We get far too much blasted rain, and yet I pay my local (French?
Spanish? Russian? -- it's called "Northumbria") water board good money
for flushing my toilet.

How about

- I put a tank in my loft, which I fill from time to time from a water
butt outside, using a pump.

- I route the rainwater from the tank to the toilet cistern.

- When the rainwater tank gives out, I either refill it using my pump,
or I switch on a tap on my mains supply, also routed into the toilet
cistern?

Cue the "you cant do that 'ere mate" brigade....

(I don't mean that as it looks: what I mean is that there are lots of
people in this group who know "The Regs" better than most of us, and
will be able to give me a reason not to bother starting!

John

p.s. I tried an ultra-crude mock-up of this plan a couple of years ago,
by filling our bath with rainwater, then using a bucket to flush the
bog. Apart from anything else, the rainwater smelt bad (in this volume)
-- a kind of musty smell.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:59:38 +0100, jal wrote:

We get far too much blasted rain, and yet I pay my local (French?
Spanish? Russian? -- it's called "Northumbria") water board good money
for flushing my toilet.

How about

- I put a tank in my loft, which I fill from time to time from a water
butt outside, using a pump.

- I route the rainwater from the tank to the toilet cistern.

- When the rainwater tank gives out, I either refill it using my pump,
or I switch on a tap on my mains supply, also routed into the toilet
cistern?

There's a new swimming pool near here; opening tomorrow, which
allegedly harvests all the rainwater from the roof to top up the
swimming thing.
It'll be interesting to see how much 'extra' water is needed - after
all, there'll be showers etc...

--
Frank Erskine

jal wrote in


We get far too much blasted rain, and yet I pay my local (French?
Spanish? Russian? -- it's called "Northumbria") water board good
money for flushing my toilet.

How about

- I put a tank in my loft, which I fill from time to time from a water
butt outside, using a pump.


Why - and I suspect that the answer's "cost" - not go the whole hog and pump
it into your domestic system using a UV purification system?

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:59:38 +0100 someone who may be jal
wrote this:-

We get far too much blasted rain, and yet I pay my local (French?
Spanish? Russian? -- it's called "Northumbria") water board good money
for flushing my toilet.

It is perfectly possible to use rainwater for all uses. That is
after all what is used in the mains water system.

However the longest journey starts with a single step, for flushing
the toilet it might be a good idea to pump it through a filter to
take anything relatively large out.

Having done that you may want to do more. What follows is a
suggestion of where you might get some ideas. It might be worth
putting in provision for some of them, to make things easier if you
do adopt some of these ideas later.

A little while ago I went round Earthship Fife
http://www.sci-scotland.org.uk/index.shtml. This is a
visitor/exhibition centre which is not connected to any external
services. Electricity comes from hydro (10m head onto a small
turbine), wind and PV panels, which all charge up batteries. From
this they run computers, lights and the most important item, the
kettle.

Water comes from the roof. This goes into a 1000 litre drum via
coarse gravel filters. From there it is pumped by a pressure
activated pump through a couple of filters. Drinking water also goes
through a UV filter. Hot water is produced in an "unvented" cylinder
using immersion heaters which are part of the system to absorb
excess electricity.

Having run out of the sink, the water runs through the plants in the
solar buffer area (you can just about see these plants in the
photograph on the home page).

The water is then pumped back to the toilet (a fairly standard
toilet, though with a three setting variable flush system).

From there the water is taken to a greenhouse, which has to be 10m
away from the dwelling in Scotland. There the solids are broken down
and the plants irrigated. Any excess water in the greenhouse is
transferred to a bed outside the greenhouse.

Earthships were started in the USA, often in desert or semi-desert
areas. This one was built along the same lines as an experiment to
see what works and what doesn't work so well in a different climate.
The lessons learnt are the fairly obvious ones that water is not so
important in Scotland, but heat is more important. Many of the ideas
can be adapted to other sorts of building.

Some of these concepts are more suited to a rural area, or buildings
with a reasonably large garden, but other can be applied in built up
areas.

They have an on-line shop and the Earthship Toolkit has
comprehensive information on the systems should you wish to study
the subject further.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Water Regulations will require provisions to prevent rainwater ever
siphoning back into mains water.

On Apr 16, 3:14*pm, " wrote:
Water Regulations will require provisions to prevent rainwater ever
siphoning back into mains water.

How would it do that in a toilet cistern, where the level of the water
in the cistern is below the level of the inlet from the mains?

MBQ

jal wrote:

We get far too much blasted rain, and yet I pay my local (French?
Spanish? Russian? -- it's called "Northumbria") water board good money
for flushing my toilet.

Well... the sensible, as in could be used by other people not just you,
approach to this is to have a system for harvesting rainwater. You
install an underground tank of at least 2000 litre capacity with a pump
to feed water back to the house. The tank is fed from the rainwater run
off, which needs to pass through a trap to remove grit and sand.
Filtering is optional but may be sensible to avoid the water becoming
septic. Inside the storage tank you have a float valve which connects to
the main water supply. When the tank is empty, e.g. in a long drought
this will "top up" the tank from the mains so that the pump never runs
dry.

How would it do that in a toilet cistern, where the level of the water
in the cistern is below the level of the inlet from the mains?

If the cistern is large enough to hold two traditional horizontal-
lever ballcocks, that sounds a good separation (i.e. provided they're
not one of the types with a dip pipe below the water level. e.g
torbeck/vertical float type valves) - however that's an inelegant
solution with the need for manual changeover valves if rainwater runs
low.

I thought the OP was describing T-ing the 2 supplies together into the
feed to the ballcock (also needing a stopcock on each supply,) in
which case I think he'd need check valves.

You could possibly have a ballcock to use mains water to top up the
rainwater tank and eliminate any need to manually operate valves at
all if the tank ran low - provided again back-siphonage was prevented.

I'm sure I read there's WRAS approved off the shelf hardware for
rainwater loo flushing with mains top-up - but I can't remember where
I read about it.

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:59:38 +0100, jal wrote:

We get far too much blasted rain, and yet I pay my local (French?
Spanish? Russian? -- it's called "Northumbria") water board good money
for flushing my toilet.

How about

- I put a tank in my loft, which I fill from time to time from a water
butt outside, using a pump.

- I route the rainwater from the tank to the toilet cistern.

- When the rainwater tank gives out, I either refill it using my pump,
or I switch on a tap on my mains supply, also routed into the toilet
cistern?

There's a new swimming pool near here; opening tomorrow, which
allegedly harvests all the rainwater from the roof to top up the
swimming thing.


It'll be interesting to see how much 'extra' water is needed - after
all, there'll be showers etc...

--
Frank Erskine

Sorted. Have a **** while you are swimming.

Adam

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:59:38 +0100, jal wrote:

We get far too much blasted rain, and yet I pay my local (French?
Spanish? Russian? -- it's called "Northumbria") water board good money
for flushing my toilet.



Have you seen http://www.reuk.co.uk/Rainwater-Toilet-Flush-System.htm?

It uses a pump from a rainwater butt to top up a roof tank, but I'm sure
a bit of ingenuity could fit a collection tank high enough to not need
it...are there any good discrete exterior wall mounted tanks, maybe 50l
or so?

In fact a long thin (horizontal) tank mounted up under the eaves might be
virtually invisible, while being below the level of the gutter and above
the level of the cistern - ideal! Can anybody think of anything suitable
to use?

You'd need some sort of valve on the mains supply that didn't open unless
the rainwater supply was empty. Hmm. And some sort of grit/sand filtering
on the rainwater supply. probably.


There's info on the legal situation regarding backflow he
http://wras.co.uk/Decisions_Default.asp

On 16 Apr, 13:59, jal wrote:
We get far too much blasted rain, and yet I pay my local (French?
Spanish? Russian? -- it's called "Northumbria") water board good money
for flushing my toilet.

Ifo at one time - quite recently - made a dual suppliy tilet, which
used rainwater if it was available and mains water otherwise. However,
I can't find any reference too it at their website or at their UK
agents, so it looks as if it may have been dropped.

I am sure that the friendly people at the Centre for Alternative
Technology will be able to tell you if it - or something similar - is
still available.

Ian

On 2008-04-16 13:59:38 +0100, jal said:

We get far too much blasted rain, and yet I pay my local (French?
Spanish? Russian? -- it's called "Northumbria") water board good money
for flushing my toilet.

How about

- I put a tank in my loft, which I fill from time to time from a water
butt outside, using a pump.

- I route the rainwater from the tank to the toilet cistern.

- When the rainwater tank gives out, I either refill it using my pump,
or I switch on a tap on my mains supply, also routed into the toilet
cistern?

Cue the "you cant do that 'ere mate" brigade....

(I don't mean that as it looks: what I mean is that there are lots of
people in this group who know "The Regs" better than most of us, and
will be able to give me a reason not to bother starting!

John

p.s. I tried an ultra-crude mock-up of this plan a couple of years ago,
by filling our bath with rainwater, then using a bucket to flush the
bog. Apart from anything else, the rainwater smelt bad (in this volume)
-- a kind of musty smell.

Forget the whole idea. The right solution is to disable anything in
the toilet cistern that limits the flush volume and to adjust the
floats to maximise the cistern contents under all circumstances - not
this No. 1 and No.2 nonsense.

Let the water supplier deliver what they are being paid to do.

Andy Hall wrote:

Forget the whole idea. The right solution is to disable anything in
the toilet cistern that limits the flush volume and to adjust the floats
to maximise the cistern contents under all circumstances - not this No.
1 and No.2 nonsense.

Let the water supplier deliver what they are being paid to do.

You're not on a water meter then, Andy? :-)

Pete

On 2008-04-16 23:44:16 +0100, Pete Verdon
d said:

Andy Hall wrote:

Forget the whole idea. The right solution is to disable anything in
the toilet cistern that limits the flush volume and to adjust the
floats to maximise the cistern contents under all circumstances - not
this No. 1 and No.2 nonsense.

Let the water supplier deliver what they are being paid to do.

You're not on a water meter then, Andy? :-)

Pete

Nope.

However, they are paid a lot of money for what they provide.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:39:09 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Forget the whole idea. The right solution is to disable anything in
the toilet cistern that limits the flush volume and to adjust the
floats to maximise the cistern contents under all circumstances - not
this No. 1 and No.2 nonsense.

You don't say why it is "nonsense" to reduce water consumption.

Let the water supplier deliver what they are being paid to do.

Your idea of what they are being paid to do may not be the same as
the view of other people.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Steve Firth wrote:
jal wrote:

We get far too much blasted rain, and yet I pay my local (French?
Spanish? Russian? -- it's called "Northumbria") water board good money
for flushing my toilet.

Well... the sensible, as in could be used by other people not just you,
approach to this is to have a system for harvesting rainwater. You
install an underground tank of at least 2000 litre capacity with a pump
to feed water back to the house. The tank is fed from the rainwater run
off, which needs to pass through a trap to remove grit and sand.
Filtering is optional but may be sensible to avoid the water becoming
septic. Inside the storage tank you have a float valve which connects to
the main water supply. When the tank is empty, e.g. in a long drought
this will "top up" the tank from the mains so that the pump never runs
dry.

This has more input, particularly re use of float switches rather
than
valves
http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index....esting_%26_Use

A 2 ton tank is nice but there is no fixed size requirement. The
bigger the tank, the more of the time it will use rain..

Dont forget you're paying for water disposal as well as delivery, so
if you discharge the rain to the waterboard you're still liable for
the
disposal charge.


NT

How about not flushing the toilet all the time. Many countries do
this.

If it's yellow let it mellow. If it's brown flush it down!

On Apr 16, 11:39*pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-16 13:59:38 +0100, jal said:





We get far too much blasted rain, and yet I pay my local *(French?
Spanish? Russian? *-- it's called "Northumbria") water board good money
for flushing my toilet.

How about

- I put a tank in my loft, which I fill from time to time from a water
butt outside, using a pump.

- I route the rainwater from the tank to the toilet cistern.

- When the rainwater tank gives out, I either refill it using my pump,
or I switch on a tap on my mains supply, also routed into the toilet
cistern?

Cue the "you cant do that 'ere mate" brigade....

(I don't mean that as it looks: what I mean is that there are lots of
people in this group who know *"The Regs" better than most of us, and
will be able to give me a reason not to bother starting!

John

p.s. I tried an ultra-crude mock-up of this plan a couple of years ago,
by filling our bath with rainwater, then using a bucket to flush the
bog. *Apart from anything else, the rainwater smelt bad (in this volume)
-- a kind of musty smell.

Forget the whole idea. * The right solution is to disable anything in
the toilet cistern that limits the flush volume and to adjust the
floats to maximise the cistern contents under all circumstances - not
this No. 1 and No.2 nonsense.

Let the water supplier deliver what they are being paid to do.

If you don't use it, you don't pay them.

MBQ

OP here ...

Chaps - once again thanks so much for all the useful information so far!

Andy - Yes, I omitted the vital information that I'm on a meter
(voluntarily, two years ago). I agree absolutely that the buggers (i.e.
any utility service you care to name, not just water) were given a
licence to print money!

Going to a meter dropped our bills dramatically, because our two kids
have flown the nest. But there's another big factor at play he that
I think it's a shame to waste anything at all. Paying good money to
flush the toilet (while it pees down outside) seems a terrible waste to
me! I don't care that 1000 litres of good clean water only costs about
80pence[1]: waste is waste, and it's wrong. (Quaintly old-fashioned, I
know!)

John

[1] Once the critical mass of 'punters' in the country are on water
meters, the costs will start sky-rocketing of course ("wholesale water
prices" anyone?!). And they'll also find ways to charge me for
rainwater that I dare to harvest; but I might be dead by that time.

"jal" wrote in message
...


Going to a meter dropped our bills dramatically, because our two kids
have flown the nest. But there's another big factor at play he that
I think it's a shame to waste anything at all. Paying good money to
flush the toilet (while it pees down outside) seems a terrible waste to
me! I don't care that 1000 litres of good clean water only costs about
80pence[1]: waste is waste, and it's wrong. (Quaintly old-fashioned, I
know!)

It's not old fashioned at all, it's a very modern way of thinking. It's now
regarded as passe as well as anti-social to waste anything even if it costs
nothing.

John

[1] Once the critical mass of 'punters' in the country are on water
meters, the costs will start sky-rocketing of course ("wholesale water
prices" anyone?!). And they'll also find ways to charge me for
rainwater that I dare to harvest; but I might be dead by that time.

You having a storage tank in your grave??

:-)

Mary

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:09:30 +0100 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

I don't care that 1000 litres of good clean water only costs about
80pence[1]: waste is waste, and it's wrong. (Quaintly old-fashioned, I
know!)

It's not old fashioned at all, it's a very modern way of thinking. It's now
regarded as passe as well as anti-social to waste anything even if it costs
nothing.

Over-consumption is seen by an increasing number of people as very
1960s. There are some dinosaurs, but their numbers are reducing
steadily.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2008-04-17 08:48:46 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:39:09 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Forget the whole idea. The right solution is to disable anything in
the toilet cistern that limits the flush volume and to adjust the
floats to maximise the cistern contents under all circumstances - not
this No. 1 and No.2 nonsense.

You don't say why it is "nonsense" to reduce water consumption.

Because we are on an island drenched with the stuff. The water
suppliers are paid to collect an distribute it. If they are not doing
so adequately then they are not doing their job properly.



Let the water supplier deliver what they are being paid to do.

Your idea of what they are being paid to do may not be the same as
the view of other people.

They are being paid to deliver water for the purposes of washing and
cleaning. Apparently, some people even drink it.

They are not being paid to deliver water for all of the above except
for flushing toilets.

On 2008-04-17 12:56:00 +0100, "Man at B&Q" said:

If you don't use it, you don't pay them.

MBQ

I pay them precisely the same whether I use it or not. Why would I
want to mess about with making other arrangements?

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:20:59 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

You don't say why it is "nonsense" to reduce water consumption.

Because we are on an island drenched with the stuff.

Even in Scotland that isn't true. It is certainly not the case in
drier places in the south.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Apr 17, 7:22*pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-17 12:56:00 +0100, "Man at B&Q" said:

If you don't use it, you don't pay them.

MBQ

I pay them precisely the same whether I use it or not. * *Why would I
want to mess about with making other arrangements?

We saved a lot of money by taking up the offer of a free meter a few
years ago.

MBQ

On 2008-04-17 08:48:46 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:39:09 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Forget the whole idea. The right solution is to disable anything in
the toilet cistern that limits the flush volume and to adjust the
floats to maximise the cistern contents under all circumstances - not
this No. 1 and No.2 nonsense.

You don't say why it is "nonsense" to reduce water consumption.

Because we are on an island drenched with the stuff. The water
suppliers are paid to collect an distribute it. If they are not doing
so adequately then they are not doing their job properly.



Let the water supplier deliver what they are being paid to do.

Your idea of what they are being paid to do may not be the same as
the view of other people.

They are being paid to deliver water for the purposes of washing and
cleaning. Apparently, some people even drink it.

They are not being paid to deliver water for all of the above except
for flushing toilets.

Andy Hall wrote:

Let the water supplier deliver what they are being paid to do.


Round here they are about to deliver through a brand new 4ft diameter
pipe through the SSSI near my house. A bit more care from the users and
that wouldn't have been necessary.

Andy

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:13:54 +0100, Andy Champ
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

Let the water supplier deliver what they are being paid to do.


Round here they are about to deliver through a brand new 4ft diameter
pipe through the SSSI near my house. A bit more care from the users and
that wouldn't have been necessary.


A big *very* expensive pipeline !

Needed for stronger reasons than the lack of a "bit more care" from
local users I am sure. I would suspect (without knowing) new demand
for water somewhere.

Which SSSI is it ?

Will the pipe damage the SSSI ?

Derek

On 2008-04-17 19:47:02 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:20:59 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

You don't say why it is "nonsense" to reduce water consumption.

Because we are on an island drenched with the stuff.

Even in Scotland that isn't true. It is certainly not the case in
drier places in the south.

It's a matter of collection and distribution.

I pay the water company to supply me with water. How they do that is
a matter for them.

At the price point that they have it isn't interesting for me to make
other arrangements. I may take a different view if the price changes
significantly, but it certainly isn't worth any effort until then.

On 2008-04-17 20:01:21 +0100, "Man at B&Q" said:

On Apr 17, 7:22*pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-17 12:56:00 +0100, "Man at B&Q" said:

If you don't use it, you don't pay them.

MBQ

I pay them precisely the same whether I use it or not. * *Why would I
want to mess about with making other arrangements?

We saved a lot of money by taking up the offer of a free meter a few
years ago.

MBQ

I certainly wouldn't pay a utility supplier to install a meter anyway,
so a "free offer" has no real meaning. Thy must have a motivation for
offering "free" deals. Either ir is because they hope to make more
money or because they hope that people will use less, thus saving them
cost of build out of infrastructure.

The latter is a perverse means of marketing because they are shooting
themselves in the foot in terms of revenue expansion.

It would make far more sense for them to get out of the potable water
business and deliver a semi treated product suitable for washing
purposes only. There is really no point in treating bulk water to
potable standard when 99% of it doesn't need that level of treatment.

Mineral water suppliers do a far better job of delivering a selection
of quality potable products and offer the consumer choice of product.
Tap water almost universally tastes disgusting.

On 2008-04-17 20:01:21 +0100, "Man at B&Q" said:

On Apr 17, 7:22*pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-17 12:56:00 +0100, "Man at B&Q" said:

If you don't use it, you don't pay them.

MBQ

I pay them precisely the same whether I use it or not. * *Why would I
want to mess about with making other arrangements?

We saved a lot of money by taking up the offer of a free meter a few
years ago.

MBQ

I certainly wouldn't pay a utility supplier to install a meter anyway,
so a "free offer" has no real meaning. Thy must have a motivation for
offering "free" deals. Either ir is because they hope to make more
money or because they hope that people will use less, thus saving them
cost of build out of infrastructure.

The latter is a perverse means of marketing because they are shooting
themselves in the foot in terms of revenue expansion.

It would make far more sense for them to get out of the potable water
business and deliver a semi treated product suitable for washing
purposes only. There is really no point in treating bulk water to
potable standard when 99% of it doesn't need that level of treatment.

Mineral water suppliers do a far better job of delivering a selection
of quality potable products and offer the consumer choice of product.
Tap water almost universally tastes disgusting.

On 2008-04-17 20:13:54 +0100, Andy Champ said:

Andy Hall wrote:

Let the water supplier deliver what they are being paid to do.


Round here they are about to deliver through a brand new 4ft diameter
pipe through the SSSI near my house. A bit more care from the users
and that wouldn't have been necessary.

Andy

Are they going to run it overground or will they bury it? If they
are not burying it then clearly they should in an SSSI. If that is a
matter of cost, then appropriate means of arranging suitable burial
needs to be found.

The solution to inadequate infrastructure is to improve the
infrastructure, not to reduce its use.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4807a996@qaanaaq...


Mineral water suppliers do a far better job of delivering a selection
of quality potable products and offer the consumer choice of product.
Tap water almost universally tastes disgusting.



Rubbish, mineral water taste awful, it should be banned.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

Mineral water suppliers do a far better job of delivering a selection of
quality potable products and offer the consumer choice of product. Tap
water almost universally tastes disgusting.


Rubbish, mineral water taste awful, it should be banned.

I wouldn't know but would question the knowledge - indeed the veracity - of
anyone who claims that s/he knows what water tastes like universally.

Mary

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:06:20 +0100, jal wrote:

OP here ...

Chaps - once again thanks so much for all the useful information so far!

Andy - Yes, I omitted the vital information that I'm on a meter
(voluntarily, two years ago). I agree absolutely that the buggers (i.e.
any utility service you care to name, not just water) were given a
licence to print money!

Going to a meter dropped our bills dramatically, because our two kids
have flown the nest. But there's another big factor at play he that
I think it's a shame to waste anything at all. Paying good money to
flush the toilet (while it pees down outside) seems a terrible waste to
me!

I'm not on a meter, does that mean that if I flush the WC then it's
not a waste whereas if you flush yours it is? Even if overall you get
your water cheaper than I do ?

Some clarity of thought needed methinks. You are confabulating the
spending of money on something you would simply prefer to get for free
(wasting money) with the unnecessary irrevocable consumption of a
scarce resource (pouring away water in a scorching desert).

Whereas in fact neither of these is actually the case in the UK ! You
could flush your WC at no extra cost if you didn't have a water meter
(But you saved money when you got yours), and these islands are awash
with rainwater (Waiting for fine weather to erect a new shed this week
I was disheartened to see rain forecast for every single day of the 5
day forecast, it is not as if we haven't had enough ! ). A local
reservoir (Booth Wood reservoir) is full to overflowing with water
gushing down the spillway, and has been like that all winter, and
appears like that on the various satellite images. I know energy is
used to move water around, but a benefit also accrues from keeping
water flowing in distribution systems (this is why the fire brigade
have to go round flushing hydrants).

I don't care that 1000 litres of good clean water only costs about
80pence[1]:

Potential saving less than 1 pence per day for 2 pers. household

waste is waste,

No, we dealt with that above.

and it's wrong.

You also have to be careful how you define "waste" (true waste, of the
2nd kind ).

I believe that flushing clean water down foul drains keeps them sweet
and free from infection. I frequently augment this with a kettle or
two of boiling water and NaOH crystals or bleach. I see flushing the
WC as a benefit easily worth a fraction of a penny per day as well as
flushing away all the "Gordons" in the WC bowl.

(Quaintly old-fashioned, I know!)

I've heard "Many a Mickle Maks a Muckle" but that's ridiculous.

John

[1] Once the critical mass of 'punters' in the country are on water
meters, the costs will start sky-rocketing of course ("wholesale water
prices" anyone?!).

You have to watch them (the water board not the "Gordons").

And they'll also find ways to charge me for rainwater that I dare to
harvest;

They already charge me for it whether I harvest it or not. My small
office has no running water, when I queried my "water rates" bill
Yorkshire Water said it was for the water that falls on the building.
No further details, no breakdown, no more justification than that.

but I might be dead by that time.

Yeah, speed on death.

Derek

Dont forget you're paying for water disposal as well as delivery, so
if you discharge the rain to the waterboard you're still liable for
the
disposal charge.


I recalled that if rainwater from your property discharges down the sewer
you have to pay a (fixed, not metered, clearly) charge for that. May be
wrong here though, as I haven't paid for my water for a while.

Don't see why you should pay extra for using the rainwater before it
discharges ...

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:13:51 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4807a996@qaanaaq...


Mineral water suppliers do a far better job of delivering a selection
of quality potable products and offer the consumer choice of product.
Tap water almost universally tastes disgusting.



Rubbish, mineral water taste awful, it should be banned.

Some of it is tainted when you buy it.

All of it in plastic bottles *will* get tainted within 24 - 36 hours
of being opened if stored at room temperature especially if you drink
from the bottle, (Bugs grow on the plastic walls of the bottle).

A lot of tapwater is also tainted. If your tapwater happens to be
tainted (at home mine is not) at least you can choose from a range of
bottled water and choose how you look after it.

Derek

On 2008-04-17 21:13:51 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4807a996@qaanaaq...


Mineral water suppliers do a far better job of delivering a selection
of quality potable products and offer the consumer choice of product.
Tap water almost universally tastes disgusting.



Rubbish, mineral water taste awful, it should be banned.

Rubbish mineral water probably does. The decent products don't

On 2008-04-17 22:13:29 +0100, Derek said:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:13:51 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4807a996@qaanaaq...


Mineral water suppliers do a far better job of delivering a selection
of quality potable products and offer the consumer choice of product.
Tap water almost universally tastes disgusting.



Rubbish, mineral water taste awful, it should be banned.

Some of it is tainted when you buy it.

All of it in plastic bottles *will* get tainted within 24 - 36 hours
of being opened if stored at room temperature especially if you drink
from the bottle, (Bugs grow on the plastic walls of the bottle).

So don't buy plastic bottles.




A lot of tapwater is also tainted. If your tapwater happens to be
tainted (at home mine is not) at least you can choose from a range of
bottled water and choose how you look after it.



Exactly.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4807c38b@qaanaaq...
On 2008-04-17 21:13:51 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4807a996@qaanaaq...


Mineral water suppliers do a far better job of delivering a selection of
quality potable products and offer the consumer choice of product. Tap
water almost universally tastes disgusting.



Rubbish, mineral water taste awful, it should be banned.

Rubbish mineral water probably does. The decent products don't



They all do.