|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 16, 2024 22:02:52 GMT
I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with what I wrote... That's because you continually engage in debates you know nothing about. All The Best OK Einstein - explain what relevance golf courses have to the restrictions placed by the planning system. Take your time.. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Oct 17, 2024 10:10:26 GMT
Mmmmm, let me think? Could it because a Mobile Mast is absolutely fucking miniscule compared to the size of a reservoir? Could it be because there are hundreds of thousands of sites suitable to put a Mobile Mast on, but very few sites suitable to build a reservoir on? I mean that took me all of 10 seconds to come up with - you should catch-up about Christmas. All The Best And how many acres does a 600 house housing estate take up FFS.. And some reservoirs are underground...
See inside stunning underground reservoir in Lincoln
Huge underground reservoir drained for 'deep clean'
Indeed. However, except in exceptional circumstances where the perfect geology exists, "underground reservoirs" are usually carved out of the ground from above, and then "capped". Which means you still need overground access to the whole site - hence there being far fewer places suitable to do that, than there are for Mobile Masts. There have been some tests of pumping water into depleted aquifers to use as "natural reservoirs", the problem then becomes what happens to water that would naturally end up in those aquifers if the aquifer is full - it becomes flood run-off. However, storage is only one part of the problem, there's also distribution, and at the other end of the cycle sewerage; both the distribution and sewerage systems are working at beyond capacity: distribution because there are so many leaks some Water Companies leak as much as they deliver to paying customer; and sewerage because there has not been sufficient capacity growth to match population growth. Both of which are caused by systemic under-investment since privatisation; because far too much money is lost to shareholders, excessive executive remuneration packages, and buying hotels and golf courses. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Oct 17, 2024 10:12:48 GMT
That's because you continually engage in debates you know nothing about. All The Best OK Einstein - explain what relevance golf courses have to the restrictions placed by the planning system. Take your time.. Its not planning permission that is the sticking point. It is investment capital - which has been squandered on buying hotels and gold courses. And of course, had that capital been spent on fixing leaks (Thames has a leakage rate close to 50% IIRC) there might not be the need for new reservoirs. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 17, 2024 10:47:30 GMT
And how many acres does a 600 house housing estate take up FFS.. And some reservoirs are underground...
See inside stunning underground reservoir in Lincoln
Huge underground reservoir drained for 'deep clean'
Indeed. However, except in exceptional circumstances where the perfect geology exists, "underground reservoirs" are usually carved out of the ground from above, and then "capped".Which means you still need overground access to the whole site - hence there being far fewer places suitable to do that, than there are for Mobile Masts. There have been some tests of pumping water into depleted aquifers to use as "natural reservoirs", the problem then becomes what happens to water that would naturally end up in those aquifers if the aquifer is full - it becomes flood run-off. However, storage is only one part of the problem, there's also distribution, and at the other end of the cycle sewerage; both the distribution and sewerage systems are working at beyond capacity: distribution because there are so many leaks some Water Companies leak as much as they deliver to paying customer; and sewerage because there has not been sufficient capacity growth to match population growth. Both of which are caused by systemic under-investment since privatisation; because far too much money is lost to shareholders, excessive executive remuneration packages, and buying hotels and golf courses. All The Best So what stopping them being built under new housing sites? And distribution is not a problem all our water and sewage etc run through underground pipes... |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 17, 2024 10:53:37 GMT
OK Einstein - explain what relevance golf courses have to the restrictions placed by the planning system. Take your time..
It is investment capital - which has been squandered on buying hotels and gold courses. Dont be daft - Thames water applied for permission in 2007 and it is still fighting to get it approved.. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Oct 17, 2024 11:00:11 GMT
Indeed. However, except in exceptional circumstances where the perfect geology exists, "underground reservoirs" are usually carved out of the ground from above, and then "capped".Which means you still need overground access to the whole site - hence there being far fewer places suitable to do that, than there are for Mobile Masts. There have been some tests of pumping water into depleted aquifers to use as "natural reservoirs", the problem then becomes what happens to water that would naturally end up in those aquifers if the aquifer is full - it becomes flood run-off. However, storage is only one part of the problem, there's also distribution, and at the other end of the cycle sewerage; both the distribution and sewerage systems are working at beyond capacity: distribution because there are so many leaks some Water Companies leak as much as they deliver to paying customer; and sewerage because there has not been sufficient capacity growth to match population growth. Both of which are caused by systemic under-investment since privatisation; because far too much money is lost to shareholders, excessive executive remuneration packages, and buying hotels and golf courses. All The Best So what stopping them being built under new housing sites? And distribution is not a problem all our water and sewage etc run through underground pipes... I would suggest that, except in the most rare of cases, you'd need to build the reservoir first, then the houses on top, even if it were possible to reinforce the capping of the reservoir to the extent it could support houses. Fuck me, you do know those underground pipes DO NOT have an unlimited capacity don't you? Distribution of water and sewerage in underground pipes IS a problem - hence the high excessively high leakage rates of some suppliers; hence the fact that waste water drainage routinely floods because the through-put has exceeded its capacity, not to mention that the vast majority of sewerage mainline pipes in the country are pre-war, and need replacing. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Oct 17, 2024 11:01:42 GMT
Its not planning permission that is the sticking point.
It is investment capital - which has been squandered on buying hotels and gold courses. Dont be daft - Thames water applied for permission in 2007 and it is still fighting to get it approved.. If Thames Water did not have a leakage rate on nearly 50% it could service almost double it current capacity with no need for a new reservoir. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 17, 2024 11:05:31 GMT
So what stopping them being built under new housing sites? And distribution is not a problem all our water and sewage etc run through underground pipes... I would suggest that, except in the most rare of cases, you'd need to build the reservoir first, then the houses on top, even if it were possible to reinforce the capping of the reservoir to the extent it could support houses. Fuck me, you do know those underground pipes DO NOT have an unlimited capacity don't you? Distribution of water and sewerage in underground pipes IS a problem - hence the high excessively high leakage rates of some suppliers; hence the fact that waste water drainage routinely floods because the through-put has exceeded its capacity, not to mention that the vast majority of sewerage mainline pipes in the country are pre-war, and need replacing. All The Best So what do you sugest then fetching our water with a bucket from a communal tap... |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Oct 17, 2024 11:46:21 GMT
I would suggest that, except in the most rare of cases, you'd need to build the reservoir first, then the houses on top, even if it were possible to reinforce the capping of the reservoir to the extent it could support houses. Fuck me, you do know those underground pipes DO NOT have an unlimited capacity don't you? Distribution of water and sewerage in underground pipes IS a problem - hence the high excessively high leakage rates of some suppliers; hence the fact that waste water drainage routinely floods because the through-put has exceeded its capacity, not to mention that the vast majority of sewerage mainline pipes in the country are pre-war, and need replacing. All The Best So what do you sugest then fetching our water with a bucket from a communal tap... Much more investment in the distribution networks of both drinking water, and waster water / sewerage. But this mean lower share dividends, and realistic, performance related, executive remuneration, and not pissing it up the wall on golf courses and hotels, or servicing debt that was laden on to the businesses just to prop up share dividends. I live in a place that, because it is at the arse-end of county, and the natural "retail, employment, and business hub" is in the next county, has always been severely under-funded by our county council, in fact until the mid to late sixties we didn't have either piped running water, or underground piped sewerage, direct to houses, and we only got them because a local wealthy benefactor paid for it to happen, on the proviso that once he had paid for it Anglian Water took up the service and maintenance of it. There is a massive stone plaque in the wall of my uncle's garden that commemorates this benefactor. I am of the 1st generation of children in this village to know only plumed in water and toilets; prior generations relied on a dozen or so "stand pipes" (two of which physically remain but are not connected) and outside privies and over-night chamber-pots. The same family of benefactors were responsible for the founding and supporting of the local primary school, even being directly engaged with it, via a charitable trust, when I was there in the mid to late 70's and later giving me a grant for books when I went to university in 1996. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 17, 2024 12:07:56 GMT
So what do you sugest then fetching our water with a bucket from a communal tap... / sewerage. But this mean lower share dividends, and realistic, performance related, executive remuneration, and not pissing it up the wall on golf courses and hotels, or servicing debt that was laden on to the businesses just to prop up share dividends. I live in a place that, because it is at the arse-end of county, and the natural "retail, employment, and business hub" is in the next county, has always been severely under-funded by our county council, in fact until the mid to late sixties we didn't have either piped running water, or underground piped sewerage, direct to houses, and we only got them because a local wealthy benefactor paid for it to happen, on the proviso that once he had paid for it Anglian Water took up the service and maintenance of it. There is a massive stone plaque in the wall of my uncle's garden that commemorates this benefactor. I am of the 1st generation of children in this village to know only plumed in water and toilets; prior generations relied on a dozen or so "stand pipes" (two of which physically remain but are not connected) and outside privies and over-night chamber-pots. The same family of benefactors were responsible for the founding and supporting of the local primary school, even being directly engaged with it, via a charitable trust, when I was there in the mid to late 70's and later giving me a grant for books when I went to university in 1996. All The Best You want to go to Torbay the road works are horendous caused by upgrading and enlarging water pipes.. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Oct 17, 2024 12:23:50 GMT
Much more investment in the distribution networks of both drinking water, and waster water / sewerage. But this mean lower share dividends, and realistic, performance related, executive remuneration, and not pissing it up the wall on golf courses and hotels, or servicing debt that was laden on to the businesses just to prop up share dividends. I live in a place that, because it is at the arse-end of county, and the natural "retail, employment, and business hub" is in the next county, has always been severely under-funded by our county council, in fact until the mid to late sixties we didn't have either piped running water, or underground piped sewerage, direct to houses, and we only got them because a local wealthy benefactor paid for it to happen, on the proviso that once he had paid for it Anglian Water took up the service and maintenance of it. There is a massive stone plaque in the wall of my uncle's garden that commemorates this benefactor. I am of the 1st generation of children in this village to know only plumed in water and toilets; prior generations relied on a dozen or so "stand pipes" (two of which physically remain but are not connected) and outside privies and over-night chamber-pots. The same family of benefactors were responsible for the founding and supporting of the local primary school, even being directly engaged with it, via a charitable trust, when I was there in the mid to late 70's and later giving me a grant for books when I went to university in 1996. All The Best You want to go to Torbay the road works are horendous caused by upgrading and enlarging water pipes.. A temporary disruption for the creation of a permanent solution to a long-standing problem that should have been fixed decades ago. Sounds like a great deal to me. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 17, 2024 12:44:24 GMT
I don't mind telling you, it's a tad moist here at Rackham Towers. When I say moist, I mean wet, very very wet. This is serious rain and it's been pouring down for some time, but this is not a weather thread. Rain should be seen as a blessing, but alas since 1989 privatised water companies havent built a single reservoir to catch that rain. Since water privatisation the UK population has increased by c7 million so it would be reasonable to assume, would it not, that water reservoir capacity had increased inline with population growth, Ha. since 1989 water consumers have continued to pay foreign shareholders £millions in dividends every year as water bills go up every year, our water bill has gone up 150% in ten years. Could a nationalised water industry perform any worse? (Carsington was the last reservoir built in England, planed and under way prior to privatisation) Good heavens RR. Are you suggesting you want to starve foreign investors. I mean 70% of English water companies are foreign owned. In 2022–2023, shareholders of English water companies received over £1.35 billion in dividends. This was up from £540 million in 2021. Pre-tax profits: In 2022–2023, English water companies made £1.7 billion in pre-tax profits, which is an 82% increase from 2018–2019. Are you one of those campaigners that has suddenly found out that that the English are so stupid by having to pay to drink there own excrement. In short. Enough being enough, and now calling for an end to water privatisation after it was revealed that England’s privatised sewage companies paid out an average of £377 to shareholders for each hour they polluted in 2023. Shareholders received over £1.35 billion in dividends in 2022/23 as their companies released sewage for over 3.5 million hours last year. A new tool shows how each water company has performed, including exposing Severn Trent and United Utilities as the worst offenders, paying out £972 and £692 to their owners per hour of pollution. Jaydee! Good heavens, released early for good behaviour? LOL somehow I doubt it. I'm not against privatisation per se, but I've never been a fan of privatised utilities. Water is necessary to sustain life, the water industry is a strategic asset and should be owned by the government not used as a commodity to generate profit for foreign shareholders. When it comes to the water industry, it's one of the few tings Scotland have got right. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 17, 2024 17:03:54 GMT
Dont be daft - Thames water applied for permission in 2007 and it is still fighting to get it approved.. If Thames Water did not have a leakage rate on nearly 50% it could service almost double it current capacity with no need for a new reservoir. All The Best Oh - we are off at a tangent again I see. OK, I'll bite - what does leakage rates have to do with planning restrictions on new infrastructure, or is this just you trying to avoid admitting you are wrong yet again?. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Oct 17, 2024 17:16:19 GMT
If Thames Water did not have a leakage rate on nearly 50% it could service almost double it current capacity with no need for a new reservoir. All The Best Oh - we are off at a tangent again I see. OK, I'll bite - what does leakage rates have to do with planning restrictions on new infrastructure, or is this just you trying to avoid admitting you are wrong yet again?. The reservoir is about increasing capacity to a) increase their consumer base, and b) ensure stability of supply. Both of which can be achieved by fixing a 50% leakage rate, Thus, they do not NEED that reservoir if they fix their dangerously high leakage rate; and if they don't NEED the reservoir the Planning Restrictions don't even come into play. Now, remember: breath in, breathe out... ...breathe in, breathe out... ...breate in, breathe out... All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 17, 2024 17:42:21 GMT
Oh - we are off at a tangent again I see. OK, I'll bite - what does leakage rates have to do with planning restrictions on new infrastructure, or is this just you trying to avoid admitting you are wrong yet again?. The reservoir is about increasing capacity to a) increase their consumer base, and b) ensure stability of supply. Both of which can be achieved by fixing a 50% leakage rate, Thus, they do not NEED that reservoir if they fix their dangerously high leakage rate; and if they don't NEED the reservoir the Planning Restrictions don't even come into play. Now, remember: breath in, breathe out... ...breathe in, breathe out... ...breate in, breathe out... All The Best So where are you intending the store the water during periods of drought? - it doesn't matter what your leakage rate is if you do not have any water in the first place. With regards to your last sentence - be careful as you are on shaky ground if you keep up the abuse of other posters. Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. |
|
