terryc wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:12:39 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>> I don't think rainwater tank would be for drinking, but more for
>>> flushing the toilets, gardens washing cars , etc. This would reduce the
>>> need for wasting filtered drinking water byflushingit down the toilet
>>> etc
Please repond to the correct posting. I didn't write that.
>
> Lol, this is like the belief that a solar panel gives you infnite
> electrical power. Most rainwater tanks would only allow you to wash thecar
> and water a few plants. Ifyou want to keep your flushing throne, then
> you need a serious rainwater collection system with a very large tank.
>
>> If the idea is to recycle for non-drinking water purposes, then the
>> existing water distribution system would have to be duplicated by way of
>> retrofitting. That would be hugely expensive. A desalinator can provide
>> the same amount of water at a lower cost.
>
> Bullshit. Very selective short term comparison. a properly done modern
> water distribution system would be a major non degrading asset compared to
> a hihg maintenance desal plant. As it is, the old system looses about 10%
> of the water put through it, so why continue to waste goodwater.
>
They not non-degrading assets, they merely have a long life. However,
that doesn't make much difference to their cost impact. Interest still
has to be paid (or foregone) on the capital used to build them.
Sylvia. |