keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,314
|
Post by keitha on Aug 28, 2022 22:59:50 GMT
For me it's a bit like the moaning about hosepipe bans and 20% of water being lost through leaks. The amount of time, money and disruption needed to significantly improve things can't be justified. The last hosepipe ban in Devon was 26 years ago, and I can live with that.
No be fair our bills are higher to reflect the wastage, just one example the road above mine water was seeping through the road surface in March this year, in July Welsh Water came and dug up the road and fixed they leak, at the start of August water was again leaking through the road surface ! The need to be made to fix the leaks or at least a percentage every year.
|
|
|
Water
Aug 29, 2022 6:54:44 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2022 6:54:44 GMT
It's a design thing. The UK decided that having one drain and one water reprocessing system for rain water and poo. So, it never rains poo but it rains rain. Hence our ancient sewage system is fine when it is dry, fine in a steady light rain and useless in a storm. Add to that human's need to cover everything in hard surfaces and suddenly the rain that used to soak into soft land now gets funneled into the same sewage system.
I blame it on Joseph bazalgette.
The system will sort itself out (in a hundred years or so) as old developments are bulldozed and the old combined sewers are replaced with segregated systems. In the meantime the options appear to be:
- leave things as they are
- provide additional storm storage capacity up stream of the treatment works
- dig up every high street and replace the combined sewers with a segregated system.
For me it's a bit like the moaning about hosepipe bans and 20% of water being lost through leaks. The amount of time, money and disruption needed to significantly improve things can't be justified. The last hosepipe ban in Devon was 26 years ago, and I can live with that.
I basically agree with the low hanging fruit concept as you suggest, however, I suspect your 26 year gap is going to reduce markedly in the next few years. Water companies have to publish weekly water level measurements and have been doing so for the last 10 years or so, they show a continued series of growing problems on maintaining supplies, this despite good work on leak reduction. Climate change is coming up faster than we expected and getting going is what we need to do as fast as possible.
I'm very keen the companies have to sort this out, I see no reason why they should be bailed out by some sort of nationalisation, they need to step up and fund this themselves.
|
|
|
Water
Aug 29, 2022 11:03:27 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2022 11:03:27 GMT
Sorry, not convinced by that.Design reviews or not, the UK must be doing something right, because our road death rate is one of the lowest in Europe, including lower than NL (and Germany, France, Italy,...). Whether you measure by deaths per 100k population, deaths per 100k vehicles or deaths per billion vehicle-Km, the NL death rate is higher than ours on all measures. In fact, by any of those measures, the UK is one of the safest places in the world as road deaths go. Of all the countries in Europe, only Norway, Sweden and Switzerland have an identifiably better safety record than the UK, and some of our European neighbours are dreadful by comparison. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate In the UK we call them road safety audits:
- Stage 2 audit is carried out on the completed design before construction starts
- Stage 3 audit is carried out when the new roadworks are substantially complete, prior to opening to traffic
Yes we carry out safety audits, but not after every accident, only as part of the construction process
Yes other European countries have worse safety records, but I was more interested in direction of travel rather than absolute figures. This has lead the Dutch to carry out a whole rethink of their transport infrasturcture. For instance they decided that bringing up children to be transported everywhere by cars was a dumb idea and developed their cycling network as a complete solution to making kids independant of parent's transport and have helped keep down childhood obesity in the Netherlands. Once they had the seperate structure of cycle paths, they then developed the 20 is plenty concepts inside town with faster roads as you get away from high density living areas and more as you get towards motorways. This pushes faster traffic away from the town centres and makes them more pleasant. Ideas such as the centre of Nottingham (dual carriageway through the centre) would not happen. They also try to test planning designs before instituting them before they install them fully. Dutch safety records get better because they have taken the mixing of traffic types and so traffic actually flows faster than on similar roads in the UK, just up to the speed limit.
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 1,172
|
Water
Aug 29, 2022 11:57:24 GMT
Post by travolta on Aug 29, 2022 11:57:24 GMT
We'll be queuing up for Dune type 'Still Suits' in the end.
As for cycling ,has anyone nearly run over any of those prone cyclists yet ? Not quite as scary as the misguided parents who pop Little Jonny in a plastic carrier ,drag it along behind,with Eddy Stobart leaning on his brakes in the rear .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2022 12:15:06 GMT
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 1,172
|
Water
Aug 29, 2022 16:05:03 GMT
Post by travolta on Aug 29, 2022 16:05:03 GMT
Nice,but cloud cuckoo land . I live in probably one of the most isolated places in England , but still run the risk of being wiped out by a tractor or DPD driver even if I WALK on the nearest single track road. Got be be able to vault up onto a bank and hold on to a tree.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2022 16:14:30 GMT
Thanks, actually that is how one lives in Denmark, Netherlands and Germany which have many other social problems but have at least reclaimed their streets, their childhood and a fair bit of their health
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,314
|
Water
Aug 29, 2022 16:43:06 GMT
Post by keitha on Aug 29, 2022 16:43:06 GMT
I don't think that is the problem, the problem is that the design or specification has not been set correctly. It is a failure of design standards, like many things they are doing what the rules allow them to do, so change the rules or objectives. Why do they care about it if they are making money? As for "having the market pay", the money from the market ultimately is repaid from money given by customers who are forced to buy their water from that company. In effect that is all taxpayers and more. LOL it matched the design and standards when built, a US friend said he sold his house recently and the buyer tried to slip into the contract something along the lines of "the Vendor guarantees the property is up to code, and will pay for any works required to bring the property up to any current or future city code" that made me laugh how can you guarantee materials etc used are up to current specs my house is 100 years old I couldn't guarantee the joists, roof trusses etc etc meet a future spec that may insist on a set level of insulation in the walls
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,625
Likes: 4,195
|
Post by agent69 on Aug 29, 2022 17:30:43 GMT
I basically agree with the low hanging fruit concept as you suggest, however, I suspect your 26 year gap is going to reduce markedly in the next few years. Water companies have to publish weekly water level measurements and have been doing so for the last 10 years or so, they show a continued series of growing problems on maintaining supplies, this despite good work on leak reduction. Climate change is coming up faster than we expected and getting going is what we need to do as fast as possible.
I'm very keen the companies have to sort this out, I see no reason why they should be bailed out by some sort of nationalisation, they need to step up and fund this themselves. I've seen lots of people in the media complain about the 20% leakage rate, but they don't come up with much else. What would be useful would be somebody who could quantify:
- how does the current 20% rate compare with the rate before privatisation in 1989
- how do the current leaks manifest themselves. Is it a small number of large leaks or millions of small leaks
- if 20% is too high, what should the figure be
- using available resources, how long will it take to get to the preferred rate
- how much will it cost to get to the preferred rate
- where are the leaks that need repairing and how much disruption will the repairs cause.
I suspect that a significant proportion of the leaks are due to the antiquated nature of our distribution system, and that repairing them would be a slow and expensive process.
|
|
|
Water
Aug 29, 2022 17:48:53 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2022 17:48:53 GMT
You'd think there would something, they could call it "Offwat" of summit...
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,625
Likes: 4,195
|
Water
Aug 30, 2022 8:31:07 GMT
Post by agent69 on Aug 30, 2022 8:31:07 GMT
You'd think there would something, they could call it "Offwat" of summit... The issue I have is people (particularly those in the media) that moan that 20% is too high, but offer no insight into what it should be or how to get there. From my perspective the situation is simple. You have a source for the water (usually a reservoir or river), a distribution system and an end user. If you are unhappy with the current system then you need to either:
- increase capacity at the source
- make the distribution system more efficient
- turn your tap on less often
It's obvious which is the simpliest solution, but that requires a measure of social responsibility, which is generally lacking in today's entitled society. (I can remember during previous droughts being urged to put rocks in your toilet cistern to reduce water consumption).
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,314
|
Post by keitha on Aug 30, 2022 10:12:33 GMT
You'd think there would something, they could call it "Offwat" of summit... The issue I have is people (particularly those in the media) that moan that 20% is too high, but offer no insight into what it should be or how to get there. From my perspective the situation is simple. You have a source for the water (usually a reservoir or river), a distribution system and an end user. If you are unhappy with the current system then you need to either:
- increase capacity at the source
- make the distribution system more efficient
- turn your tap on less often
It's obvious which is the simplest solution, but that requires a measure of social responsibility, which is generally lacking in today's entitled society. (I can remember during previous droughts being urged to put rocks in your toilet cistern to reduce water consumption).
it's also the amount of water we use, in the 70's we had a bath once a week, and in some families the water was reused from one child to the next. Now I know people who have multiple showers every day.one lady I know says she showers morning and night and also put the towels out to wash after every use. My Mum used to do washing Friday Night ( School uniforms etc ) and then the main wash on Monday as I remember it was 1 load Friday night and 3-4 on a Monday for a family of 5. Now I hear of people with 3 kids running the washer multiple times a day. It would be interesting to know how much it's gone up by, I can see a figure of 70% since 1985
|
|
|
Water
Aug 30, 2022 12:42:34 GMT
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 30, 2022 12:42:34 GMT
I thought the figure for leaks in England was more like 25%, not 20%. I see from a 3 year old BBC article that a figure of 23% is quoted. agent69 I don't know what the 'right' number should be, but I get the impression that the regulator has frequently called for reduction in leakages, and has done so for many years, and so presumably thinks the number isn't where it should be. As to 'how does the number compare to before privatisation': surely this is by now a red herring. Privatisation was a long time ago, and the major justification for privatisation was that in public ownership their had been woeful under investment (other than in bumping up the payroll bill as always happens when under state control). It almost certainly has improved, but so what: that was a significant point of the exercise anyway. Plus technology has moved on massively since then as well. I have in the past talked to industry specialists (employed by or consultants to) about use of technology to help detect / prevent, and I did get an answer that one problem is that the financial incentive and regulatory framework does not provide the necessary incentives, esp. once each AMP period plan is essentially signed off. I did find that depressing. On the point of usage. With a per head usage of 153 litre per day, I believe we are significantly above the European average (I recall this was around 125 litres). If correct, then that needs to be tackled.
|
|
|
Water
Aug 30, 2022 13:02:00 GMT
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 30, 2022 13:02:00 GMT
You'd think there would something, they could call it "Offwat" of summit... The issue I have is people (particularly those in the media) that moan that 20% is too high, but offer no insight into what it should be or how to get there. From my perspective the situation is simple. You have a source for the water (usually a reservoir or river), a distribution system and an end user. If you are unhappy with the current system then you need to either:
- increase capacity at the source
- make the distribution system more efficient
- turn your tap on less often
It's obvious which is the simpliest solution, but that requires a measure of social responsibility, which is generally lacking in today's entitled society. (I can remember during previous droughts being urged to put rocks in your toilet cistern to reduce water consumption).
Yeah, but that was in the day when being careful about water usage as a matter of course was not a 'thing'. Everyone was on water rates, noone was on meters. The 'dual flush' toilet was unheard of, and no doubt cisterns were bigger by design. And hence the need to put bricks in the cistern. The equivalent today is 'only use the short flush unless necessary, and don't flush until you need to'.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,251
Likes: 2,694
|
Water
Aug 30, 2022 13:23:54 GMT
Post by Greenwood2 on Aug 30, 2022 13:23:54 GMT
The issue I have is people (particularly those in the media) that moan that 20% is too high, but offer no insight into what it should be or how to get there. From my perspective the situation is simple. You have a source for the water (usually a reservoir or river), a distribution system and an end user. If you are unhappy with the current system then you need to either:
- increase capacity at the source
- make the distribution system more efficient
- turn your tap on less often
It's obvious which is the simplest solution, but that requires a measure of social responsibility, which is generally lacking in today's entitled society. (I can remember during previous droughts being urged to put rocks in your toilet cistern to reduce water consumption).
it's also the amount of water we use, in the 70's we had a bath once a week, and in some families the water was reused from one child to the next. Now I know people who have multiple showers every day.one lady I know says she showers morning and night and also put the towels out to wash after every use. My Mum used to do washing Friday Night ( School uniforms etc ) and then the main wash on Monday as I remember it was 1 load Friday night and 3-4 on a Monday for a family of 5. Now I hear of people with 3 kids running the washer multiple times a day. It would be interesting to know how much it's gone up by, I can see a figure of 70% since 1985 There was that joke from the 70s, 'Save water bath with a friend', may make a comeback with today's youth. Bricks in the toilet cistern were recommended then too. Edit: We don't have double flush toilets at home, do many people? Washing machines were twin tub (at best in my experience anyway) and you would wash the lightly soiled (delicates) first, lift that washing out and use the same water (heated up a bit more) for the more heavily soiled, repeat up to the filthy. Rinse and spin dry as you went, (if you had a spin drier) then hang out to dry. It was a heavy messy job, but a great improvement on a wash tub and mangle, that my mother had used prior to these innovations.
|
|