Good, cheap, fast
[About this time of year, the pressure of exam marking robs me of the ability to string thoughts together in a coherent way, so please forgive the somewhat rambling (or more rambling than usual) article below. Lacks structure or a properly constructed argument, and shows little evidence of independent reading. 2.2]
There’s a well known saying in project management circles: Good, cheap, fast: pick any two. I’ve been thinking recently that something similar could be applied to eco-friendly or ethical products. There’s usually some trade-off to be made when compared to the traditional alternative. For example, meat produced with good standards of welfare for the animals tends to be of better quality than standard meat, but is more expensive. Recycled paper is better for the environment than non-recycled paper (probably…), but it isn’t as good quality. Travelling on public transport rather than going by car is cheaper (when you take all the costs into account), but much less convenient. In some cases, the eco-friendly alternative is cheaper than the alternative, but only after some initial period when the capital invested in installing it is paid off (solar or wind power).
I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently as we’ve been considering various measures to try to reduce our impact on the Earth’s resources a little bit. We’re composting already and planning to get cavity wall installation and better loft insulation installed, but another issue is our water use. In this case, we seem to actually be losing money by using the traditional alternative (un-metered water billing) over the more eco-friendly alternative (metered billing). Of course, metering per se doesn’t make it greener, but you can be sure that if you’re paying for every litre of water you use, you’re going to work hard to save water, so the end result is the same.
We had a water meter in our last flat in Oxford, and our bill was about half what we’re paying now. They seem to work out the flat charging scheme on the basis of fairly profligate usage, and when we filled in a quick survey of our typical water use, it looked as if we’d save at least 25% on our yearly bill. Since installation was free and it’s just as easy to use, this is nothing but plus points.
However, now that we’re paying for every drop, we want to save water wherever possible. We have a water butt for the garden, we shower rather than having baths, and we don’t have a dishwasher, so the biggest water saving we can probably make is by saving toilet flushing water. I’ve found a clever looking gadget called an Inter-Flush which alters the flush so that the water flow stops as soon as you release the handle. I was going to make a comment about “Pay As You Go”, but thought better of it… Anyway, it seems like a sensible idea to only use as much water as you need for flushing. Has anyone installed one of these? Are they easy to install without plumbing experience? Are they reliable? I’d be interested to know before I plunk down some cash on it and start messing about with cisterns.
1
Haven't got one myself (An old milk bottle filled with gravel sits in my cistern) but the friendly guys at Rounded Developments http://www.rounded-developments.org.uk/ sell them, and I've seen one working in their showroom. You could always ask them, I'm sure they could tell you more detailed info on living with one. Peter Draper is the man to catch.
by Elin @ 29/05/2007 8:56 pm • Permalink •
2
Don't get me started on the con that is wind farms. No windmill south of the Scottish border reaches the minimum 30% efficiency level required to start paying its way. Of the 30 wind turbines erected on the Kentish Flats, in less than a year 19 of them had broken down, and the tops of the towers had to be plasma cut off and removed and new gearboxes and turbines welded back on; pretty pointless as there's naff all wind in the Thames Estuary, ask any sailor wanting to go somewhere in a hurry. So what are they going to do? Put 100s more of the thing in an area without wind, and kill and main 1000's more sea-birds!
B&Q;will, for some £1,800, sell you one to bolt on to your chimney, which, with a wind speed of 12m/sec, will just about power a toaster. Doesn't sound a lot 12m/s does it? Actually it is a Force 4 wind, some 28 miles an hour; now at Force 4 yachtsmen are reefing mainsails or taking them in and running on a foresail. 28mph is a lot of wind, and rarely felt for more than short periods, you wouldn't want to put your umbrella in that sort of wind. The idea that with one of these windmills-on-sticks you would be selling power to the national grid is laughable.
But don't put a barrier with 290 water turbines across the Severn, it might upset some muscles and a few wading birds! (Sorry Bsag, I know our feathered friends are dear to your heart; I too love them)
I once heard an interview with a French Minister, who was asked how they had managed to build the Charles de Gaul airport so quickly, when we in Britain had spent 20 years discussing a 4th Terminal at Heathrow. His answer was succinct: "When we wish to drain a swamp, we do not consults the frogs".
by Jonathan Briggs @ 29/05/2007 9:24 pm • Permalink •
3
Ok then Jonathan, we won't get you started on wind farms! :D
by ThoughtBadger @ 30/05/2007 1:22 am • Permalink •
4
I overheard a comment a few weeks ago that Welsh Water were in fact the largest users of electricity in Wales. I of course found this hard to believe, since water is free and it all comes from the mountains and since I live in Cardiff, it is all downhill from there surely.
Well further investigation lead me to the Welsh Water / Dwr Cymru website and after a phone call I discovered that indeed that they had used a collossal amount of electricity in 2005/6 for pumping, treating water etc. In fact they had used 548GWh of energy. I did a quick calculation using 3,300KWh as a household usage per year (EST figures) and the result was that Welsh Water had used the equivalent of 400,000 people. Given the population of Wales in total (3 Million) this means that they used the equivalent of 13% of the domestic electricity usage in the whole country. I asked the Carbon Trust about their use and they thought that the company was in the top 10 users, but could say no more than that. So they may not be the largest user, but still, 400,000.
I dread to think what other companies are using where they don't have the advantages of easy rainwater collection. Pumping from aquifers for example must be even more expensive.
So water conservation is in fact a major issue in the fight against climate change. Food for thought when you brush your teeth with the tap still running!
by Peter Draper @ 30/05/2007 9:56 am • Permalink •
5
Hi!
I spend my life in Germany, France or Spain and I'm just amazed at how many people don't know that pressing the toilet knob a second time can stop flushing water. Actually, 90% of toilets I've seen have this feature, but noone seems to know or care. I don't know about yours, but it seems to be an already widespread solution, so it shouldn't be that hard to find an answer to your problem.
BTW, some dishwashers actually consume less water than hand-washing techniques. Just depends how you wash your dishes!
by Eric @ 30/05/2007 10:34 am • Permalink •
6
I'm with Eric on the dishwasher point. If you measured and counted the numbers of sinks you fill in a given period vs the single use of a full washer, I reckon the washer wins every time.
And if you're busy marking, your spare time is then free, instead of being chained to the sink?
by Mr.D. @ 30/05/2007 11:49 am • Permalink •
7
The trickiest thing is that the 'eco-friendly' option can depend a great deal about what your conception of ecology is. For instance, is it better to wear wool (sustainably produced, but potentially cruel to animals) or synthetics made using oil and electricity? Is it better to use nuclear power (with waste and accident dangers) or gas turbines (with climatic issues)?
by Milan @ 31/05/2007 3:20 pm • Permalink •
8
Not sure about wool being cruel to animals... in my experience most sheep are happier without the fleece (it's also renewable - every year). But aren't simplicity and action the best things? The milk bottle must be far more eco friendly than the special gadget, manufactured halfway round the world, the shopping trip etc. In the time it takes to plan, discuss, consult etc change could be made and the benefits enjoyed. Jonathan's last sentence is excellent - almost "Wodehousian" - reflecting on another post,
by Julian @ 31/05/2007 5:26 pm • Permalink •
9
Eric, is it only in Germany, France, Spain that this feature (pressing the knob a second time to stop the flush) is commonplace? I don't see it here in Ireland. However, what we do have - and what I installed when I rebuilt my house - are cisterns with two buttons - press one for a short flush and the other for a sustained flush. They weren't very expensive either.
Of course there is an old ecological rule of thumb one might adhere to "if it's yellow, let it mellow - if it's brown, flush it down".
By the way, bsag, seen this article on an upcoming release 'Grow your own'
by Ger @ 01/06/2007 4:27 pm • Permalink •
10
Eric, you take the words out of my mouth: just hit the knob again Bsag!
Ger: Those knobs are also available in Belgium -- even on the older toilets. Hitting it a second time releases the thing that makes the flush go or whatever. Anyway, it stops flushing. I even saw one at a café that had "STOP" written on the side where you press to stop the flushing. The cisterns with two knobs are also very common here.
by Frances @ 02/06/2007 10:18 pm • Permalink •
11
Elin: I don't know that site -- looks useful.
Jonathan Briggs: I agree that wind turbines are probably not the most efficient way of generating energy (in most locations that they get installed), but there are problems with just about every method of generating energy. Indeed, that was one point I was trying to make in my article: there are always trade-offs and compromises and decisions to be made, and you have to decide what you value most. As many people have pointed out, in terms of efficiency and (immediate) environmental impact, nuclear energy is probably top of the list, but with all that nuclear waste to sweep under the carpet, it doesn't feel like a green alternative.
Peter Draper: The man himself! I think that a lot of people don't consider the energy consumed in producing and handling the water supply, as opposed to the use of water itself. I have now trained myself not to leave the tap running. So, what do you think of the inter-flush, then?
Eric: I was intrigued by this and tried it on my toilets: no dice, I'm afraid, it just keeps merrily flushing, no matter what you do with the flush lever. I think the cisterns must be plumbed differently in continental Europe. I have heard that dishwashers can be more water and energy-efficient, particularly if you have enough dishes to fill it up and run it only once a day. Unfortunately, we don't have a dishwasher, or space for one in our kitchen, so we just have to hand wash as efficiently as we can.
Mr. D.: Actually, Mr. B. is very good about washing up (and cooking for that matter), since I'm the one with the full time job
Milan: Yes, trade-offs, though I'm with Julian that the simplest solutions are often the best.
Ger: I hadn't seen the article, but I did see something about the film on Gardener's World (I think) a while back. Looks very interesting.
Frances: See my earlier comment - it just doesn't work on my toilets.
by bsag @ 03/06/2007 10:10 am • Permalink •
12
Bsag old beaness, the problem with wind turbines is not the trade off, as in their proper place; i.e. where the wind blows a lot; it is their use as a self aggrandising political publicity vehicle by Blair and his ilk. It is the "Look at me, see what I'm doing" bit that gets my goat. I've just got back from "sailing" on the East Coast - we spent a lot of time using the Iron Spinnaker, that is to say, the engine, as there wasn't enough wind to blow the mist away........ Clearly, just the place to put hundreds of wind turbines!
by Jonathan Briggs @ 03/06/2007 5:58 pm • Permalink •
13
Hi BSAG,
The interflush is a great device as it allows you to use only the water that you need. Also it is a retro-fit device so you don't have to change your toilet cistern in order to get the 47% reductions that the independent research has indicated as possible. As a British invention as well, at least we are managing to keep entrepreneurial activities within the UK.
It does require a certain bit of re-training, as you do use the toilet in a different way, so it does catch visitors out, but they do supply a little sticker for the loo so that if instructions are required, they are there.
Other devices like the Irish 'Mecon' products are not as elegant as the Interflush and the old brick or hippo techniques, whilst a good first step in water saving do not provide the flexibility to really reduce water consumption.
The Interflush does look a bit flimsy, but we have had one here for a year or so and had no problems at all. The strain is not taken by the mechanism, so it doesn't need to be too robust.
Cost can be an issue (at £ 17.50), but if you are on a meter then this will be saved in reduced water charges soon enough.
There you go, my thoughts on the Interflush. Hope that they are useful. Glad that you found the Rounded Developments site a useful one. We are always trying to upgrade it and we rely on people helping us with this as we are a not-for-profit outfit. So any comments, especially on things like the 'Common problems' page.
Hope that you have a lovely day.
Cheers
Peter
by Peter Draper @ 07/06/2007 1:55 pm • Permalink •
14
Peter Draper: Thanks for the info! That sounds ideal, so I'll get around to ordering one.
by bsag @ 09/06/2007 2:08 pm • Permalink •
Page 1 of 1 pages