Shannon Water not Neded if Dublin Leaks Fixed

J Mysterio

Fix the Dublin pipes!

Irish Times

I grew up right beside Lough Derg, and I can't understand the complaints of some locals about water levels. I'm not sure they understand it themselves, because they never get into the specifics about what the actual damage is projected to be.
If there is damage to the lake, and angling in particular, people will probably take it upon themselves to destroy the pipe. Good.

But until then I can't see what the danger is.

Neither, evidently, does local native John Tierney (former head of Irish Water), who is one of the architects of the plan.

Of course Dublin should fix its pipes, but the city is growing rapidly and it needs a stable water supply.

Also, speaking of locals

Ms Kennedy has advised a number of groups opposed to the pipeline. She has always acknowledged the proposed route passes through a farm owned by her husband’s family near Nenagh.

Cookie_Monster

I thought that had always been known, just too hard to bother doing or similar...

xiba vajo

i just was wondering if you made the pipes airtight from the shannon, could the system work as a siphon and not require any pumping at all, turns out Lough Ree on the Shannon which is north of Athlone is only at 125 feet above sea level (38 meters), only the purple/ blue areas of this map of dublin would be below it, with the red/orange/yellow areas above that level...
(Lough Derg is 15 foot / 4.5 meters lower)

suicide_circus

general taxation will fix the leaks. apparently.

Victor

J Mysterio wrote: »

Fix the Dublin pipes!

Realistically, are all leaks fixable? Will this provide enough water, into the future.

Some of the fools opposing the pipeline were even claiming the removal of the water from the Shannon would deprive ships of having enough water to navigate the Shannon Estuary. :rolleyes:

xiba vajo wrote: »

i just was wondering if you made the pipes airtight from the shannon, could the system work as a siphon and not require any pumping at all, turns out Lough Ree on the Shannon which is north of Athlone is only at 125 feet above sea level (38 meters), only the purple/ blue areas of this map of dublin would be below it, with the red/orange/yellow areas above that level...
(Lough Derg is 15 foot / 4.5 meters lower)

There are a couple of complicating factors.

A water siphon won't work over a height of 9.81 metres (less in practice) and resistance between the water and the pipe.

There is dissolved gases in the water, with changes in pressure and temperature there would be degasification and you would end up with gas in the pipeline.

Relying on a siphon would also mean a low flow rate, compared to water under pressure.

SEPT 23 1989

They can never be fixed it’s a never ending job like painting the San Francisco bridge

I hope the genius who came up with the name Project Water Supply gets a bonus

Cina

If only we had some sort of tax, like a ... water tax or something, that other developed countries have that allows them to build proper infrastructure.

Nah, that doesn't sound right, what was I thinking!

KevRossi

Fix the leaks.
1000l water butts with simple filtration system in all houses for garden, toilets, washing machines etc.

I'm in favour of water charges, but not the way they were to be implemented here. Looks like it's too late anyway for them at this stage.

While we're at it, at the other end introduce more SUDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems) projects.

whiskeyman

Oh Dublin boy... The pipes, the pipes are leaking...

Tokyo

Moved from AH > CA.

Boggles

Cina wrote: »

If only we had some sort of tax, like a ... water tax or something, that other developed countries have that allows them to build proper infrastructure.

Nah, that doesn't sound right, what was I thinking!

Yeah like the English and Wales model we were striving for.

What could go wrong eh?

Thelonious Monk

I used to work for Scottish Water many moons ago, they didn't seem to have a problem paying for it up there. I'd be in favour of water charges if it meant cleaning up our waterways and pipes. It's a precious resource, too much of it is wasted.

Boggles

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I used to work for Scottish Water many moons ago, they didn't seem to have a problem paying for it up there. I'd be in favour of water charges if it meant cleaning up our waterways and pipes. It's a precious resource, too much of it is wasted.

Yeah, I have full confidence in a FG government delivering a service on par with Scottish Water.

Meanwhile on the moon.

Vodafone Germany has teamed with Nokia to build the first 4G network on the moon. The network, which will be built in 2019

How's our ould Broadband plan coming along?

Thelonious Monk

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah, I have full confidence in a FG government delivering a service on par with Scottish Water.

Meanwhile on the moon.

Vodafone Germany has teamed with Nokia to build the first 4G network on the moon. The network, which will be built in 2019

How's our ould Broadband plan coming along?

Well hopefully the ridiculous broadband plan never happens.
Reality is we'll never have world class services in this country across the board but we could let them at least try to sort our water system out.

odyssey06

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well hopefully the ridiculous broadband plan never happens.
Reality is we'll never have world class services in this country across the board but we could let them at least try to sort our water system out.

We don't need water charges to do that. Cap the broadband plan budget at €1 billion and take the €2 billion the government were going to waste on it and use it for essential stuff, like the water system.

Boggles

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Reality is we'll never have world class services in this country across the board but we could let them at least try to sort our water system out.

They tried. It was a fantastic expensive mess.

They were rightly stopped.

Boggles

odyssey06 wrote: »

We don't need water charges to do that. Cap the broadband plan budget at €1 billion and take the €2 billion the government were going to waste on it and use it for essential stuff, like the water system.

Hang on. What grossly unqualified private company get's to make billions in that scenario and saddle itself with billions of debt before going tits up leaving an unbridled mess behind it?

odyssey06

Boggles wrote: »

Hang on. What grossly unqualified private company get's to make billions in that scenario and saddle itself with billions of debt before going tits up leaving an unbridled mess behind it?

Fine Gael or Fianna Fail? I get confused.

My general point is that it would be preferable to use that budget on water services, and that the funds seem to be there for infrastructure but somehow broadband is a higher priority than water. We should be charging people for broadband not water.

If we have to do something with broadband, then cap it and limit it to towns and not try to run a system that will likely soon be obsolete to every house in the land no matter how remote.

Boggles

odyssey06 wrote: »

My general point is that it would be preferable to use that budget on water services, and that the funds seem to be there for infrastructure but somehow broadband is a higher priority than water. We should be charging people for broadband not water.

We charge people for both.

Water isn't free, we all pay for it.

There is a 23% charge on your BB bill, same charge applies to the device you use to access the internet, there is also a charge to power that device, there is a charge on the company that provides the service.

I personally think a country like Ireland can do multiple infrastructural projects without gross waste and gouge.

We don't though. It's our way.

suicide_circus

regarding already paying for water infrastructure through general taxation...how do i put this?

it's clearly not e-****ing-nough. thats why all other developed nations, including the Scandinavian socialist utopias chsrge by usage.

odyssey06

Boggles wrote: »

We charge people for both.
Water isn't free, we all pay for it.
There is a 23% charge on your BB bill, same charge applies to the device you use to access the internet, there is also a charge to power that device, there is a charge on the company that provides the service.
I personally think a country like Ireland can do multiple infrastructural projects without gross waste and gouge.
We don't though. It's our way.

You aren't distinguishing between charge and tax... in fact there is a 100% charge on your BB bill, of which 23% if tax.

I meant Broadband should be charged at point of service for all users, residential and commercial, and should be commercially sustainable.

I don't think we need water charges at point of service for all residential users, either from a conservation or to fund water services.

Boggles

suicide_circus wrote: »

regarding already paying for water infrastructure through general taxation...how do i put this?

it's clearly not e-****ing-nough. thats why all other developed nations, including the Scandinavian socialist utopias chsrge by usage.

Take it up with Fine Gael, they gutted the water infrastructure budget and then spent 2 billion on a billing system.

Maybe we need to stop comparing ourselves with "other developed nations" when it comes to stuff like this.

Boggles

odyssey06 wrote: »

You aren't distinguishing between charge and tax... in fact there is a 100% charge on your BB bill, of which 23% if tax.

A tax is what the government charge you. Thought that might have been obvious.

odyssey06 wrote: »

I meant Broadband should be charged at point of service for all users, residential and commercial, and should be commercially sustainable.

You mean per data used?

God no, that would be a terrible idea.

odyssey06

suicide_circus wrote: »

regarding already paying for water infrastructure through general taxation...how do i put this?

it's clearly not e-****ing-nough. thats why all other developed nations, including the Scandinavian socialist utopias chsrge by usage.

All other developed nations were able to bring them in such a way that they brought public opinion with them, and used the money raised for the actual purpose of water services.

FG had a shot here to do that and failed abjectly when it became obvious it wasn't about funding water services but rather water charges & meters were a money grab and jobs for the boys.

Del2005

Boggles wrote: »

Take it up with Fine Gael, they gutted the water infrastructure budget and then spent 2 billion on a billing system.

Maybe we need to stop comparing ourselves with "other developed nations" when it comes to stuff like this.

We never had a water infrastructure budget, that's why are water system is so fecked. What they tried to do was get the baseline sorted then they could decide where to prioritise repairs, instead we just have to guess where to fix now.

suicide_circus

Boggles wrote: »

Take it up with Fine Gael, they gutted the water infrastructure budget and then spent 2 billion on a billing system.

Maybe we need to stop comparing ourselves with "other developed nations" when it comes to stuff like this.

ok so what are the acceptable parameters upon which we can compare ourselves to our peer nations? because we do it all the time on all kinds of subjects. but we're not allowed to do it on the subject of paying for water by usage? seems a strange arbitrary rule. is it because the water protest, while an impressive show of people power, will prove a hideously moronic own goal in the long run?

Boggles

suicide_circus wrote: »

ok so what are the acceptable parameters upon which we can compare ourselves to our peer nations? because we do it all the time. but we're not allowed to do it on the subject of paying for water by usage? seems a strange arbitrary rule.

We certainly do, we pick the highest rate possible from an EU country.

Then we go, look this is what X is charging for Y service, we should be charging the same.

Meanwhile they completely ignore the actual value that country gets from the service in terms of investment and costs and what that means in real terms to people living there, those countries also have a thing called "accountability".

Most recent example?

We just gave an Investment Company with no experience in rolling out large scale technical infrastructure a blank cheque to do it for us.

Are you not old enough to remember the great Eircom Sell off of the 90s, we all got rich and a world class telecoms service from that one didn't we?

Water was heading the exact same way.

So yeah if you are comparing with other "developed countries" you need to divide by the absolute acting the bollix factor that goes on in this country.

Just for fairness and accuracy like.

suicide_circus

odyssey06 wrote: »

All other developed nations were able to bring them in such a way that they brought public opinion with them, and used the money raised for the actual purpose of water services.

FG had a shot here to do that and failed abjectly when it became obvious it wasn't about funding water services but rather water charges & meters were a money grab and jobs for the boys.

your criticism for FG is completely valid. it was a sh1tshow. that dosnt change the fact that we need to be paying for water by usage. just like with all other utilities and just like the rest of the world.

suicide_circus

Boggles wrote: »

We certainly do, we pick the highest rate possible from an EU country.

Then we go, look this is what X is charging for Y service, we should be charging the same.

Meanwhile they completely ignore the actual value that country gets from the service in terms of investment and costs and what that means in real terms to people living there, those countries also have a thing called "accountability".

Most recent example?

We just gave an Investment Company with no experience in rolling out large scale technical infrastructure a blank cheque to do it for us.

Are you not old enough to remember the great Eircom Sell off of the 90s, we all got rich and a world class telecoms service from that one didn't we?

Water was heading the exact same way.

So yeah if you are comparing with other "developed countries" you need to divide by the absolute acting the bollix factor that goes on in this country.

Just for fairness and accuracy like.

I'm not defending IW or FG. i advocate for the polluted pays principle.

odyssey06

suicide_circus wrote: »

your criticism for FG is completely valid. it was a sh1tshow. that dosnt change the fact that we need to be paying for water by usage. just like with all other utilities and just like the rest of the world.

We'll have to differ on that. I don't see a compelling case at the moment for charging by usage for small scale residential users.

When usage charges were introduced in UK there was only a minor reduction in usage ... less than 10%.
The ability of end users to reduce usage is limited which is why I don't subscribe to the 'polluter pays' theory.

Far more is lost through creaking infrastructure, and we can fund that through commercial water use charges & general taxation (thanks Apple).

I think what the other countries have is a more effective system, on multiple levels, but I don't think it's something we need to do or must do - as I think water charges are only one part of why it is more effective.
I can accept an Irish solution to an Irish problem

Boggles

suicide_circus wrote: »

i advocate for the polluted pays principle.

2 billion + would have replaced a fair few pipes which did nothing but leak 365 days a year.

Might have saved us 4 billion.

But sure there is no crack in actually tackling the problem.

Idbatterim

suicide_circus wrote: »

regarding already paying for water infrastructure through general taxation...how do i put this?

it's clearly not e-****ing-nough. thats why all other developed nations, including the Scandinavian socialist utopias chsrge by usage.

not really true, they simply waste far too much on welfare etc . A pathetic rate of LPT...

Boggles

Idbatterim wrote: »

not really true, they simply waste far too much on welfare etc.

Ireland's pending on social protection when calculated per head of population comes in as just under €8.500 per year as of 2016....while Norway spend €18,650.

10 grand more. Bloody Scandinavians. *shakes fist*.

Fits nicely with my point about our shower picking and choosing which figures to make their "point".

Dyr

Does Shannon recieve Dublin taxpayers money?

STFU and hand over the water. 'Tis ours

Boggles

Bambi wrote: »

Does Shannon recieve Dublin taxpayers money?

It's the River Shannon not Shannon Town.

J Mysterio

They say that water is one of (or one of the next) big commodities. Corporations etc are buying up natural resources in the States, and globally, displacing and discommoding the natives/ locals.

Thankfully we have plenty, but I'd rather the pipes around Dublin are fixed, before Shannon water is pumped halfway across the country, disturbing the environment, only for half of it to be lost on the way.

Seems logical to fix shoddy old pipes first and then taking a look at the situation. If it's not done now, then when?

careless sherpa

Bambi wrote: »

Does Shannon recieve Dublin taxpayers money?

STFU and hand over the water. 'Tis ours

The Shannon actually rises in west cavan. Given that fracking is planned to commence again just over the border in fermanagh the water could be useless in a few years anyway

J Mysterio

careless sherpa wrote: »

The Shannon actually rises in west cavan. Given that fracking is planned to commence again just over the border in fermanagh the water could be useless in a few years anyway

Is that right? I thought it was blocked.
I'm completely 100% against fracking, terrible, awful practice.

So the UK want to frack in NI, and dump nuclear waste there... Brilliant, thanks lads.

cgcsb

No urban network is 100% leak free. If we reduce to 30% leakage, we'd be in line with the rest of Europe. There is still a requirement for more water. Realistically there'll be 3 million people in Greater Dublin in 2040, most of that growth will be in Meath and Kildare.

Boggles

Plenty water there if they fix the leaks. Pumping more water through ****ty leaky pipes is absolute madness, what about the quality? There is also other alternatives than draining the Shannon and pumping it a 100 miles.

The project was costed at 720m now it's 1.3 Billion.

What figure does it have to go to before someone sensible shouts "stop"?

Victor

J Mysterio wrote: »

Thankfully we have plenty

At the moment. What if there is climate change that alters that?

I'd rather the pipes around Dublin are fixed

Dublin City Council started a pipe replacement project years before Irish Water was formed.

Boggles wrote: »

There is also other alternatives than draining the Shannon

It will only take a few percent of the water in the Shannon.

J Mysterio

Victor wrote: »

Dublin City Council started a pipe replacement project years before Irish Water was formed.

They aren't making very good progress.

cgcsb

Boggles wrote: »

draining the Shannon

Ya lost me there. :rolleyes:

PhilOssophy

Why not bring Irish Water under the ESB ownership, rename it as Irish Electricity and Water, add 250 quid to the PSO levy, let Paul Murphy and his ilk squirm and put that money into our pipework.

odyssey06

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Why not bring Irish Water under the ESB ownership, rename it as Irish Electricity and Water, add 250 quid to the PSO levy, let Paul Murphy and his ilk squirm and put that money into our pipework.

Well Irish Water was originally given to Bord Gais because of their nationwide experience with a utility billing system. And yet...

IRISH Water's controversial €50m spend on consultants occurred despite explicit government instructions to rely on existing expertise within Bord Gais during its establishment, a leaked confidential report has shown.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-spent-50m-despite-order-to-use-bord-gais-expertise-29910029.html

branie2

Who's talking wet?

oceanman

they want to pump water from the Shannon but they don't want to fix the leaky pipes that's causing the water shortage in the first place!..only in Ireland.

Victor

odyssey06 wrote: »

Well Irish Water was originally given to Bord Gais because of their nationwide experience with a utility billing system. And yet...

IRISH Water's controversial €50m spend on consultants occurred despite explicit government instructions to rely on existing expertise within Bord Gais during its establishment, a leaked confidential report has shown.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-spent-50m-despite-order-to-use-bord-gais-expertise-29910029.html

They had to sell off Bord Gáis Energy.

oceanman wrote: »

they don't want to fix the leaky pipes

What's your basis for saying this?

that's causing the water shortage in the first place!

Were Summer 2018's shortage caused by hot, dry weather or leaky pipes.

Boggles

Victor wrote: »

Were Summer 2018's shortage caused by hot, dry weather or leaky pipes.

There wouldn't have been a shortage if 50% of it wasn't píssing out of leaky pipes.

PhilOssophy

oceanman wrote: »

they want to pump water from the Shannon but they don't want to fix the leaky pipes that's causing the water shortage in the first place!..only in Ireland.

Its the equivalent of you or I filling a bucket, and because there's a hole in it you turn the tap on harder.

You couldn't make this stuff up. Fix the leaks, then fix the consumption (charge for excessive use), then look at where you are at re Shannon, not the opposite order.