Shannon Water not Neded if Dublin Leaks Fixed

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.

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!

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

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 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.