actually this is rather interesting. I have a full old fashioned flushing
toilet, but I do not notice big bills indeed being on a meter they fell.

I imagine the break even point is dependent on the number of people at home
and for how long etc.
One thing that has intrigued me though, is how do they calculate the
processing of the waste water? some people send all their waste down, others
divert grey water to other things etc, so it has surely to be a veryrough
and ready calculation.
Also can I bill the water supplier for all the damage and work needed to
remove lime scale from things?

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
One of the benefits of being on a UKIP mailing list is such delightful
snippets as these

http://www.euractiv.com/climate-envi...to-news-531374

Less 'Part P', and more 'part-pee'..

"Further down, the minutes of one of the expert group meetings singles out
the following "key findings":

that "toilet seats/covers are not really related to the product
function";
that "toilet seats/covers are often sold separately" from the main
"product";
and that "there is a high variability in consumer's choice for toilet
seats/covers".

Experts have agreed that two "key elements" appear to affect the water
consumption of flushing toilets and urinals: their design and the user
behaviour. Regarding user behaviour and "based on the discussions with
stakeholders", the experts have decided to set the average flush volume as
"the arithmetic average of one full flush volume and three reduced flush
volumes".

Wow. I bow to the mighty EU! who would have known that! Or come up with
such a daring solution!

Or didn't they think that with most homes equipped with water meters and
spiralling costs, we shouldn't already not be flushing more than we had
to?

And they wonder why UKIP membership is increasing faster than its
declining in the other parties....


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members
of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded
with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.