« Cuban Escapees: Why Florida? | Main | Most Amusing »
August 10, 2007
Wasted Water
Hmmm.
Water companies are wasting 3.42 billion litres of water every day through leaking pipes, or the equivalent of two full baths for every household in the country.
Daily water supply is around 15 billion litres (or so I seem to remember) so 20-25% if being wasted. This might be a problem, this might not.
Other vaguely remembered figures are that the water companies have invested some £64 billion (over an unspecified time) into the system. The vast majority of which has gone on upgrading the quality of the water at both ends (both into the pipes and dealing with the sewage), rather than reducing such waste.
If wastage, rather than water quality, was actually the problem, then obviously, our wise Masters in the European Union would have insisted that the investment went to that wastage, not where they did insist, to the water quality.
Alternatively, wastage is a problem but our EU Masters are ignorant fuckwits for insisting that the money be spent where it was.
Your choice.
(Added bonus for those who insist this shows that privatisation was a bad idea. In theory, State ownership allows for the socially optimal amount of investment, not the financially optimal amount. Given that the State invested far less than the private companies have done, this seems not to be true in practice. )
August 10, 2007 in European Union | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00e39825b9b88833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wasted Water:
Comments
Water is never wasted. It exists in a closed system. All we do is temporarily divert a little for our own usage. The question should be rephrased. Is is cheaper to tap into new sources of water, or to use what we already have more efficiently?
Posted by: mark Brinkley | Aug 10, 2007 9:27:10 AM
If water purification entities were separate from the distribution, then leaks would be an issue addressed as the distributor would pay for supplied water but could only charge for delivered water and the amount lost would be exposed.
That said, it is only an issue of purification and storage cost, as the leaks re-enter the groundwater system. Might explain why trees survive in London at all, given how little water enters the soil below pavements!
Posted by: Roger Thornhill | Aug 10, 2007 10:02:10 AM
What MB and RT say.
It's a cost/benefit thing. If it is cheaper to purify more water and pump it in at one end than it is to repair thousands of miles of pipes with tiny leaks, then that is the right thing to do.
James Delingpole reckons in his book "How to be right" (well worth a read) that this could all be fixed very quickly by putting everybody on a meter and making them pay for what they use (and sod all these hosepipe bans).
Either we'd use less, or water companies would be financially rewarded for producing more. Win-win!
OFWAT could cap the price of course, before people start bleating on about people on "low or fixed income".
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | Aug 10, 2007 10:16:15 AM
I remember asking once "How does anybody know how much water leaks?" The answer must have been unmemorable.
Posted by: dearieme | Aug 10, 2007 12:40:57 PM
