[Greenbuilding] low flow shower heads

JOHN SALMEN terrain at shaw.ca
Tue May 17 19:31:24 PDT 2011

I think you are being a devils advocate here even though you said you don't
want to start a fight. You are basically saying that if we consume more
resources we are helping the economy.... 


When people ask what environmental building means I use water as a prime
example that informs the choices we make. Water takes on a little bit of
every thing in its path - i.e. it has the potential of becoming both
contaminated and a potential source of contamination.  This covers every
material from the roof to the ground and every pipe and system (including
energy systems) involved in its distribution and subsequent discharge. 


The end product is not the product that fell from the sky or originated in
the lake or aquifier that supplies the domestic water. It is a contaminated
product that really can't be 'purified' despite the impetus to  the economy
that the challenge might create.  Also the energy involved in creating the
system to maintain the 'demand' is not a recoverable equation.




From: greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of lee
Sent: May-17-11 7:01 PM
To: Green Building
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] low flow shower heads


So then if you are on municipal water systems  and are willing to pay for
the water and sewer you are then helping the economy (providing jobs for the
power, water, and sewer company workers) the water used by the shower will
not be polluted to the point that the sewer system will not be able to
return it to the aquifer.  

I still fail to see why "The planet cannot afford such individuals with
little regard for the rest of us." is a valid stance on this topic when all
it does it remove a portion of water from availability for a time, it is
returned. It even helps a number of people if you take into account all the
people working in the field of supplying the water and energy(if you are on
municipal services).

On 5/17/2011 6:43 PM, Reuben Deumling wrote: 

Not really that simple.
For most of us on municipal water systems there's a lot of
infrastructure, energy, pipes, trucks, pumps, chlorine, filters on
this incoming end, and a similar but even more complicated and
expensive infrastructure on the sewer end. All that costs money and
materials to install and maintain and operate.
Back in the seventies Amory Lovins figured out that if you back a kWh
through the appliance, wires, transmission lines to the power plant
and back to the mine, not using that kWh actually translates into a
far greater upstream investment that isn't required. Whether it is a
factor of 4 or 10 isn't really the point. The same holds true for
water except the units and losses are different.
The water molecules are still there, but they're always there even
after they are polluted or not recharged in the aquifer from which
they were pumped. Where the water is, whether it is drinkable, all of
this is important.
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:36 PM, lee Weaver  <mailto:lgweaver at gmail.com>
<lgweaver at gmail.com> wrote:

The water goes right back into the ground.  it's not like that water is
now trying to start a fight I'm truly asking a valid (IMHO) question.

Greenbuilding mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110517/b9e2cff0/attachment.html>

More information about the Greenbuilding mailing list