Yes, I would agree with all of that. Pool guy comes twice a week.
But if our neighbours have similar evaporation, and other clients of the pool company have similar evaporation, after a few years one can probably assume that if we do have a leak it must be precisely the same size leak as everyone else 
It is a bit upsetting how much drinking water ends up down the drain or on the garden. Even without watching Oxfam adverts.
One of my customers sells rainwater harvesting kits, where you have 5000 or 7500 litre tank(s) in the garden (underground to stop frost and bacteria) with a filter and a pump that feeds a second header tank in the loft for non-drinking water. It’s a really good idea but the return on investment is quite long and you’ll probably need a builder to dig and level the big hole and a plumber to install the roof tank and re-pipe the toilets and washing machine. This would happily run a sprinkler in a hosepipe ban.
My family in the USA had lawn sprinkler use limited to 1 or 2 days a week about 15-20 years ago because of a drought, and it was never returned to free usage. The water comes from small wells, but with new houses being built the groundwater level is falling and could even bring in saltwater if too low, which would ruin everyone’s grass.
I use two private water supplies, one in France fed by a spring up the hill, and one at work in the UK pumped up from a well. It’s quite a lot of work for the people looking after them, not so much putting in a chlorine tablet every now and again but the administrative hassles of having inspections and test reports. The French water is slightly too acidic and too soft to meet standards, and has to be exempted every few years, but is delicious and real mineral water. The water at work is also good – no chlorine taste – but we sometimes get scare letters from the local council about coliform bacteria. The supply sometimes runs dry in the summer, so having sprinklers or filling a pool would not make one popular with the neighbours.
Mains water might not be the most efficient, but it’s definitely the easiest. I don’t recall the percentage but quite a lot of mains water is lost in transmission (if that’s the word), though hundreds or thousands of small leaks between the reservoir and your house. Repairing or renewing the pipes might remove the need for hosepipe bans, but think of the expense. A farmer friend had problems with his supply, but it turned out that the water pressure inside the pipe was the only think stopping the asbestos-concrete pipe collapsing. It’s easier for the water company to just keep increasing mains pressure.
Peter wrote:
I agree, which is why I cycle to work when I can But the ability to do that was also a lifestyle choice, which for most people is a big tradeoff between quality of life (expressed as not spending hours a day commuting) and earning another 10-20k and being able to buy yet another 4×4 or a bigger mortgage house, and most choose the latter.
I disagree on the statement about opportunity cost for “most people” – for most people, the time cost has no monetary opportunity cost. Most people are not business owners but salaried (and don’t get overtime) or wage workers with available overtime not being anywhere near 10 or 20k worth per year.
The other thing is for people who like to ride bikes, time spent commuting in a car is wasted and unenjoyable, but time spent commuting on a bike is a fun activity that gets you fit (and means you don’t need to go to a gym or go running or whatever – it actually kills two birds with one stone, cardio fitness and transport at the same time). Of course it’s highly situational, but when I cycle to work (about 45 minutes each way, versus 25 minutes each way driving, it’s about 20km each way) I’ve actually reclaimed 50 minutes per day for a leisure activity, statistically I’ll have not merely a longer life but a longer healthy life so the benefits are pretty substantial.
But if our neighbours have similar evaporation, and other clients of the pool company have similar evaporation, after a few years one can probably assume that if we do have a leak it must be precisely the same size leak as everyone else
There is probably another variable then. Perhaps they are not covered? Look at the pools you see from the air; I would say most are not covered, and fewer in France will be covered than in the UK because it is warmer there. In the UK you can’t really run a pool unless you either (a) adopt a hi-tech approach or (b) chuck a load of money at it. Nearly all UK pool owners go for the latter. Then you get onto insulation; almost nobody does that and people spend fortunes on heating, or put up with a very short usable season.
I disagree on the statement about opportunity cost for “most people”
I was getting at the fact that a higher paid job tends to be at the end of a long commute. I have interviewed countless people for a 25k job here who would get, or currently get, 40k in London, 2hrs’ total time travel away. They then tell me they want 40k down here
Commuting is a huge energy cost, regardless of whether it is by car, train, plane, etc. The only way “we” are going to reduce this energy consumption is by living more locally – like people used to do in days long gone.
Peter wrote:
In the UK you can’t really run a pool unless you either (a) adopt a hi-tech approach or (b) chuck a load of money at it.
When I was a kid we lived in the south of England for a while. Our well-to-do neighbour had a pool and neither went for the hi-tech approach nor chucked any money at it. Of course all the kids in the village went to theirs in the summer because they had a pool, there was a thermometer in there and I remember seeing it read 10 degrees C.
We still swam in it anyway. There were frequently frogs in the pool with us (they had a pond nearby). No, it wasn’t chlorinated… None of us actually caught any diseases.
These days I’m walking distance from Port Erin beach. On Saturday once we found a spot free of jelly fish we went swimming, although I think we were the only adults in the bay (kids seem to not care that the water is really cold although we heard them screaming about the jelly fish).
Ok. I think when
Peter wrote:
A private pool uses almost no water. A refill is done every few years only.
you perhaps meant to say, if they are always covered properly when not in use.
You only need look at aerial photography of California/Florida/Spain/S of France/Italy to see that at least 90% of pools have no cover during the daytime in season.
Agree with Alioth above. Also, assuming you’re cycling at peak traffic time, i.e. just before 9am and just after 5pm in the UK, the bicycle’s average speed probably isn’t much less than that of a car. Even better if you can find a more direct route not available to motorists.
But the 15k a year extra for the London job comes out of taxable income, and then you have to pay for the commuting, so probably don’t see much of the 15k.
Peter wrote:
living more locally
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I live in a community which has one of the lowest tax rates in Switzerland (I think rank 18 out of 2222) but that comes at a price. Restricted snow removal, as few infrastructure as possible to maintain and no silly donations to heaven knows what cultural rubbish for starters. No free lunch I am afraid. If I see the tax level at some cities next door and how they shell out money to sponsor theaters, art collections and heaven knows what else, well… community services should be restricted to the real stuff a community has to provide. Trash collection, as few administration as possible, keeping the roads in acceptable state and so on. People who want a pool, a library, a theater, e.t.c. should pay for it out of their own pocket. Either it runs at a profit or profit neutral or finds private sponsors who enjoy reading their names off theater seats or close it down.
Wholeheartedly agree BUT, if that were to happen here then firstly the local council staff would have apoplexy, then go off sick through “stress”, then take early retirement on medical grounds, then be entitled to a full working life pension (and dont forget the tax free gratuity), and still there would be no redundancies. I jest of course but I did ask my local authority (a long time ago) how much of the total budget was spent on statutory services and how much on discretionery services. The answer was that the cost of calculating was far too onerous and it would not be provided unless I submitted a FOI request and then because of “staff in confidence” issues it may be redacted!!!!
I know there are a great many hard working public employees but we shall have to put some curbs on the numbers else our taxes, local and others, will bankrupt the country.
But the 15k a year extra for the London job comes out of taxable income, and then you have to pay for the commuting, so probably don’t see much of the 15k.
Indeed – it is partly a fallacy, but you still come out with say 8k extra. Accordingly, the trains and the roads are packed at rush hour.
if they are always covered properly when not in use.
Yes, exactly.
it read 10 degrees C.
gallois wrote:
Um @ Mooney Driver, you may be right but isn’t that the excuse used to close airfields in some parts of Europe?
Airfields are infrastructure and need to be regarded as such. Either they have a corporate ownership who then is responsible for the finances or they are owned by the communities who then have to pay for them as much as they pay for roads. The example is that here for instance, our community does not clear snow in winter except for roads which the state sets priority and sais they HAVE to be cleaned. Also the state sais that certain infrastructure must be maintained, this can go up to the country level in the case of national roads for instance. If airfields would finally be integrated into infrastructure plans instead of being treated as dispensable, the hurdle to close them is much bigger. Apart, a well kept airfield should attract enough businesses and traffic to pay for itself, those who do not usually have either mismanagement or politically based operating restrictions. Airfields which are used by the community itself or present a clear source of income for the community via increased tax returns or whatever should if necessary also receive public funds, if it is all in all a profitable situation and of course (which includes the profitable situation) where it is vital for the economy of that community and the surrounding area.
EuroFlyer wrote:
I have come to the conclusion that the final necessary momentum that actually pushed the vote over to the pro Brexit side has been engineered, by false arguments, lies, and social media campaigns.
Correct.
EuroFlyer wrote:
Decisions with such an enormity just shouldn’t ever, ever be “boiled down” into simple yes or no, because every educated adult knows that by such simplification, truth dies a miserable death.
This happens in nations where democracy has not been exercised over a long time or never. An educated population with routine in referendi is usually well equipped to reckognize demagogues and lies and send them packing. But it is difficult, to that I agree. The fault however is not asking the people but the fault is letting a political class get so much power that referendi are the only chance many have to express their contempt of that class. Referendi should be the rule, not the exception.
EuroFlyer wrote:
Popular votes, as we see every day, are gateways for demagogues, for pitchmen of simplified and falsified truths.
In my opinion, people who willingly and openly tell lies in such campaigns need to be exposed massively and clearly and in some cases even legally prosecuted. This is where the British government and also the opposition failed unilaterally as they never understood just HOW frustrated the people they are supposed to represent are. The other classical example for that was the Trump election after Clinton called Trump’s supporters “deplorable”. This cost her the presidency in all likelyhood, because from that moment on, not anybody who was at the time supporting Trump would cross over to someone who has called him mentally unsuitable for vote.
Demagogues and charlatans exist in every nation, but the difference is that in a nation where people trust their government, they stand no chance. Only in places where the government has misled and lied to them in the first place and a distrust is eminent do they present a danger. Obviously the British governments of the recent decades pre Brexit have failed to win their voters trust.
