Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

M69 - Desalinization Motion

Announcements Posted on
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    Do you have any figures for that?
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    qfa
    Hello, just thought I'd give you a quick reminder. Do you have any figures to prove this is the more cost-effective alternative to simply building new reservoirs and improving holding systems?
    • 31 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    Hello, just thought I'd give you a quick reminder. Do you have any figures to prove this is the more cost-effective alternative to simply building new reservoirs and improving holding systems?
    If we take the Abingdon reservoir proposal to base our figures on then at a cost of £1bn it provides a capacity of just 60m litres of water compared to the proposed plants (based on the Saudi Arabian plants) which for a cost of around £1.5bn have a capacity of around 900m litres of water.

    http://www.abingdonreservoir.org.uk/...-08-07-10.html

    You see then that the proposal gives a significant cost advantage over new reservoirs.

    The proposed N/S pipeline is even worse because for a 66m litre capacity it cost £2.6bn.

    I was unable to find details costs for improving holding systems but as much as 75% of water is lost between coming from a reservoir to the home due to old pipes.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Surely the solution lies in improving the holding systems, then? If 75% of water is lost between the reservoir and the home, then we could effectively quadruple our supply by improving the holding system. That seems to offer much better returns than a desalinization plant.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...epipe-ban.html

    I know it's the Daily Mail, but it points out a third of all lost water in the Thames Water region is through Victorian piping, and it is taking a mere 1bn to fix that. Surely the much more cost effective method is to simply fix up our aging piping system, rather than spend vast amounts of money on something where we'll then simply go on to lose 75% of the water it produced? I understand your concerns and it is good you've highlighted the issue, but the solution doesn't seem the right one.

    In the absence of anything else, I support this bill as a step towards fixing the problem, but there are better alternatives, and I'd rather pursue those.
    • 31 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    Surely the solution lies in improving the holding systems, then? If 75% of water is lost between the reservoir and the home, then we could effectively quadruple our supply by improving the holding system. That seems to offer much better returns than a desalinization plant.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...epipe-ban.html

    I know it's the Daily Mail, but it points out a third of all lost water in the Thames Water region is through Victorian piping, and it is taking a mere 1bn to fix that. Surely the much more cost effective method is to simply fix up our aging piping system, rather than spend vast amounts of money on something where we'll then simply go on to lose 75% of the water it produced? I understand your concerns and it is good you've highlighted the issue, but the solution doesn't seem the right one.

    In the absence of anything else, I support this bill as a step towards fixing the problem, but there are better alternatives, and I'd rather pursue those.
    If you do the math from that article then £1bn for 460m litres of water actually works out to be less efficient than the desalinization plants.

    It is indeed something that needs doing but the plants would drastically increase capacity and with brand new pipes to connect them to the water grid, leakage would be very low.

    Brilliant.

    Who would have thought that water could be so expensive.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The maths doesn't work out. Even if you build these plants, and build them with brand new pipes, they still connect to the old pipes at some point. We'll say that means they only lose 50% of the water they produce, not 75%. That still means that of those 900 million litres you produce, you only get 450 million, and that's for a price of 1.5bn. 1bn for 460 million seems like a bargain.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Surely a better solution would be to simply not have everyone in England crammed into the south east?

    This would affect more than just water levels, too. I was recently down in Surrey and was quite surprised to see so many obviously fairly well off people consigned to living in houses that are smaller than the average garage in my home town.
    Well we cannot force people to move, but I am sure you are not suggesting that.

    Indeed, I live in a semi-detached three/four bedroom house (reasonable size), but if we moved up to Lincolnshire then we would be living in a five bedroom house with a half acre garden! It is the location that people pay for - half an hour on the train and you are in London, nice weather and not too busy.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    Well we cannot force people to move, but I am sure you are not suggesting that.

    Indeed, I live in a semi-detached three/four bedroom house (reasonable size), but if we moved up to Lincolnshire then we would be living in a five bedroom house with a half acre garden! It is the location that people pay for - half an hour on the train and you are in London, nice weather and not too busy.
    I'd much rather be half an hour in the train to Glasgow/Edinburgh!
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    I'd much rather be half an hour in the train to Glasgow/Edinburgh!
    Shame you don't have the lovely weather though
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    Shame you don't have the lovely weather though
    Who needs weather when Scottish people have the glory of the sun shining out their backside?
    • 64 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    bigger scandal is that we make human beings pay for water...the most essential thing to human survival and we make people pay for it...

    by all means do more to ensure that we don't have shortages, but seriously, why the **** do we make people pay for something as basic and vital to their survival as water ffs.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    Who needs weather when Scottish people have the glory of the sun shining out their backside?
    That's how Murdoch sells so many copies.
    • Thread Starter
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Division!!
Updated: March 17, 2012
New on TSR

Talk about SQA results day

Join the chat ahead of grades coming out on Tuesday

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.