# lots of talk about Eco recently......



## richjohnhughes (Sep 24, 2007)

but are we all missing the point? 

sorry, this might be me being very naive.

to save water - why? 

how much does it cost in £'s to wash a car once a week? bearing in mind taking a shower uses about 80 litres of water and i'm guessing every house in the land is doing that once at least once a day. 

water shortage - there is no reason why the UK should ever have a water shortage and this is an issue for the water companies to sort out. other places in the EU never have hose pipe bans in summer, but have far hotter summers and less rain fall than the UK

products being used and running directly into storm drains - ok, i get this, but doesnt in make sense for the companies that produce these products to make them biodegradable or unharmful to the enviroment?? 

i have seen some pros on here collecting the wash water - and i am guessing that gets processed in the same way that waste water from our washing machines does?

I am yet to see proof that waterless wash systems do NOT inflict damage on cars - so if anyone can shed some light on it???


----------



## Relaited (Jan 27, 2009)

I do not know specifics about Spain. I do now that California was first developed by Spaniards, and for that everyone in So California should be grateful. However, as long as when they turn on the water, it comes out, most do not even care. The benefit of having A Spaniard develop here is that we are a semi arid climate. Riparian rights are English, that are like the golden rule, those with the gold rule. Or those with direct water access decide how the water is used. The Spaniards knew that in order to develop So California, they would have to move the water from the North to the South. That is why Cities like San Jose and Los Angeles are so big. Others wanted access to their water from the North … OK, if you become part of our City.

I share the history lesson, because the more I have learned about water, the more I understand how uneducated I have been. One suggestion is to contact your Water District or provider, ask them about water supply … ask some good and tough questions.

And, for those who think that just because the chemical is biodegradable, that you can toss it in the storm drain … then I suggest you collect it, put it in a jar, and decide for yourself if it is safe. Go ahead, drink it. There are many waterless products that I will drink … in dilution, never ever after a car has been washed with it. All this stuff that you say waterless cannot clean is now contained in it. Here in the US, technically it is hazardous waste. So, drink away, or get educated … in my opinion.

-jim


----------



## MarkH (Dec 10, 2006)

I only have basic knowledge but here goes.


There is increasing demand on water in the UK and the more water we use, the smaller or rivers and lakes become until alas they are no more in some cases.

All the tap water we use has to be processed, chemicals added to it and energy used to make it fit for human consumption.

It may be more environmentally sound if you use products that are biodegradable to water your garden with the waste water.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

contrary to your stated opinion, water is a resource that is running lower... Read up on any water company website and they want you to conserve water. We get a lot of rain and floods, but that part of the issue, as it all runs off and doesnt reach the water table. Do a bit of Googling and you'll find a lot of info on the issue, despite the fact that it seems to rain a lot here 

Biodegradable means NOTHING - anyone can label anything as biodegradable even if it takes 200 years to degrade, or even if the things it breaks down into are actually more toxic than the original :wall:

The other issue here is that it is against the LAW to let any run-off from car washing enter a drain, if you are washing a car as a job. PPG13 clearly states what needs to happen to adhere to the law, and pros such as Polished Bliss use the matt as the laws in Scotland are even more established than in the UK, and their landlord has it as a condition of the lease IIRC. Strictly speaking, all the pros you see foaming cars on peoples driveways and outside their offices, letting foam and rinse water run away all over the place, could all be prosecuted for polluting if you apply the letter of the legislation, according to my conversations with the Environment Agency.

That's before you look at some of the chemicals we are playing with, like Tardis and others with strong solvents in them. I looked at the bottle of a recently launched 'buzz' product and it had 3 TOXIC labels clearly marked on the back of the bottle. People simply using these and letting them enter the environment, or worse still, themselves, might regret it in the longer term...

There are many many arguments to think about the products and techniques that are being discussed here. i agree, we havent YET shown a water less wash can wash really dirty cars without marring, but I just washed my 2 salty filthy cars with a ONR rinseless wash and inflicting no marring at all, checking my work with my Brinkman.

At the end of the day its about choices. While the law is forcing the industry to change,right now it doesnt apply to washing your car at home. It might soon though, and if you look at the German post in this section, you'll see that its illegal (and enforced) to wash your car at home. We have a choice now but might not in the near future....

I think thats some of the 'why' from my point of view, but obviously not everyone is going to agree  In 5 years we might look back and laugh at what many people are doing now...


----------



## Schnorbitz (Aug 18, 2007)

Water is a renewable resource, but it there is only a finite supply in this country. You'd be surprised how little 'useful' rain we get in the South East of England. Supposedly only <600mm per year in the East, similar to parts of the Middle East. Coupled with a large, dense population which is growing fast and it is surprising we don't get _more_ hosepipe bans.

It takes lots of energy to collect, treat and distribute water and wastewater. Water companies need also to meet very stringent regulations and performance/quality targets whilst also making efficiency savings, reducing leakage etc. They all champion water efficiency.

I agree that car washing will only form a part of most household's water useage and that most of us will also be shoving bleach down the bog and other nasties far more damaging than detergents (bleach kills the friendly bacteria that provide the treatment in sewage works for example). But then watering the garden doesn't seem to use that much water until you measure it all. It's also easier to 'stop' this activity than to say 'don't leave the tap running whilst you brush your teeth'.

The point is, it all adds up and car washing could be easier to police than what people get up to in their own houses. So I think it is important to be considering alternative car washing methods in case England ends up going down this route too, which it very well could given the pressure on water resources. The government could be forced in to taking action to reduce non-essential water uses. New reservoirs are unlikely too, given the cost, public inquiries, environmental objections, inconvenience, re-housing etc.

Yes, I did used to work for a water company!


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

Bigpikle said:


> ... Read up on any water company website and they want you to conserve water....


No offence to you Damon and your laudable efforts to make us more eco-friendly, but obviously water companies want us to conserve water. It means they can charge us the same amount for using less water= fatter profits for them

Aside from that, is it not the case that most of the water companies in Britain **** away millions if not billions of litres of water because they can't/won't fix the leaky system? Again, IMHO, to save money so they can increase profits.

I am all for helping to save the fish, but not for saving the private water companies.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

agreed - they do pi55 away huge quantities, and thats another issue, but not one we can really do much about 

I would have thought water companies want us to use more really, as all my bills are based on volume of water used - both water and sewage costs... I see your point though.


----------



## Schnorbitz (Aug 18, 2007)

^^What about those of us on water meters? All new houses in the East (not sure it applies everywhere) have to have meters installed and by law you can request the water company to fit one. Most people save a lot of money over the old rateable-value based charging system. We pay for what we use. Why are water companies then encouraging us to use less water if their income depends on us using more?? 

Re: leaks. Just imagine how many thousands of miles of water pipes lie underneath the ground. Now try and find which ones leak and where the leak is. Now try and dig it all up and replace it. It's very expensive and of course, it is easier to encourage consumers to be less wasteful than it is to invest in the infrastructure. 

Water companies have leakage targets they must reach but they have to prioritise where they spend money. New regulatory targets are set every five years and their income is set in advance according to how much the regulator (Ofwat) thinks the companies will need to do what they say they need to to meet all these various targets (quality, resources, leakage, treatment, new infrastructure etc). So they are only allowed to charge what the regulator says they can charge, it's all agreed in advance.

Unfortunately, it is all pretty complex and represents a difficult balancing act between profits (essential, whether you agree or not), the environment, consumers, regulators, NGOs etc etc. 

Anyway, I think no-one is saying the domestic car washing is going to kill the planet, but that it might become an obvious target for quality/resource issues if things go that way in the UK.


----------



## richjohnhughes (Sep 24, 2007)

some very good point here guys - thank you.

as far as saving the amount of water that we use, i really dont buy it.

in fact, i think its complete TOSH. a company like Thames Water making multi millions from everyone in the south of England then turns round and says there isnt enought water blah blah blah.

http://www.london.gov.uk/londoner/06july/p6c.jsp?nav=news

*In contrast, he added: 'Everyday, Thames Water leaks a staggering 915 million litres of clean purified drinking water from its own pipes - that's six and a half times the capacity of the proposed desalination plant.'*

all i am saying is there must be a something else apart from waterless water systems. (or show us proof that it works without damage)

give us products that are not dangerous - or give us areas where we can wash cars and get the water process after.


----------



## richjohnhughes (Sep 24, 2007)

Relaited said:


> I do not know specifics about Spain. I do now that California was first developed by Spaniards, and for that everyone in So California should be grateful. However, as long as when they turn on the water, it comes out, most do not even care. The benefit of having A Spaniard develop here is that we are a semi arid climate. Riparian rights are English, that are like the golden rule, those with the gold rule. Or those with direct water access decide how the water is used. The Spaniards knew that in order to develop So California, they would have to move the water from the North to the South. That is why Cities like San Jose and Los Angeles are so big. Others wanted access to their water from the North … OK, if you become part of our City.
> 
> I share the history lesson, because the more I have learned about water, the more I understand how uneducated I have been. One suggestion is to contact your Water District or provider, ask them about water supply … ask some good and tough questions.
> 
> ...


thanks for the history lesson (i think )

if waterless washes are non toxic - then why cant normal products be make to the same standard??


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

Schnorbitz said:


> ^^What about those of us on water meters? All new houses in the East (not sure it applies everywhere) have to have meters installed and by law you can request the water company to fit one. Most people save a lot of money over the old rateable-value based charging system. We pay for what we use. Why are water companies then encouraging us to use less water if their income depends on us using more??


Not every household is on a water meter though. I, for example, am not.



Schnorbitz said:


> Re: leaks. Just imagine how many thousands of miles of water pipes lie underneath the ground. Now try and find which ones leak and where the leak is. Now try and dig it all up and replace it. It's very expensive and of course, *it is easier *to encourage consumers to be less wasteful than it is to invest in the infrastructure.


Yes, it will be easier to pass the buck on to us than to actually fix something.
I'm not saying the job of stopping the leaks is easy, but if most of the water companies can somehow manage to meet the targets for leak reduction set by OFWAT, then it proves that they can fix leaks. They should just be forced to fix more.



Schnorbitz said:


> Water companies have leakage targets they must reach but they have to prioritise where they spend money. New regulatory targets are set every five years and their income is set in advance according to how much the regulator (Ofwat) thinks the companies will need to do what they say they need to to meet all these various targets (quality, resources, leakage, treatment, new infrastructure etc). So they are only allowed to charge what the regulator says they can charge, it's all agreed in advance.


Yes, and the last increase I believe was *twice* the rate of inflation.



Schnorbitz said:


> Unfortunately, it is all pretty complex and represents a difficult balancing act between profits (essential, whether you agree or not), the environment, consumers, regulators, NGOs etc etc.


And that is where I really disagree. We need water, and we are forced to pay for water. We have no choice in the matter. So why should people be profiting for a public utility? I don't mind a wax maker making a profit from me. I don't _need_ wax (though it sometimes feels like it:lol, and I am not forced to pay for it. Water is a different matter.
Thames Water made £590.1 Million in profit last year, yet lost something in the order of 695 million litres *per day*!! I mean, WTF

That just sounds obscene to me.

The same company were responsible for discharging 100million litres of raw human waste into the firth of forth in 2007, and then took 40 hours to notify anyone that the plant had failed. As far as I am aware the cause of the failure has not been publicised, but it could be down to the fact that Scottish Water cut their operating costs by £366 million between 2002-2006. Part of the cost cutting involved getting Thames Water to look after the Seafield plant.

So please excuse me, and I mean no offence to you personally, but the water companies can *GTF* if they think I am going to make it easier for them to line their own pockets until such time as they get their own house in order.


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

richjohnhughes said:


> *In contrast, he added: 'Everyday, Thames Water leaks a staggering 915 million litres of clean purified drinking water from its own pipes - that's six and a half times the capacity of the proposed desalination plant.'*


Oh yes,seen that around here.There was a burst under road pipe for...wait for it......9 days around here.They got the road digging monkies fired up sharpish but left it pissing over the footpath and road for days and days.
Then they have the cheek to tell us to save water.Yeah we have to save it because their as good at it as a blind goalkeeper in penalty shootout.
Anyway.If all these eco plums are to be believed we'll soon have all the water we need,when antarctica melts.I just wouldnt hold your breath.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

RoverIain said:


> Oh yes,seen that around here.There was a burst under road pipe for...wait for it......9 days around here.They got the road digging monkies fired up sharpish but left it pissing over the footpath and road for days and days.
> Then they have the cheek to tell us to save water.Yeah we have to save it because their as good at it as a blind goalkeeper in penalty shootout.
> Anyway.If all these eco plums are to be believed we'll soon have all the water we need,w*hen antarctica melts.I just wouldnt hold your breath*.


:lol: if it DOES melt you'll be holding your breath for a very long time 

Please dont confuse reducing water (and waste) with only waterless washing. There are MANY ways to have significantly less environmental impact WITHOUT using waterless products.

1. stop your chemical waste flowing into storm drains and local rivers
2. use less nasty chemicals
3. use water based rather than solvent based cleaners
4. try using _rinseless_ products.....and no doubt many many more

the '_waterless products damage your car so we cant be eco-friendly_' argument is pretty lame TBH :wall:


----------



## Relaited (Jan 27, 2009)

I think the point about waterless is that it uses very little water, and all the contaminants are capture in the micro fiber towel, so there is no run off. I am like minded to the notion that I don’t care about it being biodegradable so much. For me, you could have all the biodegradable stuff, but if the waste contains brake dust, rail dust, industrial fall out, or after engine details all the gas, grime, oil, anti freeze, etc. That is the stuff that is of concern. And the other things the keepers of the storm drain worry about is that even if you pour pure water, it still acts as a conveyor of contaminants and pollution. Water picks up the pollution and carries it to the Storm Drain, you know the rest.

I use the term Water $mart, as I think it is a broad definition, beyond waterless. I am for any product or method that uses less water and captures run off. There are some great products, equipment and techniques utilized where I would say the guy with the pressure washer is Water $mart … if using less water and capturing run off.

Also, I think it is a horrible argument to make that others waste more water, so don’t pick on me. Officer, Mr Policeman … don’t give me a ticket because the guy over there was speeding more than me. Doesn’t work there, or on your taxes. 

The points about rain are true. It is about to rain here in So cal, but it is not planned to rain enough in areas where that rain water can be captured and converted into drinking water. That is a problem wherever you. Although, on this topic, sometimes I think ignorance is bliss. There are too many social and economical pressures to deliver cost effective reliable water sources. And many folks in water do a pretty good job at it.

-jim


----------



## Relaited (Jan 27, 2009)

Damon,

Have you ever considered joining the International Detailers Association?

We could use a thought leader like yourself.

-jim


----------



## Relaited (Jan 27, 2009)

Swiftshine,

Recently I heard a group presenting a solution of privatization of water. Yikes, scared the crap out of me. Much like you are sharing, I think water is the new oil. But I don’t need oil. As you privatize, you will see rate increases … it is for profit. 

In So California, we will be experiencing rationing. There is not enough water to go around. Some are already there, in April, I believe they will announce rationing for July. Then they will announce Tiered pricing, based on a usage table. That is code word for a price increase. And the wealthy will not care, to them water will still be cheap. But those that are fixed income, or on the lower economic scale will suffer the most, for something our body cannot live without. 

I am still trying to get educated, but just feels fundamentally wrong. On the other hand, I can imagine what the water infrastructure looks like in many countries. Question is, who pays to fix the leaks … ultimately you. Now we are in a philosophical and political discussion about who is better to fix the problem? Private Business or Government? We have a similar issue with the conveyance through canals. Do the math on evaporation and leaks, it is big. One issue is that if the American canal is lined, to prevent seepage, then a Mexican aquifer does not get recharged, and the folks south of the boarder have lost their water supply. Oh yea, the politics of water.

I simply advocate that this industry do its part to conserve and control contaminants. 

-jim


----------



## Schnorbitz (Aug 18, 2007)

swiftshine said:


> So please excuse me, and I mean no offence to you personally, but the water companies can *GTF* if they think I am going to make it easier for them to line their own pockets until such time as they get their own house in order.


Fair enough, none taken :lol: they aren't perfect. But they are private companies now and as such investment is their lifeblood. No profits, no investment. If they were de-privatised(?) though, imagine how big our tax bills would have to be to fund the running of these companies? They have invested billions since privatisation, which they had to do to meet environmental and quality regulations, investment which would likely not have happened whilst they were publicly owned and I don't think could be afforded now out of the public purse. It was actually a pretty smart move by the government! Offloading a massive liability on to the private market.

I had a look at Anglian Water's annual report on their web site (how sad!) and in the three years of the latest five year investment period they have spent £1,178m :doublesho Again, they have to spend what they say they will, not say 'give us £100m Ofwat' then only spend £80m and pocket the rest.

As I said before, Ofwat determines water company charges, not the water companies. They can't 'profiteer' or take advantage of their monopoly on this essential utility. They are very tightly controlled. They could, for example, completely 'get their own houses in order' and sort out all leaks, but they would have to ask Ofwat to be able to charge a hell of a lot more to customers to fund it. Ofwat would say, hang on you can't do that, we have to think of the ability to pay and whether it's _really_ necessary. So the system does kind of perpetuate a less than perfect way of running. That said, in general, water quality and environmental protection is very good in this country. We are pretty well off compared to some other places.


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

Schnorbitz said:


> Fair enough, none taken :lol:


:thumb:



Schnorbitz said:


> But they are private companies now and as such investment is their lifeblood. No profits, no investment. If they were de-privatised(?) though, imagine how big our tax bills would have to be to fund the running of these companies? They have invested billions since privatisation, which they had to do to meet environmental and quality regulations, investment which would likely not have happened whilst they were publicly owned and I don't think could be afforded now out of the public purse. It was actually a pretty smart move by the government! Offloading a massive liability on to the private market.


This bit I don't understand. It might just be down to my lack of knowledge about how private companies work, but maybe you can explain it.

My understanding of how these things work is this.....
Profit is made if the money raised is greater than the money spent.
That money can be raised through charging for the service provided, and maybe by selling shares in the company. The only other way to get money would be to take on debt.

If a company has a share issue (which they have to get permission for??) then they have more shareholders and the existing shareholders have a smaller stake, hence the profits have to be spread a little more thinly. So apart from that little problem a share issue is like free money But any other money comes with the caveat that the person giving it gets something back. We pay our water rates and get water. Private investors give money but want a return on the money, usually at a much higher return than available through a bank.

So where does the 'extra' money for investment come from? Anyone investing would (understandably) want more money back, and if they didn't get that money back within the same fiscal year then it would have to be on the balance sheet somewhere. I would presume as a debt? Which the company is liable for.

But the companies are still making a profit, so they must be getting more than they pay.

So everyone is a winner, except us, who are paying more than we have to for our water so the company can make their profit. If there was no profit, then we could pay less for the same service, or pay the same for a better service.

Please point out where I am wrong in this as I would love to understand.:thumb:


----------



## Schnorbitz (Aug 18, 2007)

OK, I'll have a go but I don't pretend to be an investment expert, plus the workings of regulated industries are very specialised. I've not worked there for several years now and it's changed a lot so I drunk a lot of coffee and looked it up...

This explains the investment/profits issue better than me: http://www.water.org.uk/home/policy/positions/investmentandprofits The main points: 

for every £2 profit, they invest £3, 
the industry is tightly regulated, 
profits allow investment which makes great quality improvements possible, 
profit figures mean little out of context (water industry business model is different to most).

I had another look and Anglian Water's annual report and this is how they are financed (my bold). You can't buy Anglian Water shares, they are owned by an investment consortium. Other UK utilities have been bought by foreign mega-utilities to held fund their investment, or had to look at other ways of raising money and improving efficiency (we all want bills to be as low as reasonably possible, whilst maintaining high levels of service and improving the environment etc).



> *Company structure and financing*
> 
> Anglian Water Services Limited (Anglian Water) is the
> principal subsidiary of Anglian Water Group Limited (AWG).
> ...


http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/assets/annual reports/Anglian Water annual report 2007_8.PDF

Looking through it, it's actually quite a good read! Clearly explains everything better than I can.

Re investment, they need it to fund their enormous capital programme. It looks like they are basically borrowing a lot. The advantage of water companies (like other utilities) is a very stable business environment (every needs it) and solid planning, accountability and revenue streams. This makes utility companies an attractive investment prospect to investment companies. If you have a pension, I am sure that the pension company will be invested in some way in a major utility or two. Which in turn provide lending to the water companies.

Glas Cymru (Welsh Water) is set up as a 'not-for-profit' company, although their business model will be very different.

I don't know if that helps?! It certainly brought me up-to-date, but I still find it very complicated...


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

profit is the reward for putting up your cash for investment (and taking the risk). If there was no profit for the investor, then they wouldnt bother to put their money in. As these businesses are VERY capital intensive, they need to make a profit to be able to attract the money they need to operate.

One argument for companies being privatised like this is that otherwise your tax money would have to be used to fund all this investment, so either you put in more tax £ to fund it all, or the companies dont invest as much, leading to poorer infrastructure over time.

Its a tough area to discuss, as everyone wants the lowest possible prices for utilities, and rightly so. The profits are pretty insignificant though compared to the oil companies obscene profits raked in from our oil dependancy


----------

