Water charges revisited?

oscarBravo

dense wrote: »

Ireland's bathing water quality has worsened as a direct result of Irish Water appearing on the scene.


The quality was higher before water charges were introduced here.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

dense

oscarBravo wrote: »

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

Sure, it was just a coincidence, just as it would had bathing water quality improved after IW appeared on the scene.....


That's not really going to be a runner for the charges advocates is it?

oscarBravo

dense wrote: »

Sure, it was just a coincidence, just as it would had bathing water quality improved after IW appeared on the scene.....


That's not really going to be a runner for the charges advocates is it?

Is that your defence of your logical fallacy? To double down on it?

You said Irish Water caused a deterioration of water quality. All you have to do is produce some evidence for that causation.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Your interpretation of the data is faulty, or skewed by bias.



Ireland's bathing water quality has worsened as a direct result of Irish Water appearing on the scene.


The quality was higher before water charges were introduced here.



Ireland had the joint sixth worst level of bathing water quality in the EU in 2016 with 92.9% of bathing water sites classified as being of sufficient water quality, compared with an EU average of 96.3%.



The results for the 2011 bathing season show that overall, the quality of bathing water in Ireland improved in comparison with the 2010 equivalent. Overall, 98.5 per cent (133 out of 135) of bathing areas complied with the EU mandatory standard, equating to ‘sufficient’ water quality. This is the highest number complying with the EU mandatory standard since 2000.



https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eii/eii18/mainfindings/



http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-bathing-water-quality-improved-in-2011-438680-May2012/

Firstly, the data I presented was about waste water treatment, not about bathing water quality, so how can I be interpreting wrongly data that I did not even examine.

Secondly, I was comparing Ireland with other jurisdictions in the EU, most of whom have had water charges for years and most of whom have a far better record in waste water treatment.

Thirdly, any attempt to assess Irish Water or water quality after one year of it being in existence is not a serious examination of data, as the data sample is too small.

Fourthly, as water charges were never fully collected, it is not possible to examine any coherent data about the difference between a water charges regime and a non-water charges regime if you are confining that comparison to Ireland.

dense

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is that your defence of your logical fallacy? To double down on it?

You said Irish Water caused a deterioration of water quality. All you have to do is produce some evidence for that causation.

For starters:

At year end, 74 environmental incidents which were unresolved and likely to recur,
were caused by operation and management issues at treatment plants.




An incident is:
• any discharge that does not comply with the requirements of a waste water
discharge licence; or
• any occurrence at a waste water works with the potential for environmental
contamination, or requiring an emergency response.



At the end of 2016 there were 269 incidents which were either ongoing, or likely to
recur, until the underlying cause is resolved. These are referred to as ‘recurring
incidents’.
The chart below summarises the causes of these recurring incidents.
There were also over 550 short term incidents during 2016, which were unlikely to
recur. The underlying causes of half of the short term incidents were operation and
management issues at treatment plants.
The EPA prosecuted Irish Water for two incidents, where uncontrolled discharges
from the collection systems serving Cork City and Balbriggan - Skerries caused
pollution in the receiving waters.

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/wastewater/Urban%20waste%20water%20report%20for%202016%20Final%20Version.pdf

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

Firstly, the data I presented was about waste water treatment, not about bathing water quality, so how can I be interpreting wrongly data that I did not even examine.

Secondly, I was comparing Ireland with other jurisdictions in the EU, most of whom have had water charges for years and most of whom have a far better record in waste water treatment.

Thirdly, any attempt to assess Irish Water or water quality after one year of it being in existence is not a serious examination of data, as the data sample is too small.

Fourthly, as water charges were never fully collected, it is not possible to examine any coherent data about the difference between a water charges regime and a non-water charges regime if you are confining that comparison to Ireland.

Ok, I get the feeling that you want Irish Water to be seen as failing hopelessly, and, simultaneously, being totes amazing, both being due to not having functioning water charges in this country.



Is that accurate?



I'm just trying to keep up with the position.....

I suppose what it boils down to is some of us believe in the policy of people paying for what they use.

Those of us who have our own septic tanks are used to paying for their maintenance and can understand and accept the necessity of paying for water.

oscarBravo

dense wrote: »

For starters: [...]

I would point out that, for your "evidence" to stand up, you'd have to demonstrate that those problems could only have happened as a result of the introduction of Irish Water.

But then I saw the website you've linked in your sig, so I know that discussing the concept of evidence with you is probably a waste of time.

dense

oscarBravo wrote: »

I would point out that, for your "evidence" to stand up, you'd have to demonstrate that those problems could only have happened as a result of the introduction of Irish Water.

And I would point out that you appear to be chancing your arm.



You asked for examples of evidence of Irish Water causing pollution, and were given it.



It is always best to know the answer to a seemingly clever question before asking it.

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose what it boils down to is some of us believe in the policy of people paying for what they use.

Those of us who have our own septic tanks are used to paying for their maintenance and can understand and accept the necessity of paying for water.

Just out of interest, what do you pay on maintenance of it?


How many regular occupants in the house?


A neighbour of mine said if they're working correctly they hardly ever need any work.



We have one and have it emptied every 6 years or so more out of habit than anything else. It just does what its supposed to do.

oscarBravo

dense wrote: »

You asked for examples of evidence of Irish Water causing pollution, and were given it.

Let's revisit your original claim, shall we?

dense wrote: »

Ireland's bathing water quality has worsened as a direct result of Irish Water appearing on the scene.

You have yet to adduce the faintest hint of evidence to support this assertion. What's worse, you seem to be labouring under the delusion that you've somehow proved it.

dense

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's revisit your original claim, shall we?



You have yet to adduce the faintest hint of evidence to support this assertion. What's worse, you seem to be labouring under the delusion that you've somehow proved it.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, I have.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

In the absence of proof to the contrary, I have.

You have at best shown correlation, however not a single bit of causation.

oscarBravo

dense wrote: »

In the absence of proof to the contrary, I have.

oscarBravo wrote: »

...discussing the concept of evidence with you is probably a waste of time.

.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

You have at best shown correlation, however not a single bit of causation.

Now, where have I heard that before....


I will file it away, should come in handy.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Now, where have I heard that before....


I will file it away, should come in handy.

Yes, it is a useful thing to remember.

Correlation does not mean causation. Remember some people can show that the decline in the number of pirates has caused global warming.

If you want to demonstrate more than correlation, the first thing is to theorise a method of causation that makes sense.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I read somewhere else on this site that the plural of anecdote is not data. Similarly, the plural of news story is not data either.

I have produced the data which shows that only countries like Malta and some of the East Europeans are worse than us in terms of waste water treatment, thanks to a century of incompetence from local authorities and the lack of a stable financial arrangement like water charges.

Irish Water don't agree with you. These rogue element completely independent LA's need be stopped! Underfunded for decades by Mick Wallace and Clare Daly no doubt....

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose what it boils down to is some of us believe in the policy of people paying for what they use.

Those of us who have our own septic tanks are used to paying for their maintenance and can understand and accept the necessity of paying for water.

Every tax payer pays for water. Always have, continue to do so. Won't pay to line pockets of cronies.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Irish Water don't agree with you. These rogue element completely independent LA's need be stopped! Underfunded for decades by Mick Wallace and Clare Daly no doubt....

That line is more than a little tired now.

Plenty of reports and statements over the years outlining how badly the water services were run by the local authorities versus one bland publicity statement by Irish Water.

Time to give some consideration to the weight of evidence.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Every tax payer pays for water. Always have, continue to do so. Won't pay to line pockets of cronies.

Yeah, every taxpayer pays for water, but some like Denis O'Brien are not taxpayers, so get their water for free from the rest of us.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

That line is more than a little tired now.

Plenty of reports and statements over the years outlining how badly the water services were run by the local authorities versus one bland publicity statement by Irish Water.

Time to give some consideration to the weight of evidence.




Yeah, every taxpayer pays for water, but some like Denis O'Brien are not taxpayers, so get their water for free from the rest of us.

You might be tired hearing it, but if you keep simplifying it down to incompetence, it needs to be corrected that Irish Water and the people who set up Irish Water believe the L.A's did a great job despite decades of under funding. In fact there is more argument Irish Water was brought in to tackle the state of water infrastructure because it was ignored, financially, by government rather than the L.A's being incompetent. So government/IW say anyway.

I don't know about that. Mr. O'Brien is probably charged by whatever hotel he stays in when he visits Ireland from his homeland in Malta. What did happen was the tax payer took a hit so Mr. O'Brien could make a profit. And I don't begrudge him that. He doesn't represent the tax payers interests.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You might be tired hearing it, but if you keep simplifying it down to incompetence, it needs to be corrected that Irish Water and the people who set up Irish Water believe the L.A's did a great job despite decades of under funding. In fact there is more argument Irish Water was brought in to tackle the state of water infrastructure because it was ignored, financially, by government rather than the L.A's being incompetent. So government/IW say anyway.

I don't know about that. Mr. O'Brien is probably charged by whatever hotel he stays in when he visits Ireland from his homeland in Malta. What did happen was the tax payer took a hit so Mr. O'Brien could make a profit. And I don't begrudge him that. He doesn't represent the tax payers interests.

Irish Water and the people who set up Irish Water once, and only once, said that the Local Authorities did a good job.

The rest of the time, and in report after report, everyone said that the local authorities did a bad job in over a century of incompetence.

There is a difference in the weight of evidence, no matter how many times you try and repeat the single statement.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Irish Water and the people who set up Irish Water once, and only once, said that the Local Authorities did a good job.

The rest of the time, and in report after report, everyone said that the local authorities did a bad job in over a century of incompetence.

There is a difference in the weight of evidence, no matter how many times you try and repeat the single statement.

So as you've inferred previously, IW say things, but we should only take them with a pinch of salt? Just something you say when trying to con the public?
I don't believe you are correct.
Can you link to IW/government calling the LA's incompetent regarding looking after water/water infrastructure for the past many decades?

There is a difference in selecting anecdotal evidence and repeating it ad nauseam to further your agenda.
Made all the more silly by the fact that the LA's are currently very much involved with IW/water infrastructure so IW are employing the skills and administrative abilities of proven incompetents?

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

Irish Water and the people who set up Irish Water once, and only once, said that the Local Authorities did a good job.

The rest of the time, and in report after report, everyone said that the local authorities did a bad job in over a century of incompetence.

Do you have any of those damning reports to hand?



I expect the Irish Water people will be giving themselves good reports...

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So as you've inferred previously, IW say things, but we should only take them with a pinch of salt? Just something you say when trying to con the public?
I don't believe you are correct.
Can you link to IW/government calling the LA's incompetent regarding looking after water/water infrastructure for the past many decades?

There is a difference in selecting anecdotal evidence and repeating it ad nauseam to further your agenda.
Made all the more silly by the fact that the LA's are currently very much involved with IW/water infrastructure so IW are employing the skills and administrative abilities of proven incompetents?

dense wrote: »

Do you have any of those damning reports to hand?



I expect the Irish Water people will be giving themselves good reports...

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDownLoad,27138,en.pdf

Let's just go back to 2009 and a value-for-money audit of the 2007-2009 investment programme.

"The full potential for obtaining economies of scale, in particular by considering synergies to be gained from adopting a cross-authority boundary and river basin perspective, should be maximised."

If ever there was a quote from a report that set out the argument for a single national utility, that was one.

Dotted throughout that report are numerous implicit criticisms of the way the local authorities spent the money. Civil servants don't like to be too harsh on one another, but there is plenty in it about what needs to be improved from the way the local authorities did things:

As for other reports that recommend a single Agency, here is what they say:

"In undertaking the Value for Money Review, the Group was aware of a number of studies which have recommended that a single water agency be established in Ireland, most notably during 2009 by the report of An Bord Snip, the Commission on Taxation, the High Level Group on Green Enterprise and the ESRI."


You can look them up yourself.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDownLoad,27138,en.pdf

Let's just go back to 2009 and a value-for-money audit of the 2007-2009 investment programme.

"The full potential for obtaining economies of scale, in particular by considering synergies to be gained from adopting a cross-authority boundary and river basin perspective, should be maximised."

If ever there was a quote from a report that set out the argument for a single national utility, that was one.

Dotted throughout that report are numerous implicit criticisms of the way the local authorities spent the money. Civil servants don't like to be too harsh on one another, but there is plenty in it about what needs to be improved from the way the local authorities did things:

As for other reports that recommend a single Agency, here is what they say:

"In undertaking the Value for Money Review, the Group was aware of a number of studies which have recommended that a single water agency be established in Ireland, most notably during 2009 by the report of An Bord Snip, the Commission on Taxation, the High Level Group on Green Enterprise and the ESRI."


You can look them up yourself.

So no, you don't have any links to government or IW calling the LA's incompetent. Fair enough.
You laid out an opinion like it was a fact. When others give an opinion they've to give you proof for some reason. You're not even doing it for your 'alternative facts'. Seems about right.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So no, you don't have any links to government or IW calling the LA's incompetent. Fair enough.
You laid out an opinion like it was a fact. When others give an opinion they've to give you proof for some reason. You're not even doing it for your 'alternative facts'. Seems about right.

I linked to one of many reports which all recommended significant changes in how water infrastructure was organised and managed because the system under the local authorities weren't working.

Technically, none of the reports actually state that they were incompetent, so technically you are correct. However, that is to ignore what the reports actually said. In reality, you just need to read the reports in full to understand how incompetent the local authorities were. Saying the reports found that they were incompetent is just paraphrasing.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDownLoad,27138,en.pdf


If ever there was a quote from a report that set out the argument for a single national utility, that was one.

The report you've linked to states that an assessment of the single utility model is outside of its remit and it contains no argument in favour of one.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I linked to one of many reports which all recommended significant changes in how water infrastructure was organised and managed because the system under the local authorities weren't working.

Technically, none of the reports actually state that they were incompetent, so technically you are correct. However, that is to ignore what the reports actually said. In reality, you just need to read the reports in full to understand how incompetent the local authorities were. Saying the reports found that they were incompetent is just paraphrasing.

Your claim would need to presuppose that the system in place before IW was fine but for the incompetence of the local authorities. The case your links put forward is that a change of approach might be preferable. The LA's and government knew the system was deteriorating and needed tackling. Nobody is arguing that. Neither government nor IW put the problem down to incompetent LA's. In fact the LA's were commended for their work despite decades of under funding, by government and IW.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Your claim would need to presuppose that the system in place before IW was fine but for the incompetence of the local authorities. The case your links put forward is that a change of approach might be preferable. The LA's and government knew the system was deteriorating and needed tackling. Nobody is arguing that. Neither government nor IW put the problem down to incompetent LA's. In fact the LA's were commended for their work despite decades of under funding, by government and IW.

Seriously? Our water infrastructure was in bits, after decades and decades of mismanagement and the people who managed it - the local authorities - were not responsible??

I know people have to stick to their "Irish Water bad" line all the time, but the stark reality is that something had to change because of local government incompetence and mismanagement. You can argue that the solution should have been different, but ignoring the reality of the mess the water infrastructure was in, is like reading a Communist pamphlet from the 1980s about how wonderful life in Russia was.

Jolly Red Giant

blanch152 wrote: »

Seriously? Our water infrastructure was in bits, after decades and decades of mismanagement and the people who managed it - the local authorities - were not responsible??

Our water infrastructure is in bits because there has been little to no investment in it for more than 100 years - to blame the LA workforce is an utter cop-out.

blanch152 wrote: »

I know people have to stick to their "Irish Water bad" line all the time, but the stark reality is that something had to change because of local government incompetence and mismanagement. You can argue that the solution should have been different, but ignoring the reality of the mess the water infrastructure was in, is like reading a Communist pamphlet from the 1980s about how wonderful life in Russia was.

The purpose for the establishment of Irish Water was to facilitate the privatisation of water in this country. It wasn't necessary to increase investment in infrastructure - it was necessary to place all water infrastructure and supply under one entity to facilitate charging for water and then privatising it.

dense

There is a new radio ad from Irish Water which says that we each use an average of 129 litres of water each day.


That's around 600m Litres.


And that's what Dublin can get through in a day.


https://www.water.ie/news/irish-water-to-take-addit/


These usage figures seem to be plucked from the sky regularly.


If the Greater Dublin Area is using between around 6 hundred million litres a day the rest of the country must be using nothing if IW's claim that we are using 129 litres each is correct.



Anyone make any sense of that?


https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/heatwave/widespread-restrictions-inevitable-unless-water-demand-falls-37099088.html

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Seriously? Our water infrastructure was in bits, after decades and decades of mismanagement and the people who managed it - the local authorities - were not responsible??

I know people have to stick to their "Irish Water bad" line all the time, but the stark reality is that something had to change because of local government incompetence and mismanagement. You can argue that the solution should have been different, but ignoring the reality of the mess the water infrastructure was in, is like reading a Communist pamphlet from the 1980s about how wonderful life in Russia was.

You cannot show IW or government claiming the water infrastructure is in a bad way due to the LA's being incompetent.
The LA's did the best they could, a great job, despite decades of under funding.

Now you're attempting to put a different coat of paint over it.
It's dismissive to bring it down to sound bite, which you've previously posted you don't like, yet here you are, 'Irish Water Bad', like the rest of us are missing part of the story. The water infrastructure needed/needs funding. An overhaul rather than decades of patchwork. Everybody agrees. Nobody is ignoring there is a problem. Pointing out, being aware, of IW being a crony quango does not take away from that.
Trying to pin everything on the LA's gives generations of government a pass, when both government and IW acknowledge that the problem with the water system was it was under funded for decades and the LA's did a great job despite this under funding. Here you are having me defend the LA's on something. It's not about sides, the LA's are made up of Councillors of all stripes.

dense

dense wrote: »

There is a new radio ad from Irish Water which says that we each use an average of 129 litres of water each day.


That's around 600m Litres.


And that's what Dublin can get through in a day.


https://www.water.ie/news/irish-water-to-take-addit/


These usage figures seem to be plucked from the sky regularly.


If the Greater Dublin Area is using between around 6 hundred million litres a day the rest of the country must be using nothing if IW's claim that we are using 129 litres each is correct.



Anyone make any sense of that?


https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/heatwave/widespread-restrictions-inevitable-unless-water-demand-falls-37099088.html

Demand was exceeding supply at that moment in time. That was why a hose pipe ban was instigated.

dense

I think Irish Water does a very good job of patting it's own back and praising those who came up with the concept.



None of which holds much water when you read the independent assessment of the whole thing from Eurostat.

Jolly Red Giant

dense wrote: »

There is a new radio ad from Irish Water which says that we each use an average of 129 litres of water each day.


That's around 600m Litres.


And that's what Dublin can get through in a day.


https://www.water.ie/news/irish-water-to-take-addit/


These usage figures seem to be plucked from the sky regularly.


If the Greater Dublin Area is using between around 6 hundred million litres a day the rest of the country must be using nothing if IW's claim that we are using 129 litres each is correct.



Anyone make any sense of that?


https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/heatwave/widespread-restrictions-inevitable-unless-water-demand-falls-37099088.html

The usage figures come from homes that have been metered - so are accurate (assuming the meters aren't complete duds). The usage is comparable with the rest of Europe - in other words - we don't waste water.

The disparity comes from the fact that half the water leaks out through the dilapidated mains infrastructure.

And by the way - the water meters installed by Siteserv and their contractors are poor quality plastic ones that will have to replaced within 10 years at most - at an enormous cost.

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

Demand was exceeding supply at that moment in time. That was why a hose pipe ban was instigated.

At that moment in time yes, but average usage for the GDA is around 540m litres, leaving the rest of the country with around 60 million if we are all using an average of 129 litres a day.


How does that work??





https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/group-claims-council-putting-cart-before-horse-191678.html

dense

dense wrote: »

At that moment in time yes, but average usage for the GDA is around 540m litres, leaving the rest of the country with around 60 million if we are all using an average of 129 litres a day.


How does that work??





https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/group-claims-council-putting-cart-before-horse-191678.html

I think your sums are wrong. Dublin uses roughly 600,000,000 litres of water out of the 1,6000,000,000 litres produced nationwide. (Those figures are roughly ones for simplicity sake,not exact to the last litre)

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

I think your sums are wrong. Dublin uses roughly 600,000,000 litres of water out of the 1,6000,000,000 litres produced nationwide. (Those figures are roughly ones for simplicity sake,not exact to the last litre)

Where are my sums wrong? If they're wrong they're wrong but show me where.



These are Irish Waters figures, we each use 129 litres a day on average.



So, 4.73m people x 129 litres = 610 million litres used a day on average for the country.



It's their ad, not mine!!



That 4.73m people includes Dublin, which by itself is using an average of 540m litres a day out of the 610m litre people are using a day on average.



Which means the rest of the country must be only using about 70m litres a day on average.


Do you.see where that just couldn't make sense?

Strange then that average usage per person nationwide is 383litres, according to Irish Times. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/water-consumption-rates-highest-in-affluent-areas-of-dublin-1.3552869

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

Strange then that average usage per person nationwide is 383litres, according to Irish Times. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/water-consumption-rates-highest-in-affluent-areas-of-dublin-1.3552869

That's a really weird article.


Is that per person or household?


It doesn't make it clear. An average personal consumption rate isn't given.


If it was 383 litres per person it would be 1.8bn litres, which would be more than IW produce per day and it would also render its own claims about almost 50% of what it produces being lost in its supply pipes quite senseless!


So we know thats not per person.



But where is the mistake in my sums?

dense

dense wrote: »

That's a really weird article.


Is that per person or household?


It doesn't make it clear. An average personal consumption rate isn't given.


If it was 383 litres per person it would be 1.8bn litres, which would be more than IW produce per day and it would also render its own claims about almost 50% of what it produces being lost in its supply pipes quite senseless!


So we know thats not per person.

But where is the mistake in my sums?

You’ve provided no link to back up your figures. I have. And, Yes, 1.8 billion would be correct. You seem to be mixing up Dublin figures and those for the whole country.

Read again the links you included and the one I have. That might clarify things.

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

You’ve provided no link to back up your figures. I have. And, Yes, 1.8 billion would be correct. You seem to be mixing up Dublin figures and those for the whole country.

Read again the links you included and the one I have. That might clarify things.

Sorry?

The average person uses 129 litres of water a day

https://www.water.ie/news/research-shows-over-50-of/


4.73m people x 129 litres = 610m litres average a day.


Therefore, on average, that is 610m litres of water used per day.


Let's call that 600m.


But average demand in Dublin alone is >500m a day.

Mr. Jerry Grant:

There is a very fundamental point around need. Deputy Ó Broin referred to requiring 545 million litres a day in 2015 . That is the average demand on a given day. There is no peak in that; there is no headroom in that.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2017-02-15a.557

If we continue to operate without the required headroom, we can expect more frequent water outages in the coming years as demand increases," a consultation report on the project, published today, says.

The reason is because some 1.67 billion litres of water is generated every day, but 658 million is lost through leaking pipes. In Dublin, there is demand for 580 million litres but just 600 million is available.

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-to-spend-13bn-pumping-waterfrom-shannon-to-ease-shortages-in-dublin-and-midlands-36838100.html


More is lost through leaking pipes than what people are using.


658m litres > 610m litres



Do you think people are using 383 litres or 129 litres on average every day? And your 1.8bn usage figure is correct? How?


You cited the 383 litres figure. What is it? It's not what the average person uses each day. That figure is 129 litres according to IW.



I don't think my figures are wrong but if they are please show where?

Edward M

dense wrote: »

Sorry?

https://www.water.ie/news/research-shows-over-50-of/


4.73m people x 129 litres = 610m litres average a day.


Therefore, on average, that is 610m litres of water used per day.


Let's call that 600m.


But average demand in Dublin alone is >500m a day.






https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2017-02-15a.557




https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-to-spend-13bn-pumping-waterfrom-shannon-to-ease-shortages-in-dublin-and-midlands-36838100.html


More is lost through leaking pipes than what people are using.


658m litres > 610m litres



Do you think people are using 383 litres or 129 litres on average every day? And your 1.8bn usage figure is correct? How?


You cited the 383 litres figure. What is it? It's not what the average person uses each day. That figure is 129 litres according to IW.



I don't think my figures are wrong but if they are please show where?

I think the 383 figure is per household on average, it has been used before.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0425/870162-water-usage-figure/

dense

Edward M wrote: »

I think the 383 figure is per household on average, it has been used before.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0425/870162-water-usage-figure/

Yes and even at that it's an odd metric to use in this conversation given that the RTE report describes it as being prone to being skewed and distorted.

Edward M

Edward M wrote: »

I think the 383 figure is per household on average, it has been used before.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0425/870162-water-usage-figure/

That would make sense. The Irish times article said that it was per person.

Where Dense seems to be getting confused is in using the amount treated in the greater Dublin area as being the amount treated for the whole country when it’s not.

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

That would make sense. The Irish times article said that it was per person.

Where Dense seems to be getting confused is in using the amount treated in the greater Dublin area as being the amount treated for the whole country when it’s not.

Where is the error in my sums though?



You said there's a mistake but won't show where beyond saying I'm confused.



What figure should I be using for the average personal usage figure, something not from the IW ad and website that I had been speaking about and have linked to?



It's 129 litres. You do the sums and show where I'm going wrong?

dense

dense wrote: »

Where is the error in my sums though?



You said there's a mistake but won't show where beyond saying I'm confused.



What figure should I be using for the average personal usage figure, something not from the IW ad and website that I had been speaking about and have linked to?



It's 129 litres. You do the sums and show where I'm going wrong?

The amount treated countrywide is in the region of 1.8 billion litres, of which .6 billion is for the greater Dublin area. That is where I think you’re confused. Of course 40% is being lost through leaks. There is a difference between what is treated and what is used.

ianwalsh2

dense wrote: »

Where is the error in my sums though?



You said there's a mistake but won't show where beyond saying I'm confused.



What figure should I be using for the average personal usage figure, something not from the IW ad and website that I had been speaking about and have linked to?



It's 129 litres. You do the sums and show where I'm going wrong?

129 Litres is the average figure per person used in the home, based on the figures from domestic meters. There is a lot lost through leakeage, and then the rest is used commercially, i.e. factories, agriculture, hotels, pubs, offices etc.

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

The amount treated countrywide is in the region of 1.8 billion litres, of which .6 billion is for the greater Dublin area. That is where I think you’re confused.

Mind if I now ask you for some links to give some background to those figures?


You say that 1.8bn litres is produced, but of that, 657million litres is lost through leakage in the network before anyone uses any of it.


https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-to-spend-13bn-pumping-waterfrom-shannon-to-ease-shortages-in-dublin-and-midlands-36838100.html

That would leave around 1.1bn litres.

Average personal usage is just around half of that, at 610m litres a day based on IW's figure of 129 litres × 4.73m people.

How on earth can Dublin have an average usage of anything remotely close to 500m or 600m litres a day if the entire country's average usage is 610m litres per day?

The average person uses 129 litres of water a day

https://www.water.ie/news/research-shows-over-50-of/

dense

ianwalsh2 wrote: »

129 Litres is the average figure per person used in the home, based on the figures from domestic meters. There is a lot lost through leakeage, and then the rest is used commercially, i.e. factories, agriculture, hotels, pubs, offices etc.

Ok non domestic or commercial usage must be around 600 million litres a day on top of domestic usage then?


So roughly 600m for domestic use, the same for commercial and another 600 lost in the network?


That rounds off around the 1.8bn that MaryAnne84 said it produces a day I suppose.



We usually only hear about the domestic use I think.



It's interesting to see ballpark how much the businesses use.

ianwalsh2

dense wrote: »

Ok non domestic or commercial usage must be around 600 million litres a day on top of domestic usage then?


So roughly 600m for domestic use, the same for commercial and another 600 lost in the network?


That rounds off around the 1.8bn that MaryAnne84 said it produces a day I suppose.



We usually only hear about the domestic use I think.



It's interesting to see ballpark how much the businesses use.

I think water lost through leakage is about 45%, so assuming the 1.8Bn figure is right your ballpark figures are more like 800 lost, 600 domestic and 400 non domestic.