Hose pipe ban east and S.E.

[balge]

"Overall investment is still some 4% behind our expectations for the first four years of the current price limit period (2005-10)."

That's the target they cooked up for themselves, not the level of investment which would prevent shortages too...

 

[Charles Morgan]

Works all the way from Elan to Frankley though ...

Downhill.

The regional water companies territory is determined by the shape of the watersheds. Delivery of water within a territory is mostly downhill. Delivery of water into different watersheds would require the opposite for huge volumes. As both Ofwat and the Environment Agency have determined that volumetric efficiency through demand restriction is more cost effective than a water grid it remains a pipe dream. As without their go ahead, no investment in one would get a return.

 

[Charles Morgan]

"Overall investment is still some 4% behind our expectations for the first four years of the current price limit period (2005-10)."

That's the target they cooked up for themselves, not the level of investment which would prevent shortages too...

The target is an Ofwat one, not a water company one, so not one they cooked up for themselves. As the timing that matters is the 5 year review period, frankly 4% under at the 4 year stage is so small as to be irrelevant.

 

[Sp!ke]

I'd need to dig a bill out but the water charge is only £1.46 per Cu.m, so how come yours is that much? Mind you, You've used a lot of water there.

I think our bill is about £300 per annum.

The charge for 6 months is:
Supply, 43 Cu.m = £62.81 (£1.46 / Cu.m)
Standing chg = £12.58
Sub Total =£75.39
Used water, 43 Cu.m = £33.09 (£.886 /Cu.m)
Standing Chg = £5.91
Sub total = £44.

Surface water = £40.65

Total for 6 months = £160.04.

I'm guessing you dont bathe much.

 

[balge]

Downhill.

The regional water companies territory is determined by the shape of the watersheds. Delivery of water within a territory is mostly downhill. Delivery of water into different watersheds would require the opposite for huge volumes. As both Ofwat and the Environment Agency have determined that volumetric efficiency through demand restriction is more cost effective than a water grid it remains a pipe dream. As without their go ahead, no investment in one would get a return.

So Joe public gets massive bills and water shortages..sweet

 

[balge]

The target is an Ofwat one, not a water company one, so not one they cooked up for themselves. As the timing that matters is the 5 year review period, frankly 4% under at the 4 year stage is so small as to be irrelevant.

Exactly, vested interests

 

[wemorgan]

That's the target they cooked up for themselves, not the level of investment which would prevent shortages too...

As yet, it's only shortages preventing the use of a hose.

Which may be rather like saying, you can drink in a pub, but just don't down a yard of ale in 30 seconds.

It's about responsible use.

 

[fatdazza]

Hmmmm ...well an 'armchair engineer' might be asking why we can't have zero leakage...and there certainly appear to be plenty of 'armchair experts'...but anyone with actual experience would be asking why we can't get it to around 10% instead of hovering around 25%...



whose cost, whose benefit eh...follow the money

There is an economic level of leakage, or a "balance point" at which it becomes cheaper to develop new water resources, than to reduce leaks (as you try to reduce leakage lower and lower, the costs rise as you are searching for smaller and smaller leaks, which results in the cost of detection and repair exceeding the value of the water saved).

The economic level of leakage then results in Ofwat (the independent regulator of the water industry) setting leakage targets for water companies. If companies do not meet those targets Ofwat has the power to impose penalties on companies.

Not convinced gas is cheaper to move than water...can't use gravity to move gas can you...

Exactly, vested interests

Water is much denser than gas and thus is much more expensive to pump.
Water is not compressable therefore the infrastructure to pipe transfers can be smaller.

Two main reasons why there is not a national grid for water are:

1. The cost of constructing and operating such a "grid"
2. The use of rivers / canals to facilitate such transfers has been limited on environmental grounds due to the risks of damaging the ecology of rivers and canals by the introduction of different water qualities.

 

[fatdazza]

I'm guessing you dont bathe much.

Perhaps he shares his bath

 

[balge]

Water can be moved by gravity. Gas can't. Therefore it is not automatically cheaper to pump gas. Done.

The economic criteria are decided by the people who will have to pay for it - government/water companies, they have decided not to invest. Done

Leakage includes meter fraud, illegal standpipes, illegal extraction etc not just dripping taps. Ten per cent was the target, isn't anymore. The financial decision is to cap the spending, not improve infrastructure. Water leakage can cause contamination of supplies and secondary damage, not just about stopping leaks. Done.

Not independent bodies, vested interests. Done.

Water is denser...see above. Done

Water is not compressible hence doesn't need pressure vessels to transport. Done.

1. Cost - yes exactly, there is no will to invest and no short term reward hence no action - a 'grid' would consist of a few trunk mains joining the already extant infrastructure - same as the electrical grid joins distant power plants and cities...Done.

2 Irrelevant, water is moved in pipes quite effectively, the whole river/canal thing is a strawman. Done.

Leakage control is a tiny part of what needs doing - if the system is creaking now what will it be like when the population hits 70 million?

 

[balge]

Getting back to the OP I think there may be a case for everyone (with the space etc) to get a 1000l IBC, those water butts just aren't big enough, and too expensive at retail prices ...

 

[fatdazza]

Water can be moved by gravity. Gas can't. Therefore it is not automatically cheaper to pump gas. Done.

The economic criteria are decided by the people who will have to pay for it - government/water companies, they have decided not to invest. Done

Leakage includes meter fraud, illegal standpipes, illegal extraction etc not just dripping taps. Ten per cent was the target, isn't anymore. The financial decision is to cap the spending, not improve infrastructure. Water leakage can cause contamination of supplies and secondary damage, not just about stopping leaks. Done.

Not independent bodies, vested interests. Done.

Water is denser...see above. Done

Water is not compressible hence doesn't need pressure vessels to transport. Done.

1. Cost - yes exactly, there is no will to invest and no short term reward hence no action - a 'grid' would consist of a few trunk mains joining the already extant infrastructure - same as the electrical grid joins distant power plants and cities...Done.

2 Irrelevant, water is moved in pipes quite effectively, the whole river/canal thing is a strawman. Done.

Leakage control is a tiny part of what needs doing - if the system is creaking now what will it be like when the population hits 70 million?

QED....... or the ramblings of an ill informed individual?

Make your own mind up...

 

[rob_miller]

Looks like the water butt idea is no good unless I fill it up before the ban. Will have to use a watering can instead

From the Veolia water website:

Water drawn from the mains supply into tanks (other than hand held receptacles) for subsequent use for vehicle washing via a hosepipe is not permitted.
Restrictions apply to water drawn from the mains supply after the statutory notice has been given. So water drawn into a container prior to that date may be used for washing cars, regardless of whether that use involves a hosepipe.

 

[balge]

QED....... or the ramblings of an ill informed individual?

Make your own mind up...

ooooh get you...

Are you a shareholder? or an employee?
What is your area of expertise eh?
What solutions can you suggest?


Lets hear it?

 

[balge]

Looks like the water butt idea is no good unless I fill it up before the ban. Will have to use a watering can instead

From the Veolia water website:

Water drawn from the mains supply into tanks (other than hand held receptacles) for subsequent use for vehicle washing via a hosepipe is not permitted.
Restrictions apply to water drawn from the mains supply after the statutory notice has been given. So water drawn into a container prior to that date may be used for washing cars, regardless of whether that use involves a hosepipe.

You need a diverter on your downpipe to collect rainwater

 

[wemorgan]

Getting back to the OP I think there may be a case for everyone (with the space etc) to get a 1000l IBC, those water butts just aren't big enough, and too expensive at retail prices ...

I gather these 1000L IBC can be bought quite cheaply second-hand. Due to their size and weight the delivery can be expensive though.

My father has 5 of these around his small holding. Each evening an automatic pump waters the vegetables - sometimes 300L/day.

But like you say, not everyone has the space for such things.

Incidentally I calculated that 1mm of rain equates to 25L of water from my roof, or less than 10p. Put that way, water is still very cheap.

It's the change of consumer's views that water is an infinite resource to a finite resource that makes some people feel hard done by.

 

[fatdazza]

You need a diverter on your downpipe to collect rainwater

You also need it to rain. A lack of rainfall results in a drought, which is where we are now.

 

[fatdazza]

ooooh get you...

Are you a shareholder? or an employee?
What is your area of expertise eh?
What solutions can you suggest?


Lets hear it?

20 years in the industry.

From your rambling responses you have demonstrated that you understand very little of the issues.

As I said in an earlier post. You could have a system that removes the risk of a hosepipe ban, anything is possible. What is not so appealing is the cost of such a system, and that cost would have to be paid for by customers (i.e. you and I).

Would customers be prepared to fund such massive investment to prevent a hosepipe ban every 10 or 20 years? Surveys have indicated that they would not.

 

[balge]

What is so unappealing is the loss of revenue for shareholders.

So OK then, lets hear some non-financial arguments...


EOF

 

[balge]

I gather these 1000L IBC can be bought quite cheaply second-hand. Due to their size and weight the delivery can be expensive though.

My father has 5 of these around his small holding. Each evening an automatic pump waters the vegetables - sometimes 300L/day.

But like you say, not everyone has the space for such things.

Incidentally I calculated that 1mm of rain equates to 25L of water from my roof, or less than 10p. Put that way, water is still very cheap.

It's the change of consumer's views that water is an infinite resource to a finite resource that makes some people feel hard done by.

That too