Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516171819 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 186
  1. #101
    Boathook's Avatar
    Boathook is offline Registered User
    Location : Surrey & boat in Dorset. Both have pubs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,766

    Default

    To my mind the majority of water that falls on the roofs should go into the ground via soakaways rather than into sewers. Hopefully this reaches the streams and rivers to keep giving them a gentle flow to maintain aquatic life.

  2. #102
    WilliamUK is offline Registered User
    Location : Manchester, UK
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Boathook View Post
    To my mind the majority of water that falls on the roofs should go into the ground via soakaways rather than into sewers. Hopefully this reaches the streams and rivers to keep giving them a gentle flow to maintain aquatic life.
    Pretty much. In fact, that's why planning approvals now often require the use of water permeable materials, preventing runoff into sewers and instead putting rainwater into the ground.

    As I see it, water that falls on a roof should be used in the house, most of that should then be put onto the land. Water that falls on the land should stay there.

    Fast-tracking it to the sea is madness.
    William
    Blithe Spirit - Lark 1804.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamUK View Post
    As I see it, water that falls on a roof should be used in the house,
    The kit is available. For 60 days storage at your 87 litres per day figure (which is about one third of the total consumption of a typical 2 person household) you need a http://www.water-tanks.net/acatalog/...ater_Tank.html. First you have to find the space (2.2m Dia. 1.65m high) then you have to convince the householder to part with several thousand pounds and put up with the distruption of installing pumps and extra non-potable pipework. Then they have to fund on-going maintenance and operating costs.
    For this they get 33% off their water bill and maybe a few less hosepipe bans. I don't see millions of people rushing to take you up on it. (Nothing personal just trying to be realistic here.)
    ۞

  4. #104
    WilliamUK is offline Registered User
    Location : Manchester, UK
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    314

    Default

    I agree.
    First stop would be new builds and a change to building regulations.
    Then would come renovations and so on from there.

    Increased production of the systems and competition for installation work should bring prices down.

    I think more people would cough up if we stopped pretending this was a "not enough rain" problem and faced facts, but since we culturally expect the government to "do something" about almost everything, telling the truth would be a sign of weakness I wouldn't be naive enough to expect the ruling class to show.

    It was a very expensive job to bring mains water, gas, sewage and electricity to everyone who's on those grids and it'll be expensive to stop relying on them... but really I don't see that there's much alternative.

    Start with new builds and renovations and go from there.
    William
    Blithe Spirit - Lark 1804.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamUK View Post
    Start with new builds and renovations and go from there.
    There are big ones going in on a couple of new Academy Schools that I've been working on in London recently.
    ۞

  6. #106
    Twister_Ken's Avatar
    Twister_Ken is offline Registered User
    Location : 'ang on a mo, I'll just take some bearings
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    26,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamUK View Post

    Start with new builds and renovations and go from there.
    UK housing stock, approx 25 million

    UK new builds, approx 120,000 per annum.
    Next time, it'll all be different.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    5,956

    Default

    Let me say in advance that I reckon any workable solution is better than doing nothing; and I don't wish to infuriate anyone...

    ...but I can't help thinking that every suggestion made here, is instantly shot down by other contributors citing inadequacy, cost or probable unpopularity with a country blithely, blindly accustomed to unlimited free drinking-quality tap water. This isn't progress.

    Damming the Arun? Okay, that idea was only seconds old when I posted it. I'm not ashamed of it - I see why it oughtn't to be the road we go down, but I can imagine it being more popular than leaving rich agricultural land fallow, for lack of water.

    Grey-water recycling schemes - if they're made required in all new-builds - will indeed only have a gradual benefit. But is that really any reason not to bother?

    Can we agree that patching up the existing network is a vital task, being performed by too few engineers? I mean, even if it rains with traditional English summer-swamping consistency, collecting water in a bucket full of holes is a clownish policy to continue with.

    How big, and how expensive a change of government policy would be needed, to fix the leaks in a way that will last?

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,113

    Default

    When the government privatised the water industry, they effectively washed their hands (pun intended) of the whole issue. We are now faced with an approaching crisis that requires a national strategy and have a fragmented organisation, now largely owned by foreign companies, to deal with it. Only massive spending and ingeneous solutions will solve the problem. There's no shortage of ideas - as this thread has illustrated so well - but each needs to be evaluated to ascertain it's merit. I'm not sure which organisation is capable of carrying out such an evaluation - Ofwat?

  9. #109
    WilliamUK is offline Registered User
    Location : Manchester, UK
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Twister_Ken View Post
    UK housing stock, approx 25 million

    UK new builds, approx 120,000 per annum.
    Hence: "start".
    Then go on with the process by requiring it for certain classes of extension, renovation and conversion.

    Proper insulation in loft conversions is expensive stuff, but it doesn't stop that being required in all work done to regs. That was all about energy conservation, I see no huge difference with water conservation.

    Either way though, there's absolutely no excuse for building new housing based upon the prevailing model where 90% of drinking water is wasted and enough water to supply between 50% and 100% of a house's non-potable use is dumped off the roof into the sewers... no matter how few are built.

    Conversion to parallel systems at grid or at domestic level is probably inevitable... or we can destroy habitat as a stop-gap... or just pretend it's not happening.
    William
    Blithe Spirit - Lark 1804.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    5,956

    Default

    Any suggestions as to how, as consumers, might bully our regional water companies (whoever their private/foreign owners may be), into laying out more, on solving the leaks issue?

    I'm picturing the impressive way in which, for instance in wartime or national emergency, amazing feats are often achieved by concentrated, concerted application of ideas, materials and the back-up required, to overcome normally insurmountable problems.

    If, right now, we gear-up the resources being applied, the desperate day when our taps don't deliver, may never come.

    Emergencies are so much easier to bear when we're properly prepared for them. If we work at this problem now, we may avert the worst.

Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516171819 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •