Down with low flow shower heads!
- Thread starter Nick R
- Start date
- Status
I have an R/O system. My tap water is not awful, but I drink a lot more water when it tastes neutral like reverse osmosis does. Since all the municipal water around here comes from manmade lakes they tend to use a lot of chlorine and the TDS keeps getting higher by the year. When I first put in my R/O system fifteen years ago TDS of the tap water was around 110. Now it's 180. The R/O product water's TDS is 7 (97% rejection ratio). I used to have a carbon filter for my icemaker, but the ice still didn't taste very good. I make my own ice using the R/O water. My refrigerator is not in a spot where I can run a line from the R/O to the automatic icemaker.
The little showerhead that has been pictured here still seems to be available in the chrome plated brass design at Home Depot and Lowe's. As I mentioned earlier, I cobbled together parts to make mine into a handheld. The parts cost about $20. A good flex hose is the most expensive piece. The pressure and flow seems to be decent to me.
The little showerhead that has been pictured here still seems to be available in the chrome plated brass design at Home Depot and Lowe's. As I mentioned earlier, I cobbled together parts to make mine into a handheld. The parts cost about $20. A good flex hose is the most expensive piece. The pressure and flow seems to be decent to me.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Reread what I actually posted until it sinks in.
I got it (and your pun)! Never mind. . .
Reread what I actually posted until it sinks in.
I got it (and your pun)! Never mind. . .
I think we pay ~$1.50 per 1000L of water ... and since I live in Vancouver area (where it rains significant amounts), it seems goofy to pay to have treated, filtered and chlorinated water to flush my toilet when 500,000L run through the gutters every year. But a gravity-fed externally placed water barrel wouldn't look very purdy on the side of my house.
But I concur with most sentiments - save water elsewhere but the shower stall is sacred. Relaxing and cheaper than beer.
But I concur with most sentiments - save water elsewhere but the shower stall is sacred. Relaxing and cheaper than beer.
1.7 trillion gallons of water are lost through faulty infrastructure every year.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-gen...ons-a-year/4826
That loss is more than the 1.2 trillion gallons used for ALL shower taken in the US in total.
http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/products/showerheads.html
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-gen...ons-a-year/4826
That loss is more than the 1.2 trillion gallons used for ALL shower taken in the US in total.
http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/products/showerheads.html
Originally Posted By: Tempest
1.7 trillion gallons of water are lost through faulty infrastructure every year.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-gen...ons-a-year/4826
That loss is more than the 1.2 trillion gallons used for ALL shower taken in the US in total.
http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/products/showerheads.html
Are you suggesting that the GOVERNMENT should spend money rebuilding infrastructure via tax dollar instead of citizen spending their own money in the market economy to address this?
Wow, I'm surprised that it comes from Tempest.
1.7 trillion gallons of water are lost through faulty infrastructure every year.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-gen...ons-a-year/4826
That loss is more than the 1.2 trillion gallons used for ALL shower taken in the US in total.
http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/products/showerheads.html
Are you suggesting that the GOVERNMENT should spend money rebuilding infrastructure via tax dollar instead of citizen spending their own money in the market economy to address this?
Wow, I'm surprised that it comes from Tempest.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Tempest
1.7 trillion gallons of water are lost through faulty infrastructure every year.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-gen...ons-a-year/4826
That loss is more than the 1.2 trillion gallons used for ALL shower taken in the US in total.
http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/products/showerheads.html
Are you suggesting that the GOVERNMENT should spend money rebuilding infrastructure via tax dollar instead of citizen spending their own money in the market economy to address this?
Wow, I'm surprised that it comes from Tempest.
It shows how incompetent government is at maintaining the things that it runs. Then, it comes along and mandates that individual consumers must use inferior shower heads, toilets, faucets, etc. to "conserve".
Seems very two faced that they don't get their own house in order first.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
1.7 trillion gallons of water are lost through faulty infrastructure every year.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-gen...ons-a-year/4826
That loss is more than the 1.2 trillion gallons used for ALL shower taken in the US in total.
http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/products/showerheads.html
Are you suggesting that the GOVERNMENT should spend money rebuilding infrastructure via tax dollar instead of citizen spending their own money in the market economy to address this?
Wow, I'm surprised that it comes from Tempest.
It shows how incompetent government is at maintaining the things that it runs. Then, it comes along and mandates that individual consumers must use inferior shower heads, toilets, faucets, etc. to "conserve".
Seems very two faced that they don't get their own house in order first.
If water in a particular region really needs to be conserved because it's "running out", you have prima facie evidence that it doesn't cost enough. Allow the market to set the price and people will use less, or not move there, etc.
Here in MD my household (presently 3 adults, 1 baby, 1 toddler) spend about $52/month or less than $2/day. It's trivial.
And yes, our master bath has a "modified" shower head for maximum flow
jeff
Here in MD my household (presently 3 adults, 1 baby, 1 toddler) spend about $52/month or less than $2/day. It's trivial.
And yes, our master bath has a "modified" shower head for maximum flow
jeff
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Actually, I DON'T want sewers or municipal water! That's one reason I live where I do. I LIKE not having a water bill or a sewer bill. It costs me maybe $15-20/month for the well pump...that's it.
The previous owners of my home paid $20k for new leach field/tank and then $2000 for a well pump replacement and line leak repair. This was in order to have us buy the place. They also paid $1500 for a softner they never had too.
Plus and minus to each system.
Actually, I DON'T want sewers or municipal water! That's one reason I live where I do. I LIKE not having a water bill or a sewer bill. It costs me maybe $15-20/month for the well pump...that's it.
The previous owners of my home paid $20k for new leach field/tank and then $2000 for a well pump replacement and line leak repair. This was in order to have us buy the place. They also paid $1500 for a softner they never had too.
Plus and minus to each system.
You guys sound like you are washing cars in the shower.
I preface this with, I'm by no means an environmentalist, but rather more of a realist.
My grandfather ran a successful business for around 40 years drilling wells in Florida from Lake Okeechobee to Ocala. I know a few things about wells. Acting as the water that comes from them is some sort of magical, unending source is delusional.
All water sheds and aquifers should be protected as best possible with the least amount of impact to our daily lives.
I use efficient faucets, showerheads, toilets, etc. and use water as sparingly as possible, especially outdoors. For those of you that state you're paying for it and are under the belief that somehow makes up for a ludicrous amount of water usage are completely mistaken. Your usage ups the cost for the rest of us because government understands that when something is in short supply, tax it even more. We see this with property, gasoline, etc.
Additionally, your water usage affects electric rates. Typically, many electric companies handle water management and it costs money to treat and deliver water to your home. According to a report Water and Sustainability: U.S. Electricity Consumption for Water Supply & Treatment—The
Next Half Century, 80% of the cost for water is related to energy usage. We're talking about billions of kwH of usage in the next 20 or so years.
You can check into products that are more efficient but still give the same performance level as inefficient products here:
http://www.epa.gov/watersense/product_search.html
Less than 1% of our water is usable for personal use. As people live longer, our population grows larger, and usage increases, we are all going to need to make some sacrifices.
My grandfather ran a successful business for around 40 years drilling wells in Florida from Lake Okeechobee to Ocala. I know a few things about wells. Acting as the water that comes from them is some sort of magical, unending source is delusional.
All water sheds and aquifers should be protected as best possible with the least amount of impact to our daily lives.
I use efficient faucets, showerheads, toilets, etc. and use water as sparingly as possible, especially outdoors. For those of you that state you're paying for it and are under the belief that somehow makes up for a ludicrous amount of water usage are completely mistaken. Your usage ups the cost for the rest of us because government understands that when something is in short supply, tax it even more. We see this with property, gasoline, etc.
Additionally, your water usage affects electric rates. Typically, many electric companies handle water management and it costs money to treat and deliver water to your home. According to a report Water and Sustainability: U.S. Electricity Consumption for Water Supply & Treatment—The
Next Half Century, 80% of the cost for water is related to energy usage. We're talking about billions of kwH of usage in the next 20 or so years.
You can check into products that are more efficient but still give the same performance level as inefficient products here:
http://www.epa.gov/watersense/product_search.html
Less than 1% of our water is usable for personal use. As people live longer, our population grows larger, and usage increases, we are all going to need to make some sacrifices.
Well said bigmike.
bigmike, a thoughtful and rational post.
You made me think of the other end of this business, waste water treatment. I took a tour of our local waste water treatment plant a few years ago, they do a commendable job. There is a cost, both in energy and environmental impact to disposing of the waste water, and we need to remember that. You can't just run those plants faster, you have to build more capacity. Sewer bills are typically based on water usage.
As far as aquifers, while I'm not overly familiar with it, I believe at least some of our food production out west is based on ancient aquifers that do not get replenished. When thy run out, that's a worrisome prospect.
You made me think of the other end of this business, waste water treatment. I took a tour of our local waste water treatment plant a few years ago, they do a commendable job. There is a cost, both in energy and environmental impact to disposing of the waste water, and we need to remember that. You can't just run those plants faster, you have to build more capacity. Sewer bills are typically based on water usage.
As far as aquifers, while I'm not overly familiar with it, I believe at least some of our food production out west is based on ancient aquifers that do not get replenished. When thy run out, that's a worrisome prospect.
Quote:
Less than 1% of our water is usable for personal use. As people live longer, our population grows larger, and usage increases, we are all going to need to make some sacrifices.
The question is: how much and who is to determine?
Quote:
For those of you that state you're paying for it and are under the belief that somehow makes up for a ludicrous amount of water usage are completely mistaken.
Only if water is underpriced.
Less than 1% of our water is usable for personal use. As people live longer, our population grows larger, and usage increases, we are all going to need to make some sacrifices.
The question is: how much and who is to determine?
Quote:
For those of you that state you're paying for it and are under the belief that somehow makes up for a ludicrous amount of water usage are completely mistaken.
Only if water is underpriced.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Less than 1% of our water is usable for personal use. As people live longer, our population grows larger, and usage increases, we are all going to need to make some sacrifices.
The question is: how much and who is to determine?
In California, the agricultural industry and fishing industry have been fighting for how much water to use for irrigation and flow into the ocean (for salmon to spawn). This doesn't even include demand from those "environmental groups".
There is a shortage, and it is not really on the residential side since it is only 1% or so of all water use. It is mainly on how much water can be saved with better irrigation technique and nature preservation.
The residential side is usually restricted by water system and sewage system limitation. Since you always blame the government, it is always the government's fault for not charging enough for water to reduce usage when it reaches the infrastructure's limit.
Quote:
Quote:
For those of you that state you're paying for it and are under the belief that somehow makes up for a ludicrous amount of water usage are completely mistaken.
Only if water is underpriced.
How do you price ground water level and the weather's effect on water supply?
Quote:
Less than 1% of our water is usable for personal use. As people live longer, our population grows larger, and usage increases, we are all going to need to make some sacrifices.
The question is: how much and who is to determine?
In California, the agricultural industry and fishing industry have been fighting for how much water to use for irrigation and flow into the ocean (for salmon to spawn). This doesn't even include demand from those "environmental groups".
There is a shortage, and it is not really on the residential side since it is only 1% or so of all water use. It is mainly on how much water can be saved with better irrigation technique and nature preservation.
The residential side is usually restricted by water system and sewage system limitation. Since you always blame the government, it is always the government's fault for not charging enough for water to reduce usage when it reaches the infrastructure's limit.
Quote:
Quote:
For those of you that state you're paying for it and are under the belief that somehow makes up for a ludicrous amount of water usage are completely mistaken.
Only if water is underpriced.
How do you price ground water level and the weather's effect on water supply?
Quote:
There is a shortage, and it is not really on the residential side since it is only 1% or so of all water use. It is mainly on how much water can be saved with better irrigation technique and nature preservation.
California farmers receive hundreds of millions of dollars per year in subsidies. This disincentives them to conserve resources.
Quote:
Since you always blame the government, it is always the government's fault for not charging enough for water to reduce usage when it reaches the infrastructure's limit.
You assume a fixed infrastructure "supply". Of course, since governments largely are not affected by supply/demand inputs, these things are fully central planned with little if any market forces weighing on the decision makers.
Quote:
How do you price ground water level and the weather's effect on water supply?
Governments purport to do it all the time. Since water is usually seen as a "right" or "common good", it is usually kept at a low price to provide "access". People pay ~$.70 at the super market for a gallon, but municipal water rates are far below that.
This leads me to believe that governments are pricing water far to low and it is leading to overuse of the resource.
Someone that owns land, along with the water rights, already owns the water. They likely payed a premium when they purchased the property for these rights. If they are not judicious in the use of that water and it runs out, then they will pay the economic price.
Water rights for property are the pricing mechanism for such things.
There is a shortage, and it is not really on the residential side since it is only 1% or so of all water use. It is mainly on how much water can be saved with better irrigation technique and nature preservation.
California farmers receive hundreds of millions of dollars per year in subsidies. This disincentives them to conserve resources.
Quote:
Since you always blame the government, it is always the government's fault for not charging enough for water to reduce usage when it reaches the infrastructure's limit.
You assume a fixed infrastructure "supply". Of course, since governments largely are not affected by supply/demand inputs, these things are fully central planned with little if any market forces weighing on the decision makers.
Quote:
How do you price ground water level and the weather's effect on water supply?
Governments purport to do it all the time. Since water is usually seen as a "right" or "common good", it is usually kept at a low price to provide "access". People pay ~$.70 at the super market for a gallon, but municipal water rates are far below that.
This leads me to believe that governments are pricing water far to low and it is leading to overuse of the resource.
Someone that owns land, along with the water rights, already owns the water. They likely payed a premium when they purchased the property for these rights. If they are not judicious in the use of that water and it runs out, then they will pay the economic price.
Water rights for property are the pricing mechanism for such things.
Tempest,
I do not agree with your logic on this. Farm subsidies is separate from water usage. A lot of the water is wasted in evaporation with sprinkler irrigation vs drip irrigation. If it is because of government involvement that causes water shortage, we would have government mandate of drip irrigation.
Governments are largely affected by water supply and demand, via complains from farm lobbyists and consumers (due to increase in food price), as well as reduced job and tax revenue in bad harvest. They have all the interest in agricultural successes.
The problem is, market is horrible at solving natural disaster or weather related problem like water. Market is horrible at solving huge swings on stuff with NO WAY TO INCREASE SUPPLY or reduce demand (you cannot just cut food growth suddenly after you already sow the seeds).
Your pricing model of 70c per gallon of water is flawed because bottle water is mostly profit with bottling cost. The closest you can compare is industrial water supply or residential water supply (i.e. $2 per CCF) vs farm water supply. But then again how do you price the amount of water to flow into the ocean vs the farm? or when there is a drought and Colorado refuse to sell you water because they want to keep it for their own use?
I do not agree with your logic on this. Farm subsidies is separate from water usage. A lot of the water is wasted in evaporation with sprinkler irrigation vs drip irrigation. If it is because of government involvement that causes water shortage, we would have government mandate of drip irrigation.
Governments are largely affected by water supply and demand, via complains from farm lobbyists and consumers (due to increase in food price), as well as reduced job and tax revenue in bad harvest. They have all the interest in agricultural successes.
The problem is, market is horrible at solving natural disaster or weather related problem like water. Market is horrible at solving huge swings on stuff with NO WAY TO INCREASE SUPPLY or reduce demand (you cannot just cut food growth suddenly after you already sow the seeds).
Your pricing model of 70c per gallon of water is flawed because bottle water is mostly profit with bottling cost. The closest you can compare is industrial water supply or residential water supply (i.e. $2 per CCF) vs farm water supply. But then again how do you price the amount of water to flow into the ocean vs the farm? or when there is a drought and Colorado refuse to sell you water because they want to keep it for their own use?
""Farm subsidies is separate from water usage.""
Quote:
Agriculture is a big user of water. The report emphasizes that existing agricultural water is being used inefficiently. Sixty percent of agricultural water use produces only 14% of the agricultural revenue.
http://usfoodpolicy.blogspot.com/2011/03/managing-californias-water.html
Quote:
The federal government has paid over $687 million in water subsidies to hundreds of California and Arizona farmers over the past two years, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data.
http://bluelivingideas.com/2009/04/21/federal-water-subsidies-under-local-scrutiny/
Quote:
Your pricing model of 70c per gallon of water is flawed because bottle water is mostly profit with bottling cost.
Irrelevant as cost and profit have no direct link to price. It shows how people value water.
Quote:
Governments are largely affected by water supply and demand, via complains from farm lobbyists and consumers (due to increase in food price)
Lobbyists have nothing to do with supply and demand, and neither do customers that will always want lower prices for government supplied water. The government assumes the water rights and charges a given price that it would like to based on it's whim. The cost to deliver that water has little if anything to do with the final price to consumers due subsidies.
That is central planning, not supply and demand.
Quote:
Agriculture is a big user of water. The report emphasizes that existing agricultural water is being used inefficiently. Sixty percent of agricultural water use produces only 14% of the agricultural revenue.
http://usfoodpolicy.blogspot.com/2011/03/managing-californias-water.html
Quote:
The federal government has paid over $687 million in water subsidies to hundreds of California and Arizona farmers over the past two years, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data.
http://bluelivingideas.com/2009/04/21/federal-water-subsidies-under-local-scrutiny/
Quote:
Your pricing model of 70c per gallon of water is flawed because bottle water is mostly profit with bottling cost.
Irrelevant as cost and profit have no direct link to price. It shows how people value water.
Quote:
Governments are largely affected by water supply and demand, via complains from farm lobbyists and consumers (due to increase in food price)
Lobbyists have nothing to do with supply and demand, and neither do customers that will always want lower prices for government supplied water. The government assumes the water rights and charges a given price that it would like to based on it's whim. The cost to deliver that water has little if anything to do with the final price to consumers due subsidies.
That is central planning, not supply and demand.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Septic systems are cheap until you have to build a new one.
Yeah, I think this is a case of "pay me now or pay me later". When we bought our house here about 10 years ago, we specifically did not buy a house with a septic system because of the trouble my wife's parents had with theirs. They paid about $20,000 to have an entire new septic system installed because of general system failures (leaks, root encroachment, etc).
We pay $25/month flat rate for sewer. And we pay, on the average, about $35/month for water. It's higher in the summer than in the winter, but that's an average across the year. So it's $60/month for everything, and no maintenance. We'll have to live in our house for 333 months (almost 28 years) for the $60/month we pay to pay off my in-law's septic system bill. And that's sewer AND water for us...that $20k they paid was just to fix their sewer system. They still pay a monthly fee for water (as does most everybody, in terms of a direct cost for city water or electricity to run a well pump).
I suppose if you live in your home long enough (talking 30-50 years depending on the area and utility rates), the costs of a monthly sewer bill will begin to surpass the infrequent maintenance costs of a septic system. But for all intents and purposes, most people will come out in the wash in the end.
Septic systems are cheap until you have to build a new one.
Yeah, I think this is a case of "pay me now or pay me later". When we bought our house here about 10 years ago, we specifically did not buy a house with a septic system because of the trouble my wife's parents had with theirs. They paid about $20,000 to have an entire new septic system installed because of general system failures (leaks, root encroachment, etc).
We pay $25/month flat rate for sewer. And we pay, on the average, about $35/month for water. It's higher in the summer than in the winter, but that's an average across the year. So it's $60/month for everything, and no maintenance. We'll have to live in our house for 333 months (almost 28 years) for the $60/month we pay to pay off my in-law's septic system bill. And that's sewer AND water for us...that $20k they paid was just to fix their sewer system. They still pay a monthly fee for water (as does most everybody, in terms of a direct cost for city water or electricity to run a well pump).
I suppose if you live in your home long enough (talking 30-50 years depending on the area and utility rates), the costs of a monthly sewer bill will begin to surpass the infrequent maintenance costs of a septic system. But for all intents and purposes, most people will come out in the wash in the end.
Tempest,
The types of stuff to grow and its water usage has to do with climate and soil, that's demand and supply in action. You cannot just force farmer to grow something of high value with low water usage, that's central planning. You are not justifying that water is wasted just because it is growing low value crop. Rice is cheap but it uses a lot of water, but I'm sure no one want a supermarket that sells only strawberries and no rice / wheat / corn, so why do you use this as a yard stick to measure what is "efficient"?
I do agree with you that farm subsidies should go, but lobbyist has a lot to do with supply and demand. Farmers will pay for lobbyists to buy special treatment (via campaign contribution, ads, etc) and that is a form of advertisement that influence demand and supply in the market place (as in voters opinion as well as politicians'). You are kidding yourself if you think this has nothing to do with the market. If it is central planning, government would be forcing farmer to grow something due to water usage, instead of farmer asking government to reduce prices of water.
You still haven't answer what would market economy do to magically solve the problem of dry spell, and how market economy would determine how much water to flow into the ocean for free vs selling to the farmers.
Maybe you want water to be in the Chicago Exchange and let Goldman Sach's sell future contracts on it?
The types of stuff to grow and its water usage has to do with climate and soil, that's demand and supply in action. You cannot just force farmer to grow something of high value with low water usage, that's central planning. You are not justifying that water is wasted just because it is growing low value crop. Rice is cheap but it uses a lot of water, but I'm sure no one want a supermarket that sells only strawberries and no rice / wheat / corn, so why do you use this as a yard stick to measure what is "efficient"?
I do agree with you that farm subsidies should go, but lobbyist has a lot to do with supply and demand. Farmers will pay for lobbyists to buy special treatment (via campaign contribution, ads, etc) and that is a form of advertisement that influence demand and supply in the market place (as in voters opinion as well as politicians'). You are kidding yourself if you think this has nothing to do with the market. If it is central planning, government would be forcing farmer to grow something due to water usage, instead of farmer asking government to reduce prices of water.
You still haven't answer what would market economy do to magically solve the problem of dry spell, and how market economy would determine how much water to flow into the ocean for free vs selling to the farmers.
Maybe you want water to be in the Chicago Exchange and let Goldman Sach's sell future contracts on it?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
