hard to argue with if
it's true the average electric drill is used for less than 20 minutes in
its life[1]. Streetclub, Streetbank etc

[1] I suspect that should be "the median total use is less than 20
minutes" given a long tail of well-used drills will increase the mean,
even if trade use is excluded, but can't find the source of the claim.

A B & D rep once told me that the DIY drills are expected to run for 8
hours.

Bill

On 23/03/16 11:22, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 09:51:31 UTC, RJH wrote:
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?

Bill

I do, but it needs working at.

One of the worst excesses of DIY has to be single household tool
proliferation. So, this sort of thing:

http://www.brighthub.com/environment...les/54244.aspx

DIY on its own as it stands probably wastes more than it saves.

Also, skill sharing. IMHO DIY gets bodged because the DIYer doesn't have
the time/experience to get up to speed. It often takes me three or four
times to get things even remotely right,

if it take you 4 times longer I can only assume you do it for fun. ;-)

So why don't people get pros in... the answer is usually cost.

More the aggravation.

A good pro is like gold.

Most (9/10ths when I was looking to have my roof retiled) either don't
turn up, charge silly money, cancel at the last minute or just talk
bull**** and look crap.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods,

As far as repairing goods is concerned, the whole point of mass production
certainly since the Industrial Revolutiin is to manufacture and assemble
all goods as far as possible by machine with as little labour input as
possible. As its this that makes goods so cheap in the first place.

Given economies of scale and labour costs its usually far more economic
to manufacture a new item from scratch than it is to train up technicians
to disassemble, diagnose and repair faults, maintain an inventory of spares
etc.Especially when new models might be introduced on an annual
basis.

In larger items such as cars these are often broken down into
sub-assemblies, headlights etc which need to be replaced
entirely and are imposible to repair.

Although this may be wastful of material, overall the cost saving in
labour is probably far greater than any labour costs incurred in sourcing
new material. For the present at least

This really is old stuff; going all the way back to Vance Packard and
the "Waste Makers" in the 50's/60's.

It must present an interesting conflict for many a green... on the one hand it is a
very good fit with the political ideology, and yet on the other the knowledge
requirements and attention to detail required are likely to be counter to the (lack of)
thought process that makes much green policy seem even plausible in the first place.

So which particular knowledge requirements and attention
to detail are you suggesting might reasonable be subsituted for
say an injection moulding machine or a numerically controlled lathe ?



michael adams

....

On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 11:58:35 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 23/03/16 11:22, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 09:51:31 UTC, RJH wrote:
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?

Bill

I do, but it needs working at.

One of the worst excesses of DIY has to be single household tool
proliferation. So, this sort of thing:

http://www.brighthub.com/environment...les/54244.aspx

DIY on its own as it stands probably wastes more than it saves.

Also, skill sharing. IMHO DIY gets bodged because the DIYer doesn't have
the time/experience to get up to speed. It often takes me three or four
times to get things even remotely right,

if it take you 4 times longer I can only assume you do it for fun. ;-)

So why don't people get pros in... the answer is usually cost.

More the aggravation.

A good pro is like gold.

Well a good pro is something else.


Most (9/10ths when I was looking to have my roof retiled) either don't
turn up, charge silly money, cancel at the last minute or just talk
bull**** and look crap.

So what did you do.
I had to have pros in as I don't own scaffolding and I doubt I could put it up by myself, otherwise the scaffolding company wouldn;t be employing 3 people to do it but would just employ one person wouldn't they ?

On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 11:42:42 UTC, Bill Wright wrote:
On 23/03/2016 09:51, RJH wrote:

One of the worst excesses of DIY has to be single household tool
proliferation. So, this sort of thing:

http://www.brighthub.com/environment...les/54244.aspx

Just an ideologically left-wing way of putting the toolhire companies
out of business.

Bill

how do they not get sued out of existence?


NT

On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 12:07:20 UTC, michael adams wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:

In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods,

As far as repairing goods is concerned, the whole point of mass production
certainly since the Industrial Revolutiin is to manufacture and assemble
all goods as far as possible by machine with as little labour input as
possible. As its this that makes goods so cheap in the first place.

Given economies of scale and labour costs its usually far more economic
to manufacture a new item from scratch than it is to train up technicians
to disassemble, diagnose and repair faults, maintain an inventory of spares
etc.Especially when new models might be introduced on an annual
basis.

In larger items such as cars these are often broken down into
sub-assemblies, headlights etc which need to be replaced
entirely and are imposible to repair.

Although this may be wastful of material, overall the cost saving in
labour is probably far greater than any labour costs incurred in sourcing
new material. For the present at least

This really is old stuff; going all the way back to Vance Packard and
the "Waste Makers" in the 50's/60's.

That's all half true. The reality is a considerable percentage of what's faulty & what's thrown away is worth repairing. And much isn't.


NT

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
On 23/03/2016 09:57, Robin wrote:

Well there is already a subset of them who are keen to promote the
"sharing economy" for tools - something I find hard to argue with if
it's true the average electric drill is used for less than 20 minutes in
its life[1]. Streetclub, Streetbank etc

[1] I suspect that should be "the median total use is less than 20
minutes" given a long tail of well-used drills will increase the mean,
even if trade use is excluded, but can't find the source of the claim.

A B & D rep once told me that the DIY drills are expected to run for 8
hours.

A great many years ago, my brother in law was fitting battens to a concrete
walled cellar, so he bought a new B&D hammer drill. (this was before the
days of SDS). In the morning he took it back to the shop complaining the
motor had burnt out. He took the replacement back the following day with
the same complaint - but he'd finished the job and ended up with new drill.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Syd Rumpo wrote:
On 23/03/2016 10:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Syd Rumpo wrote:
DIY often results in a great deal of unused product which a
professional would use on another job, as well as often entailing
multiple visits to B&Q.

If you keep what is left over after DIY, perhaps fewer visits to B&Q?
But then a seasoned DIYer wouldn't go near B&Q anyway.

You're a right barrel of laughs.

Glad to oblige.

--
*I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 23/03/16 12:14, whisky-dave wrote:

So what did you do. I had to have pros in as I don't own scaffolding
and I doubt I could put it up by myself, otherwise the scaffolding
company wouldn;t be employing 3 people to do it but would just employ
one person wouldn't they ?

Spend a lot of time finding one if the job was out of my league - or DIY
if it wasn't

On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 12:30:56 UTC, wrote:

That's all half true. The reality is a considerable percentage of what's faulty & what's thrown away is worth repairing. And much isn't.


Does anyone get thier shoes repaired anymore. Seen wuite a few mobile phone case shops doing key cutting PC & Mac repairs and shoe repairs all from one shop.

In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 12:07:20 UTC, michael adams wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:

In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should
not DIY, especially the repair of goods,

As far as repairing goods is concerned, the whole point of mass
production certainly since the Industrial Revolutiin is to manufacture
and assemble all goods as far as possible by machine with as little
labour input as possible. As its this that makes goods so cheap in the
first place.

Given economies of scale and labour costs its usually far more economic
to manufacture a new item from scratch than it is to train up
technicians to disassemble, diagnose and repair faults, maintain an
inventory of spares etc.Especially when new models might be introduced
on an annual basis.

In larger items such as cars these are often broken down into
sub-assemblies, headlights etc which need to be replaced entirely and
are imposible to repair.

Although this may be wastful of material, overall the cost saving in
labour is probably far greater than any labour costs incurred in
sourcing new material. For the present at least

This really is old stuff; going all the way back to Vance Packard and
the "Waste Makers" in the 50's/60's.

That's all half true. The reality is a considerable percentage of what's
faulty & what's thrown away is worth repairing. And much isn't.

There's also the cost of someone's time to be taken into account. DIY
repairs can be worth doing, but paying someone do to the job is most likely
uneconomic.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 12:30:56 UTC, wrote:

That's all half true. The reality is a considerable percentage of what's faulty &
what's thrown away is worth repairing. And much isn't.


Does anyone get thier shoes repaired anymore.

With modern moulded composition soles i.e around 90%
of Clarks shoes nowadays, never mind the cheap end of
the market, proper repair is impossible as they're
made as a unit.

Traditional shoes with leather shoes can still be
repaired and there are plenty of cobblers around
if you know where to look.

Many of the kiosks appear to specialise in repairing
heels on women's shoes.


michael adams

....

On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 13:27:45 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 12:07:20 UTC, michael adams wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:

In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should
not DIY, especially the repair of goods,

As far as repairing goods is concerned, the whole point of mass
production certainly since the Industrial Revolutiin is to manufacture
and assemble all goods as far as possible by machine with as little
labour input as possible. As its this that makes goods so cheap in the
first place.

Given economies of scale and labour costs its usually far more economic
to manufacture a new item from scratch than it is to train up
technicians to disassemble, diagnose and repair faults, maintain an
inventory of spares etc.Especially when new models might be introduced
on an annual basis.

In larger items such as cars these are often broken down into
sub-assemblies, headlights etc which need to be replaced entirely and
are imposible to repair.

Although this may be wastful of material, overall the cost saving in
labour is probably far greater than any labour costs incurred in
sourcing new material. For the present at least

This really is old stuff; going all the way back to Vance Packard and
the "Waste Makers" in the 50's/60's.

That's all half true. The reality is a considerable percentage of what's
faulty & what's thrown away is worth repairing. And much isn't.

There's also the cost of someone's time to be taken into account. DIY
repairs can be worth doing, but paying someone do to the job is most likely
uneconomic.

like I said it's often worthwhile. But we live in a throowaway culture and repair places aren't set up for it, they haven't moved with the times.


NT

In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 13:27:45 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 12:07:20 UTC, michael adams wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:

In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy,
should not DIY, especially the repair of goods,

As far as repairing goods is concerned, the whole point of mass
production certainly since the Industrial Revolutiin is to
manufacture and assemble all goods as far as possible by machine
with as little labour input as possible. As its this that makes
goods so cheap in the first place.

Given economies of scale and labour costs its usually far more
economic to manufacture a new item from scratch than it is to train
up technicians to disassemble, diagnose and repair faults, maintain
an inventory of spares etc.Especially when new models might be
introduced on an annual basis.

In larger items such as cars these are often broken down into
sub-assemblies, headlights etc which need to be replaced entirely
and are imposible to repair.

Although this may be wastful of material, overall the cost saving
in labour is probably far greater than any labour costs incurred in
sourcing new material. For the present at least

This really is old stuff; going all the way back to Vance Packard
and the "Waste Makers" in the 50's/60's.

That's all half true. The reality is a considerable percentage of
what's faulty & what's thrown away is worth repairing. And much isn't.

There's also the cost of someone's time to be taken into account. DIY
repairs can be worth doing, but paying someone do to the job is most
likely uneconomic.

like I said it's often worthwhile. But we live in a throowaway culture
and repair places aren't set up for it, they haven't moved with the times.


But, things have become far more specialised. Instead of "a kettle
element", a repair place would probably need half a dozen different types.
It's bad enough trying to find the correct size of shoelaces. An when it
comes to radios or TV's it's not just a matter of replacing a valve!

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"charles" wrote in message
...
But, things have become far more specialised. Instead of "a kettle
element", a repair place would probably need half a dozen different
types.

I only ever buy cheap plastic kettles nowadays. And I very much
doubt it would be possible to remove the element even if someone
wanted to. Putting threads on plastic components is probably
uneconomic as compared with gluing or moulding components
in place.


michael adams

....

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 13:27:45 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 12:07:20 UTC, michael adams wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:

In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should
not DIY, especially the repair of goods,

As far as repairing goods is concerned, the whole point of mass
production certainly since the Industrial Revolutiin is to manufacture
and assemble all goods as far as possible by machine with as little
labour input as possible. As its this that makes goods so cheap in the
first place.

Given economies of scale and labour costs its usually far more economic
to manufacture a new item from scratch than it is to train up
technicians to disassemble, diagnose and repair faults, maintain an
inventory of spares etc.Especially when new models might be introduced
on an annual basis.

In larger items such as cars these are often broken down into
sub-assemblies, headlights etc which need to be replaced entirely and
are imposible to repair.

Although this may be wastful of material, overall the cost saving in
labour is probably far greater than any labour costs incurred in
sourcing new material. For the present at least

This really is old stuff; going all the way back to Vance Packard and
the "Waste Makers" in the 50's/60's.

That's all half true. The reality is a considerable percentage of what's
faulty & what's thrown away is worth repairing. And much isn't.

There's also the cost of someone's time to be taken into account. DIY
repairs can be worth doing, but paying someone do to the job is most likely
uneconomic.

like I said it's often worthwhile.

Its only "worthwhile" if the persoin doing it isn't costing their
time.

But we live in a throowaway culture and repair places aren't set
up for it, they haven't moved with the times.

But that's assuming that whatever it is is repairable in
the first place. Many things such as headlights in many cars
and many similar "sealed units" are so designed as to be
impossible to dismantle let alone repair. And even with things
which can be repaired, assuming that the correct parts are
available - a problem which appears to beset even many
washing machines and boiler "specialists",by the time
the item has been dis-assembled, the fault diagnosed
and repaired it will often have been cheaper for the
repair place to supply a replacement unit instead.

It simply isn't economical except for people doing it as
a hobby.

Same as with most recycling certainly as practicised in the
UK; where sentiment is allowed to outweigh straightforward
economics.

Whereas in some subsistence economies its economical for
people who would otherwise be unempoyed to spend all their
time scouring rubbish dumps and landfills. A situation which
fortunately doesn't yet apply in the UK. Salvaging timber
from skips is different, as most of it is superior to
what's on offer "new" in the sheds.


michael adamas

....

On 23/03/2016 12:07, michael adams wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods,

As far as repairing goods is concerned, the whole point of mass production
certainly since the Industrial Revolutiin is to manufacture and assemble
all goods as far as possible by machine with as little labour input as
possible. As its this that makes goods so cheap in the first place.

Given economies of scale and labour costs its usually far more economic
to manufacture a new item from scratch than it is to train up technicians
to disassemble, diagnose and repair faults, maintain an inventory of spares
etc.Especially when new models might be introduced on an annual
basis.

Its more economic certainly - but also more environmentally wasteful in
many cases. You might also argue its necessary if you have an economy
based on consumption - having stuff that lasts and can be repaired might
them be considered counter productive.

In larger items such as cars these are often broken down into
sub-assemblies, headlights etc which need to be replaced
entirely and are imposible to repair.

Although this may be wastful of material, overall the cost saving in
labour is probably far greater than any labour costs incurred in sourcing
new material. For the present at least

Its a good argument, but frequently not realised out in practice. For
example a boiler maker might profit nicely from selling you a new PCB as
a self contained unit since it probably has several 100's of percent
markup on it. However the face that Geoff et al can make a living
refurbishing existing PCB suggests the only real justification for the
business model adopted by the OEMs if financial and not environmental.


This really is old stuff; going all the way back to Vance Packard and
the "Waste Makers" in the 50's/60's.

It must present an interesting conflict for many a green... on the one hand it is a
very good fit with the political ideology, and yet on the other the knowledge
requirements and attention to detail required are likely to be counter to the (lack of)
thought process that makes much green policy seem even plausible in the first place.

So which particular knowledge requirements and attention
to detail are you suggesting might reasonable be subsituted for
say an injection moulding machine or a numerically controlled lathe ?

I wasn't...

however I was suggesting that, say, blindly championing renewable power
generation over all alternatives, without giving any thought whatsoever
to dealing with the non dispatchability problem, or suggesting sack
cloth and ashes solutions to other problems while ignoring human nature
are examples of a "green causes" that are plagued by many inconvenient
truths.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 23/03/2016 13:31, charles wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 12:07:20 UTC, michael adams wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:

In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should
not DIY, especially the repair of goods,

As far as repairing goods is concerned, the whole point of mass
production certainly since the Industrial Revolutiin is to manufacture
and assemble all goods as far as possible by machine with as little
labour input as possible. As its this that makes goods so cheap in the
first place.

Given economies of scale and labour costs its usually far more economic
to manufacture a new item from scratch than it is to train up
technicians to disassemble, diagnose and repair faults, maintain an
inventory of spares etc.Especially when new models might be introduced
on an annual basis.

In larger items such as cars these are often broken down into
sub-assemblies, headlights etc which need to be replaced entirely and
are imposible to repair.

Although this may be wastful of material, overall the cost saving in
labour is probably far greater than any labour costs incurred in
sourcing new material. For the present at least

This really is old stuff; going all the way back to Vance Packard and
the "Waste Makers" in the 50's/60's.

That's all half true. The reality is a considerable percentage of what's
faulty & what's thrown away is worth repairing. And much isn't.

There's also the cost of someone's time to be taken into account. DIY
repairs can be worth doing, but paying someone do to the job is most likely
uneconomic.

Indeed, which is why a DIYer with a little bit of knowledge can cost
effectively do many things that are not viable to others.

Just think how many electronic devices one can repair and carry on using
for the cost of a couple of capacitors, 10 minutes and some solder?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 23/03/2016 09:39, Syd Rumpo wrote:
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?

Bill

DIY often results in a great deal of unused product which a professional
would use on another job, as well as often entailing multiple visits to
B&Q.

If you think DIY wastes materials, you should see the way some of the
commercial builders operate... I have seen complete pallets of unopened
materials loaded into skips at the end of the job as they have no way to
transport or store the unused materials. Site hordings made from
hundreds of sheets of WBP ply simply burnt on site etc.

It also wastes plasters and bandages.

I thought leaving them in the box wasted them ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 23/03/2016 09:51, RJH wrote:
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?

Bill

I do, but it needs working at.

One of the worst excesses of DIY has to be single household tool
proliferation. So, this sort of thing:

http://www.brighthub.com/environment...les/54244.aspx

Which is fair enough. Although you could also argue that tool hire shops
also fulfil that need.

DIY on its own as it stands probably wastes more than it saves.

Also, skill sharing. IMHO DIY gets bodged because the DIYer doesn't have
the time/experience to get up to speed. It often takes me three or four
times to get things even remotely right, whereas some things seem more
natural. So share skills:

I thought that is what uk.d-i-y was for (when its not just a tired
audience for harry's islamaphobia)

https://www.impossible.com

(don't know anything about them, but does seem to organise the principle
of skill sharing)

As do the various maker events and fixit fairs that have sprung up in
recent years.

And then there's the issue of putting trades people out of work.

DIY is unlikely to put any trades out of work - as the general practical
abilities and time availabilities in the general population fall.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 17:11:14 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/03/2016 09:39, Syd Rumpo wrote:
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:
In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?

Bill

DIY often results in a great deal of unused product which a professional
would use on another job, as well as often entailing multiple visits to
B&Q.

If you think DIY wastes materials, you should see the way some of the
commercial builders operate... I have seen complete pallets of unopened
materials loaded into skips at the end of the job as they have no way to
transport or store the unused materials. Site hordings made from
hundreds of sheets of WBP ply simply burnt on site etc.

It also wastes plasters and bandages.

I thought leaving them in the box wasted them ;-)

We've thrown boxes out when they are past the date printed on them for H&S reasons, I don;t normally do that at home unless they're 10+ years out of date not just last years.

On 23/03/2016 11:43, Bill Wright wrote:
On 23/03/2016 09:51, RJH wrote:

One of the worst excesses of DIY has to be single household tool
proliferation. So, this sort of thing:

http://www.brighthub.com/environment...les/54244.aspx

Just an ideologically left-wing way of putting the toolhire companies
out of business.

Not even sure it would do that. Its a nice idea, but its questionable
how well it can work in reality. I can see that it will make available a
large pool of low quality cheap tools. (let's face it, if you are buying
top quality kit, are you likely to lend it to just anyone without having
a reasonable idea that they will treat it well and return it in good
condition?)




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 23/03/2016 10:18, wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 23/03/2016 03:39, Bill Wright wrote:

In the interests of the conservation of materials and energy, should not
DIY, especially the repair of goods, be a priority for the environmental
movement?


Well there is already a subset of them who are keen to promote the
"sharing economy" for tools - something I find hard to argue with if
it's true the average electric drill is used for less than 20 minutes in
its life[1]. Streetclub, Streetbank etc

[1] I suspect that should be "the median total use is less than 20
minutes" given a long tail of well-used drills will increase the mean,
even if trade use is excluded, but can't find the source of the claim.

someone probably interviewed their fellow journalists, one of whom owned one but gave up after one use.

I have seen the claim about tool use made a number of times (and to be
fair it would be supported by the fact that many tools have a design
life of less than 10 hours run time).

Just think how many tools you have replaced the brushes on - which in
many cases might only do 40 hours...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/