|
I agree. One reason I keep posting these mythbusting articles, is that moral indignation at others wastage of water is not a rational basis for discussion or action!Originally Posted by noxibox
The plan is to start with the biggest numbers, and focus efforts on getting the total usage down. Those who say "every drop counts" are misguided IMO...
simply deflection in order to avoid coming to terms with the fact that they themselves most likely waste more
I'm pretty sure one person with water in a house / flat - with flushable toilet, bath/shower, dishwasher and washing machine uses more water in a day than the spillage from those communal taps. In fact if you could measure all the tiny leakages from toilet cisterns into the bowl it would be way way more wastage than those communal taps.
LBRY is a free, open, and community-run digital marketplace.
Assuming a flow rate of 12 litres per minute, an open tap will use 17kl per day, or 518kl in 30 days.
Last edited by ginggs; 10-11-2017 at 01:22 PM.
If it's actually left open all the time which I doubt and haven't seen any evidence of. I just saw photos of puddles, which is overflow from washing stuff and filling buckets. If they put a sink under the tap like you have under all your taps there would be no puddles. Maybe if one can't see the water that's being wasted one thinks it's less that it is...
LBRY is a free, open, and community-run digital marketplace.
The opposite of moral indignation is virtue signalling. IMO the worst example of this is rainwater harvesting, which has now become a cult fashion. Boreholes come a close second, but involve more complex tradeoffs (which I will not discuss).
A typical setup (with plumbing) costs about R10K to store around 5kl of water. This is solely dependent on rainfall, which in Cape Town ranges from heavy falls in winter, to practically zero in summer (when it is most needed). The in-between months of Sep-Nov are the only ones that make any practical difference (about 20% of the annual average), roughly filling the tanks 4-6 times during this period.
Imagine if everyone in CT had this installed (hypothetically 1 million instances). The cost would be about R10bn, and the amount of water conserved would be around 20-30 billion liters during this 3 month period. This is equivalent to 40-60 days current consumption (500Ml/day) for the City of Cape Town, extending Day-Zero by a month or two, if this water could somehow be utilised (since it is non-potable).
Obviously infrastructure costs need to be spread over multiple years, but the sheer magnitude of the numbers involved, measured against the likely benefits, indicate that this is not a cost effective solution to the current crisis. If installing tanks gives you a warm glow, and you can wash your car, and keep some of the garden alive, then so be it.
Last edited by Gordon_R; 10-11-2017 at 05:31 PM. Reason: Typo.
Solution ?
What would you say is the solution then ?
Seeing as apparently Cape Town has historically lurched from one water crisis to the next
and
Has very few ( or no ) new options available.
Apart from waste water filtering / cleaning and re-use -- a la WINDHOEK
and
HOW much is all that going to cost ?
Shrugs
Now address the fact we don't have enough water in 10 years mostly due to population growth and dam sizes. Both your 8 year old "light reading" and the water intel report say "high degree of rainfall variability".
What exactly are you saying here? Ignore the report and not build more water sources for the people?
https://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/opin...a-day-11921684
some good news, not a huge amount, but the number of related projects are most definitely increasing...
There is no magic solution, but the future will need several strategies, including the current water restricitons. The long term steps should be for the national government (DWA) to fund the augmentation proposals, as suggested by many reports and role-players over the past decade. My point above is that individual small-scale actions are not cost-effective, and will add little benefit in both the short and long-term.
This process will necessitate increases in the price of water, which has historically been simply the cost of reticulation, and not reflecting its scarcity value. The CoCT has already introduced stepped water tarrifs, with provision for low-income households. In years with a surplus, those who can afford to and wish to use extra water, should be able to do so with a clear conscience. The money that would have been spent on all those 5kl rainwater tanks, could IMO be much more productively used to fund water augmentation for the whole city.
The cost of supplying water to the second largest city in South Africa, however large, will be a fraction of the amount spent by Eskom in the last decade on yet-to-be completed power stations, and minuscule compared to the proposed nuclear build (R1 trillion). How would you rather taxpayers money be spent?
Last edited by Gordon_R; 10-11-2017 at 07:20 PM. Reason: Typo.
how do you lower consumption and increase prices?
create a crisis. exhibit a - Eskom
water? increase population development and stall water service development, wait for drought. blame the weather. profit.
these myth articles, i saw a similar "myth" article promoting the need for the nuclear deal, probably done by the same person. didn't bother checking.
Don't think this one was manufactured.
Beware weapons grade stupidity in post following this one
I've thought long and hard about what to reply.
1. NO-ONE in South Africa should be exempt from being educated on the importance of conserving and preserving our natural resources. From not throwing rubbish where-ever people like, to making sure that taps are not even left dripping.
2. Just because I point out that running taps waster precious water is not some kind of attack on the poor. It is pointing out a problem that usually gets a free ride because .. well just look at the responses to understand what the problem is. Poverty is not an excuse. I've been poor (homeless poor) and that was never an excuse nor a reason for leaving a mess or not saving - in fact it makes you hyper-aware of the cost of everything including water.
3. The amount of water on the ground is not from 'spillage' ground only gets that saturated in such a large area around a tap if the water is running for several hours at least. Try it yourself - go fill a bucket and let a bit slop on the ground - see not that wet. In fact it is even possible to fill the bucket without spilling! But if you are careless with it, don't position the bucket directly under the tap, making sure the water goes only in the bucket ... and leave the tap running while you get the cap on the first ... and so on ...
4. Take a drive through a township (it might be educational in more ways than one) and go look at the taps for yourself. Just because I can't find a photo online of a running tap, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, or that I haven't seen it.
Myth 4 - water leaks????
Water gushing through pipes will leak.
A weak trickle won't.
If the DWA are shirking responsibility why doesn't the city take them to court? Water is a basic right and it'd be a straight forward constitutional matter.
X
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks