Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Hose pipe ban south east  (Read 1931 times)

offshore1987

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 977
  • Good to be back
  • Location: Portsmouth
Hose pipe ban south east
« on: April 05, 2012, 10:53:56 AM »

From today then we are not to use hose pipes yipy  :o and the day the ban starts its been light rain  :-))

Will it affect you? It will for me 

All the best

Daniel

Logged

Footski

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,073
  • Location: Malaga Spain
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2012, 11:02:28 AM »

Down here in the deep south of Spain, we have hardly had any rain all winter.....No hose pipe bans even considered and we only pay about 20 Euros per quarter for it. Hardly ever lose our supply.

What is the difference? Here we lose little through leakage and don't pay extortionate salaries to people to run the companies..

The UK have apparently been investing in repairing the reservoirs and pipes for years but it makes no difference...IT IS AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE..
Logged

offshore1987

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 977
  • Good to be back
  • Location: Portsmouth
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2012, 11:10:40 AM »

What gets me is that in dubai they can pump it outa the sea make it pure and pump it outa taps, yet in the uk they find even holding rain water hard work

Water Desalination Plants Anyone?

All the best

Daniel
Logged

pugwash

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,845
  • Location: recently left Amble and now in the wet Northumberland hills
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2012, 11:32:56 AM »

Daniel You must be joking - just because they are wasting their oil resources on desalination plants doesn't mean other countries
could afford to do it.  One of the most expensive ways to get fresh water there is, and very enviromentally unfriendly
Geoff
Logged
Failing to prepare means preparing to fail.

Bob K

  • Bob K
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,701
  • Location: Windsor
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2012, 11:48:10 AM »

A key saving factor in our area is that my intended submarine test facility is safe from the hosepipe ban.  
It appears that ponds with 'fish or aquatic animals' are excluded from the ban.  Our several 18 year old Koi will appreciate replacing water loss though evaporation (which is not that much) but will probably not appreciate having to occassionaly share their home with a couple of RC submarines on trials.
Saves water in not having to fill the bath tub for bouyancy trials, and it is up to 4 foot deep.
Logged
HMS Skirmisher (1905), HMS Amazon (1906), HMS K9 (1915), Type 212A (2002), HMS Polyphemus (1881), Descartes (1897), Iggle Piggle boat (CBBC), HMS Royal Marine (1943), HMS Marshall Soult, HMS Agincourt (1912)

dodgy geezer

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,920
  • Location: London
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2012, 11:57:29 AM »

The UK have apparently been investing in repairing the reservoirs and pipes for years but it makes no difference...IT IS AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE..


There are about two cubic kilometers of water for each man, woman and child on this planet. And when we drink or use water it is never destroyed. It just passes through us and returns in a cycle. So the idea of 'saving' or 'wasting' water is mistaken. Subtly, but nonetheless fundamentally mistaken.  There IS an unlimited supply of water, because we don't destroy it. What there CAN easily be is a water storage and distribution infrastructure shortage, because there is certainly not an unlimited supply of reservoirs or pipework. Water will always be there somewhere - we just have to consider how much we want to spend to obtain it. That is the infrastructure cost - NOT the water cost. And in the UK the last major reservoir built was in 1975...

What tends to happen is that water companies do not want to spend their profits on new infrastructure as a population rises. Instead, they run the infrastructure with higher pressures, and try to make do. This produces more leaks, of course.... Then, as the rainfall naturally fluctuates, a short year will catch them out. Because the 'short' years' lack of rainfall is obvious to the population, the water companies find it easy to claim that a 'climate change' has occurred, and that everyone must 'save this scarce resource'. In fact, the water resource is fixed (at about 330m cubic miles) and can never be used up - it is infinite in practice - and the shortage is actually in the provision of water storage/head of population.

'Saving water' therefore completely misses the problem. It just lowers people's lifestyles to bring them into line with the water companies' ability to provide without any new investment. And when that happens, the water companies rake in the profit, selling a reduced level of product (their infrastructure/per head) to many more people at the same price as before. It's a brilliant business model - you provide a fixed service and your profits go up as more people are born...
Logged

rmaddock

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,047
  • Location: The Lake District, U of K.
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2012, 12:03:23 PM »

In fact, the water resource is fixed (at about 330m cubic miles) and can never be used up - it is infinite in practice - and the shortage is actually in the provision of water storage/head of population.

Surely this is an over simplification? It may (or may not) be true that the water is never actually destroyed (although I thought that was a claim only made by energy) but the problem could well be where it is and in what form.  All of the "drinking" water may still be out there in the system but it might not fall on our hills in the same quantities. It might evaporate from our reservoirs at a higher rate. It might solidify at the poles more than in recent history.

I agree that the water companies are probably profit focussed...they should never have been privatised....but let's not go down the black and white argument route, eh?
Logged

offshore1987

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 977
  • Good to be back
  • Location: Portsmouth
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2012, 12:24:42 PM »


 we just have to consider how much we want to spend to obtain it. That is the infrastructure cost - NOT the water cost. And in the UK the last major reservoir built was in 1975...


HERE HERE i would rather spend abit more and have water than none at all

Pugwash it will happen one day, maybe not in are life time but it will happen

Logged

Perkasaman2

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 903
  • Model Boat Mayhem is Great!
  • Location: North East
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2012, 01:20:29 PM »

Global weather changes and changing weather patterns? {:-{
Logged

dodgy geezer

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,920
  • Location: London
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2012, 01:24:55 PM »

Surely this is an over simplification? It may (or may not) be true that the water is never actually destroyed (although I thought that was a claim only made by energy) but the problem could well be where it is and in what form.  All of the "drinking" water may still be out there in the system but it might not fall on our hills in the same quantities. It might evaporate from our reservoirs at a higher rate. It might solidify at the poles more than in recent history.

Everything I say is a simplification, of course, otherwise I would fill the entire forum with the answer to one question. I interpret your call for 'less black and white' as a call to add more detail. Is this correct? I shall try to be succinct...

Water is not destroyed when it becomes vapour, but could be said to be destroyed if it is reacted with another material to form a compound. Probably the largest human use here is concrete - Ca3SiO5 + H2O → (CaO)·(SiO2)·(H2O)(gel) + Ca(OH)2.  I guess this is dwarfed by photosynthesis and other natural hydrolysis - 2n CO2 + 4n H2O + photons → 2(CH2O)n + 2n O2 + 2n H2O . I suspect this process is roughly in balance across nature with water evolved during rotting, where the long H-C chains in carbohydrates are oxidised, but since this process involves a lot of complex chemistry going on inside bacteria it would be arduous to expand here.

So I am indeed guessing when I suggest that the volume of water remains the same on the planet throughout the ages, but it would be a hard point to come to a firm conclusion on either way. Of interest is the University of Iowa 'small comets' hypothesis, which suggests that diffuse, 'house-sized' water-ice comets strike the Earth's atmosphere very frequently, adding to our total water supply - http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/ refers...

The issue of where our drinking water is, and in what quantities it falls is more germane to the discussion. Ice solidification at the poles (particularly the Antarctic, which has been growing a lot recently) does not really take water out of the yearly cycle, and water vapour is readily replaced into the atmosphere from the ocean surface. We, of course, are primarily concerned with the UK water provision, and we know something specific about this. Here is the measured rainfall across the UK for the last 100 years. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/ukrainfall/ You will see that rainfall has INCREASED quite distinctly during this time. You will also see that variations are quite common - of the order of 30% of the total. So our infrastructure should be designed to support 30% delivery variation, and then should have no problems coping if the population has not changed (which, of course, it has).

Once population change is factored into the equation, we need to consider what an appropriate storage figure per head of population is, given that a 30% variation in precipitation year on year is to be expected historically. I asked DEFRA this very question three weeks ago, and am still waiting for an answer. What I suspect is that OFWAT does NOT apply such a figure, leaving it up to the water companies, who are 'trimming' the margins of the infrastructure provision in order to keep making profits. If this is occurring, every time precipitation falls below average (as it does, by definition, 50% of the time) we will have problems, and this seems to be what is happening.

Does this give you a better idea of the thinking behind my recent response? Take it from me - you don't want to hear me talk about global weather patterns...



Logged

rmaddock

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,047
  • Location: The Lake District, U of K.
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2012, 02:08:51 PM »

Thank you Mr Dodgy  :-))
I am an expert on nothing but do get incensed by people who take a stand point on something based on some principal rather than any knowledge of the facts. I also dislike the way in which arguments have to be one thing or the other; one point of view or the other; one reality or another?
All of this sound depressingly like modern politics, does it not?
So thank you for you fuller reply.
I would have to own up to being something of an apathete on most things.  I recognise that there must be far, far more to most arguments put forward in this world but cannot normally be bothered to find the full answer for myself.
I do take an active interest in society and law though. So, vis-a-vis the hosepipe ban, I think that people should respect it.  I listened to a rather demoralising programme on radio 2 yesterday; why I ever listen to Mr Vine I don't know - he just annoys me. The tone of the hole thing was that the ban was something to be worked around. It made life difficult and people didn't like it so how can we work the loopholes? It all seems wrong somehow. Governments are accused of stupidity of they do not specifically legislate for every single conceivable possibility. Which is Euro-law thinking. I thought we had a system where the spirit of the law was respected?
Hey, ho.
I'm beginning to waffle. It must be the lack of deck mounted blocks.
R.
Logged

wullie/mk2

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 793
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2012, 02:30:36 PM »

Daniel You must be joking - just because they are wasting their oil resources on desalination plants doesn't mean other countries
could afford to do it.  One of the most expensive ways to get fresh water there is, and very enviromentally unfriendly
Geoff
Have you stopped  puffin Fags,....
Logged
Wullie,s place is an apology free zone

pugwash

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,845
  • Location: recently left Amble and now in the wet Northumberland hills
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2012, 03:10:35 PM »

Yes I stopped smoking just after christmas.

Just one thought - there is a de-salination plant run by Thames water but it is of the reverse osmosis type - still expense in electricity to run.
We couldn't afford the evaporator type in this country.

Geoff
Logged
Failing to prepare means preparing to fail.

baloo

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 933
  • I`M YOUR FRIENDLY TRUCKER
  • Location: Grantham,lincs
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2012, 03:22:26 PM »

I pay for my water (via water metre) so as i said to the woman at the water board,will you "compensate" me for the water i`m not allowed to use,no was the reply.So i said, well i pay for my water so i will use my hose-pipe.She said please yourself,what type of answer is that !!
Logged

malcolmfrary

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,617
  • Location: Blackpool, Lancs, UK
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2012, 03:39:25 PM »

It is very possible to waste water when you are talking about potable drinking water and water suitable for irrigation.  You normally have to wait quite a time for nature to process the stuff from sea water into fresh water in a reservoir or aquifer.  Our water companies achieve this waste by giving their income that we have paid into the system to shareholders and company executives rather than fixing leaks.  Water that escapes via leaks is very definitely wasted because it cannot be used by the people who have paid for it.
I recall, many many years ago as a growing lad riding my bike up "the valley" to visit relatives in Bacup.  At the time, there was a move to centralize local water undertakings, and every lamp post had a protest note stuck to it.  These local water companies had been founded and funded locally.  Of course, they were amalgamated into larger units anyway, and the local investment lost.  Years on, they were further amalgamated into regional water boards, but with no recompense to the communities who had founded and paid for them.  Then a bunch of parliamentary con men privatized it all.  "I will sell you something that you all, by rights, already own, having paid for it in the first place.  I will then use this thing that I have stolen off you to pay my mates lots of money, and will greatly overcharge you for the privilege of not dying of thirst in a predominantly wet country."
Logged
"With the right tool, you can break anything" - Garfield

dodgy geezer

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,920
  • Location: London
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2012, 04:06:54 PM »

It is very possible to waste water when you are talking about potable drinking water and water suitable for irrigation.  You normally have to wait quite a time for nature to process the stuff from sea water into fresh water in a reservoir or aquifer.  Our water companies achieve this waste by giving their income that we have paid into the system to shareholders and company executives rather than fixing leaks.  Water that escapes via leaks is very definitely wasted because it cannot be used by the people who have paid for it.

The point I keep trying to make is that, when this happens, you are not wasting WATER. You are wasting WORK. The water is still there after a leak - it's just that it has to be pumped up from the aquifer a second time. Of course, that's saying the same thing that you have said, but in a different way.

The reason I harp on about this apparently pointless distinction is that I believe the water companies have been connecting this 'waste water' theme to 'green' ideas about saving the planet to avoid anyone realising that the shortcoming is not 'natural', but the result of their failure to invest in infrastructure. Of course, if I have a tank of 2 gallons of water to last me a week I am going to be careful about using it. The underlying question I want answered is "Why can't I have a tank of 100 gallons?". What I don't want is to be told that 2 gallons is all I am going to be allowed to store, because in some magical way 'water will run short'.

We should be having a debate about how much infrastructure we are prepared to pay for, and how this is to be arranged. The water companies will only spend their profits if forced to. And I think they are using the 'save water' meme to stop this happening... 
Logged

dodgy geezer

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,920
  • Location: London
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2012, 04:15:11 PM »

I am an expert on nothing...

You and me both.  But then again, Socrates said the same...


but do get incensed by people who take a stand point on something based on some principal rather than any knowledge of the facts. I also dislike the way in which arguments have to be one thing or the other; one point of view or the other; one reality or another?

Hmm - I'm with you on requiring knowledge of the facts, but not at all sure about your apparent implication that principle is in some way of lesser importance. Forgive me if I've read your item wrong, and of course a principle which is not supported by facts rather fails as a principle, but it has always seemed to me that principles underly the way we approach life, and hence should be accorded quite a lot of importance.


I do take an active interest in society and law though. So, vis-a-vis the hosepipe ban, I think that people should respect it. 


For instance, you made a point about the law and the current hosepipe ban. I suspect you are applying the principle that the law should be obeyed under all circumstances. This issue is most famously covered in John Locke’s 'Two Treatises of Government' (1690), where he argues that laws should apply 'natural justice', and that people have, more than a right, a duty to break laws that do not do this. From this argument sprang, of course, the American Revolution, and the whole concept of civil disobedience.

Locke's points do seem to cover an important point of principle to me. To apply the principle of natural justice, it does seem important to know whether these hosepipe laws are being applied because there has been an unforeseen shortage in rainfall, an attempt by the water companies to avoid paying for necessary investment, or, as you point out, neither "one reality or another", but something in between. Which was what I wanted to find out, and is where we came in...
Logged

offshore1987

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 977
  • Good to be back
  • Location: Portsmouth
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2012, 11:42:20 AM »

My gf said to me its funny how they are ok to use am much water for the olympics as they like, when london is in the middel of the south east  :-)) Personly the olympics dosnt mean anything to me, dont love it but dont hate it, but i dont see how one rule for them and one for the people of the country differs

Maybe seems 1000s of people will be over here drinking are water, we should charge then £20 each when they come into are country to use are water  %) Or £26 like we have to pay down here  :police:

Daniel
Logged

BailingBen

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 376
  • Location: portsmouth
Re: Hose pipe ban south east
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2012, 11:51:44 AM »

From today then we are not to use hose pipes yipy  :o and the day the ban starts its been light rain  :-))

Will it affect you? It will for me 

All the best

Daniel



im not affected        my mum says the ban excluded are area
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up