Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 8,377
lol well i did say i shower twice a week at the swimming baths... but its not really in the spirit of reducing my water useThe solution is... shower at work
water surge pricing
- Thread starter Tram
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,377
- Location
- Birmingham
Oh yes I completely agree, completely stupid.that is what i meant.. getting down to 110l per person per day seems unlikely.... unless we go back to our grand parents generation where they had 1 bath a week or something. i think my wife would threaten a divorce if i suggested she should not shower daily
Another thing no-one voted for.
Same with recycling, spending free time on sorting garbage for probably nothing because plastics aren't actually recyclable and is mostly dumped in some poor country or incinerated whilst they use it as an excuse to reduce bin collections overall forcing us to deal with increased infestations and flytipping.
I wish the British persona wasn't such a pushover.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2019
- Posts
- 134
- Location
- The cold wet North East of England
Surely, a more likely outcome from surge-pricing during heatwaves etc is that people who have been working all day and have got sweaty and sticky won't have a bath or shower because of the high cost of a large volume of it in the evening?
I have set up five water butts (1,050 litres in total) to collect rain from my roof, so I can water my vegetable patch and flush my toilet with that. I also collect the "grey water" from my shower/bath and use it to flush the toilet. Using drinking water to flush the toilet and water plants is such a waste!
I agree with you about not wasting drinking water and re-using grey water for toilet flushing. However, the reservoirs in Yorkshire are now only about 50% full and Yorkshire Water definitely need to build more of them (the last one was built in 1966 and some have closed since then), meanwhile its population has increased by about 10% since 2000. The greed of shareholders should not allow companies to get away with neglecting the building of critical infrastructure like this.
Yes, they're running monopolies and yet they still cannot make them work. I'm very unimpressed.
Yorkshire Water loses 21% of its water to leaks. The national average leakage rate is 19%.
Makes me laugh sometimes - there was an issue with the water main north of me which really needed sorting but they were claiming it was too expensive, would take months of closing the road, etc. etc. but then the same issue happened south of me with in excess of 20,000L an hour leaking where they had no choice and magically it was sorted with 3 days of work (involving road closures) and another week, with only single lane closures, a few weeks later to make the repairs permanent.
One broke and turned in to a roadside fountain close to me. They had that fixed within the day with no road closures. They just don't want to do anything which involves spending much money.
Last edited:
It seems that the convenient answer for everyone is that it’s the greedy water companies fault and I totally agree they need to take their share of the blame for leaky pipes and lack of obviously needed infrastructure investment, but water consumption in the UK is spiralling. Thr average household uses 70% more than they did in the mid 80’s and most of us have no idea how much we use because a flat rate doesn’t encourage any understanding or responsibility for excessive consumption. The consumer needs to take a share of the responsibility here the level of water wastage is shocking.
No new reservoirs have come online for over 30 years (1992 was the last one). The population of England has increased by around 20% in that time. Even if per person water use was the same we would still be using 20% more. It’s actually ridiculous how people justify surge pricing when the capacity hasn’t increased inline with the population.
Last edited:
I think they call this "being efficient".
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,652
What about the rest of the catchment? The network? The entire operational area?
SW's area covers from the New Forest all the way across to Stour, meaning customer bills have to cover that entire area too.
That overflow (or outfall, if you prefer) is how the system was originally designed, so you don't get sewage backing up into your house in the event of a blockage.
Given how much local councils are charging for roadworks these days, can you blame them?
Even emergency works incur fees, they just get applied after the repairs instead of in advance. It's even more expensive if the road is listed as Traffic Sensitive, or some other special consideration category on INSIGHT.
Not for lack of trying...
It's even more ridiculous when people demand infrastructure investment, but then object to it when companies try to do exactly what's been demanded....
£££££££££££££
To compensate for the lack of garden, driveway and the bland/characterless design
And because they don't want to bother treating it, because it costs them money. We know they have been doing it illegally for the past 30 years, since it was privatised. The public should be allowed to sue the ones responsible (companies and individuals). If that bankrupts them, too bad. They should be made an example of.
Because of a handful of greedy ***** I think there is a single river left in the UK which is actually safe to swim in, and now they want us to pay extra for what they should have been doing since the start.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 8,377
Perhaps but i thought (and perhaps i am mistaken, if i am feel free to correct me) that it was only meant to happen in a rare emergency OR when there was massive flooding issues, and in that case not only is it a lesser of 2 evils scenario, the logic is it would be so dilute anyway in that case as to be less of an issue.
Are you suggesting (and its possible given the quality of our media) that all the reports of massive increases in the amounts of dumping of raw sewage is a lie and its no better or no worse than it was a decade ago?
(iirc 1 excuse being that since brexit it is harder to get the chemicals needed to safely treat the water, which a quick look on fullfact does appear to carry some weight (i have not read in depth due to me meant to be working
)
Murky claims about sewage bill fact checked – Full Fact
Claims the government voted for sewage to be pumped into rivers, and that a rejected amendment would have cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of pounds need clarification.
fullfact.org
Last edited:
Because the toilets in new builds are easily blocked.