Thames Water- Finished?
Discussion
borcy said:
Hants PHer said:
Seems like a sensible idea; did I read that houses are built with large (rain) water tanks as part of their construction? Might have been Belgium, perhaps.
It strikes me that having vast quantities of rainwater that's 1) not stored and 2) creates overflow and sewage discharge is something that needs addressing, especially if our climate gets more, erm, Mediterranean.
I think it's Israel. It strikes me that having vast quantities of rainwater that's 1) not stored and 2) creates overflow and sewage discharge is something that needs addressing, especially if our climate gets more, erm, Mediterranean.
Our current house has a roof area of maybe 80sqm. A decent bit of overnight summer rain fills 3 x 200 litre water butts.
That's 7.5mm of rain.London gets about 600mm of rain a year, and half the days are <0.1mm.
So on an average wet day, an average house is going to be filling a water butt or two.
It's a cockwomble scheme which won't touch the sides on any 'really wet' days.
Not to mention that a lot of rain is hitting roads, driveways, pavements....
The only thing that really works is big scale investment in separating surface water drainage from foul water.
This has been well understood since WW2 or so.
A lot of progress has been made, to be fair.
119 said:
Problem is, all these new housing estates are built on vast areas of land, so, we have an increase in rain with nowhere for it to go naturally.
Where we used to live, a new estate was built on land that was acting as a flood plain, and over the last year, the local pub has flooded twice apparently.
Too much of a coincidence i would say.
It does happen.Where we used to live, a new estate was built on land that was acting as a flood plain, and over the last year, the local pub has flooded twice apparently.
Too much of a coincidence i would say.
More and more paving and concrete etc., means more run-off into storm drains rather than soaking into the ground.
We build more and more houses, but the connections are just to the existing system and existing treatment works. How many new water treatment plants have been built in the UK in the past 30 years compared to new housing estates?
I know some have been upgraded and improved, and I worked on the big upgrade improvement to TW's Ashford Common WTP, but that was 30 years ago.
borcy said:
Would it save that much, 200L butt across 1m homes doesn't seem that much.
I suppose its low cost, even if you gave the water butts away.
Water butt's from 150l to 500l are typical. Mixture of space and people who might embrace a larger butt for gardening.I suppose its low cost, even if you gave the water butts away.
40mm rain would be considered torrential in the UK. A home is on average 50m2. So that's 2000 litres falling on a home. We expect a CSO to spill in torrential rainfall, but if you can cut that down by 10-25% then there must be value in that torrential scenario.
The key is ensuring the butt is empty before the downfall. Alternatively, simply having a constant trickle into the drains is a low tech solution in winter.
119 said:
Problem is, all these new housing estates are built on vast areas of land, so, we have an increase in rain with nowhere for it to go naturally.
Where we used to live, a new estate was built on land that was acting as a flood plain, and over the last year, the local pub has flooded twice apparently.
Too much of a coincidence i would say.
Perhaps Equus or Blueg33 might chime in on how much(or how little) water management features in existing planning and building regulation and where the lowhanging fruit, if any, may be? Where we used to live, a new estate was built on land that was acting as a flood plain, and over the last year, the local pub has flooded twice apparently.
Too much of a coincidence i would say.
hidetheelephants said:
119 said:
Problem is, all these new housing estates are built on vast areas of land, so, we have an increase in rain with nowhere for it to go naturally.
Where we used to live, a new estate was built on land that was acting as a flood plain, and over the last year, the local pub has flooded twice apparently.
Too much of a coincidence i would say.
Perhaps Equus or Blueg33 might chime in on how much(or how little) water management features in existing planning and building regulation and where the lowhanging fruit, if any, may be? Where we used to live, a new estate was built on land that was acting as a flood plain, and over the last year, the local pub has flooded twice apparently.
Too much of a coincidence i would say.
Edited by Bonefish Blues on Friday 29th March 19:30
None of the water cos have large direct labour organisations, big jobs are subbed out; the capacity of UK contractors capable of doing water projects is the hard limit, developments can't progress faster than that capacity allows. Obviously if there is longterm work in the sector contractors can expand.
Evanivitch said:
Water butt's from 150l to 500l are typical. Mixture of space and people who might embrace a larger butt for gardening.
40mm rain would be considered torrential in the UK. A home is on average 50m2. So that's 2000 litres falling on a home. We expect a CSO to spill in torrential rainfall, but if you can cut that down by 10-25% then there must be value in that torrential scenario.
The key is ensuring the butt is empty before the downfall. Alternatively, simply having a constant trickle into the drains is a low tech solution in winter.
I am no water expert (caveat)40mm rain would be considered torrential in the UK. A home is on average 50m2. So that's 2000 litres falling on a home. We expect a CSO to spill in torrential rainfall, but if you can cut that down by 10-25% then there must be value in that torrential scenario.
The key is ensuring the butt is empty before the downfall. Alternatively, simply having a constant trickle into the drains is a low tech solution in winter.
But requiring new builds to have an underground 10,000l tank + pump would not cost that much (in the scheme of new build costs) and might be a useful buffer (plus in the summer can be used for watering garden, etc)
I’m involved in a large scheme which will have twin pipe potable and grey water recycling (for toilets), and onsite water recycling as well as large attenuation lakes for treatment and holding to smooth out the peaks in discharge.
It could, if the EA want, also have aquifer recharging alongside abstraction, making it water neutral.
Overall, it can be done, but this sort of scheme is pretty novel.
It could, if the EA want, also have aquifer recharging alongside abstraction, making it water neutral.
Overall, it can be done, but this sort of scheme is pretty novel.
loafer123 said:
I’m involved in a large scheme which will have twin pipe potable and grey water recycling (for toilets), and onsite water recycling as well as large attenuation lakes for treatment and holding to smooth out the peaks in discharge.
It could, if the EA want, also have aquifer recharging alongside abstraction, making it water neutral.
Overall, it can be done, but this sort of scheme is pretty novel.
This seems to be a big part of the problem, there is a massive lack of amibition or will to carry out these sort of projects in the UK. Solar panels are another obvious example; why aren’t they adorning all manner of newbuild and existing buildings as a basic matter of course?It could, if the EA want, also have aquifer recharging alongside abstraction, making it water neutral.
Overall, it can be done, but this sort of scheme is pretty novel.
The Gvmnt only seems interested in heat pumps, which you could argue might be down to a significant chunk of the cost (even with various support schemes) being picked up by the private owner, whereas massive rollout of things like water treatment overhauls would require vast sums of money from the treasury.
Evanivitch said:
borcy said:
Would it save that much, 200L butt across 1m homes doesn't seem that much.
I suppose its low cost, even if you gave the water butts away.
Water butt's from 150l to 500l are typical. Mixture of space and people who might embrace a larger butt for gardening.I suppose its low cost, even if you gave the water butts away.
40mm rain would be considered torrential in the UK. A home is on average 50m2. So that's 2000 litres falling on a home. We expect a CSO to spill in torrential rainfall, but if you can cut that down by 10-25% then there must be value in that torrential scenario.
The key is ensuring the butt is empty before the downfall. Alternatively, simply having a constant trickle into the drains is a low tech solution in winter.
the collected water can be used for for toilets and if you filter it for showers, washing machines and so on.
Evanivitch said:
CoolHands said:
Am I only the one thinking how hard can it be to take water away
It's not hard to take water away, which is why instances of sewage backing up into homes is incredibly rare. The system works very well at taking it away.In any case the consensus of the thread seems to be that the investors put in more billions and not take out any dividends ever. This strikes me as a dubious investment, but does illustrate that investment in national infrastructure is very politicised and likely high risk as a result.
Public ownership is apparently the answer, even though the water infrastructure decayed during the decades prior to privatisation as not enough money was being spent on it and it was privatised as the government didn't want to spend the tens of billions required to meet new water quality directives.
Ultimately if you want much better water infrastructure someone needs to pay the vast sums required, and that will either be the bill payer or the taxpayer.
JagLover said:
Evanivitch said:
CoolHands said:
Am I only the one thinking how hard can it be to take water away
It's not hard to take water away, which is why instances of sewage backing up into homes is incredibly rare. The system works very well at taking it away.In any case the consensus of the thread seems to be that the investors put in more billions and not take out any dividends ever. This strikes me as a dubious investment, but does illustrate that investment in national infrastructure is very politicised and likely high risk as a result.
Public ownership is apparently the answer, even though the water infrastructure decayed during the decades prior to privatisation as not enough money was being spent on it and it was privatised as the government didn't want to spend the tens of billions required to meet new water quality directives.
Ultimately if you want much better water infrastructure someone needs to pay the vast sums required, and that will either be the bill payer or the taxpayer.
JagLover said:
In any case the consensus of the thread seems to be that the investors put in more billions and not take out any dividends ever.
Yes. No one would have an issue with investors making money from a well functioning business. The issue is the billions of dividends taken over the years whilst failing to invest. The other option is for the company to fail and everything to be sold off by administrators.Letting companies raise bills, not invest and force customers who have no choice to pay whilst continuing to make money for investors is abuse of a monopoly and not an option. If water companies had been investing in infrastructure then there would be sympathy, but they have continued to pay out dividends year after year whilst letting things fail.
It’s just another company suffering from the current shorttermist capitalism that puts this quarters dividends above all else. It is what is driving so many issues, from low productivity to crumbling infrastructure, because everyone is looking for returns today.
aeropilot said:
It does happen.
More and more paving and concrete etc., means more run-off into storm drains rather than soaking into the ground.
We build more and more houses, but the connections are just to the existing system and existing treatment works. How many new water treatment plants have been built in the UK in the past 30 years compared to new housing estates?
I know some have been upgraded and improved, and I worked on the big upgrade improvement to TW's Ashford Common WTP, but that was 30 years ago.
Here in Farnborough, they actually built an entire housing estate on top of an old sewage treatment works.More and more paving and concrete etc., means more run-off into storm drains rather than soaking into the ground.
We build more and more houses, but the connections are just to the existing system and existing treatment works. How many new water treatment plants have been built in the UK in the past 30 years compared to new housing estates?
I know some have been upgraded and improved, and I worked on the big upgrade improvement to TW's Ashford Common WTP, but that was 30 years ago.
I bet that's not mentioned in the estate agent's brochures.
Eric Mc said:
Here in Farnborough, they actually built an entire housing estate on top of an old sewage treatment works.
I bet that's not mentioned in the estate agent's brochures.
Why would that matter?I bet that's not mentioned in the estate agent's brochures.
All the building, tanks, and treatment equipment will have obviously been removed. There wouldn't be anything left. They don't sent s
te some kind of big hole in the ground under a turd reprocessing plant.snuffy said:
Eric Mc said:
Here in Farnborough, they actually built an entire housing estate on top of an old sewage treatment works.
I bet that's not mentioned in the estate agent's brochures.
Why would that matter?I bet that's not mentioned in the estate agent's brochures.
All the building, tanks, and treatment equipment will have obviously been removed. There wouldn't be anything left. They don't sent s
te some kind of big hole in the ground under a turd reprocessing plant.
Electro1980 said:
JagLover said:
In any case the consensus of the thread seems to be that the investors put in more billions and not take out any dividends ever.
Yes. No one would have an issue with investors making money from a well functioning business. The issue is the billions of dividends taken over the years whilst failing to invest. The other option is for the company to fail and everything to be sold off by administrators.Letting companies raise bills, not invest and force customers who have no choice to pay whilst continuing to make money for investors is abuse of a monopoly and not an option. If water companies had been investing in infrastructure then there would be sympathy, but they have continued to pay out dividends year after year whilst letting things fail.
It’s just another company suffering from the current shorttermist capitalism that puts this quarters dividends above all else. It is what is driving so many issues, from low productivity to crumbling infrastructure, because everyone is looking for returns today.
Yes: money has to be spent if you want something to happen. Be it from bill payers or taxpayer (who are the same anyway in the round)
But the balance is the "reward" to shareholders versus the "efficiency premium"of the private sector.
Do we know this? I don't see how it's possible to calculate, so people largely base it on their gut feeling/politics / how they were brought up.
I was a kid when things were privatised so have no real memory if things were the "good old days" or "bad old days".
But I think we can agree wealth leaving London bill payers into to Canada, dubai etc is lost to the UK economy.
If it is the puported £72bn of reward, I would be happy if improvements of at least £72bn or more were delivered by TW from shareholder investment, other things being equal of course.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff