Dear moniker, you seem passionate towards the cause of Singapore and understand the country's needs. Perhaps, you can step forward and contribute your ideas to government. We need talented citizens to help us run the country this century.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
VERY VERY INPORTANT NEWS: New Water Exposed!! Si Liao Lah!
- Thread starter ahleebabasingaporethief
- Start date
Dear moniker, you seem passionate towards the cause of Singapore and understand the country's needs. Perhaps, you can step forward and contribute your ideas to government. We need talented citizens to help us run the country this century.
Sorry, not interested.
Talented citizen migrated, you dunno meh?
A question for all.To both the rocket scientist typo and any Ah Beng may also answer too.I was thinking aloud of what the forumer "Trout" wrote.Decentralizing the process of water treatment that is.The bottom line is the cost.Let me repeat THE COST.Now,if cost is not a factor we could import water from Alps mountains and flush it down the toilets,right !.So what would be the most cost effective method to DELIVER water to our homes so that we can flush it all down the toilet & drains and yet have a little for human consumption too.The emphasis is on 'little'.&' delivery'..Why? Because out of a ton of water a consumer pays for ; hardly a small portion is actually consumed-for cooking or drinking.And that the logistics of delivery determines its cost effectiveness.
So the question is how to resolve this 'waste not and want not' problem so as to speak.
So the question is how to resolve this 'waste not and want not' problem so as to speak.
I toyed with the idea before I gave it up. The problem with decentralized water sources is how decentralized you want to go? Every HDB block or district? You need to consider the targeted storage amount and storage space. We have to realize Singapore is a dense urban country which means that piping in Singapore can look like CPU circuitry.
If decentralization is implemented on large scale, you either end up with a very large public service or outsourcing which you really do not want as you can expect companies to cut corners to make their profit margins. EU has bad outcomes for water privatization.
If they do decentralize massively and outsource and I am still in Singapore, I will buy Evian for bathing, drinking and washing. Problem RO membranes, is after X times of usage, it gets compromised and does not do the job well. This will be definitely cheaper than the foreseeable medical bills.
If you do not maintain it regularly, you end up with a whole assortment of problems. I let someone else explain what those are. So if the maintenance people do not come down often, you would be drinking seriously compromised waters. Let's face it. We are always drinking water that is contaminated from the point of absolute purity standards of 100 percent. But is the water contaminated from the standard that the concentration of substances overwhelms our bodies to remove them or accumulate to the extent they have side effects on us before we die a natural death? You know, kidneys, lungs and other organs are membranes, and not too different from RO membranes.
If organ growing and harvesting becomes viable cheap and readily available, well, some degree of contamination may be way ok. So we need to strike a balance of contamination levels that practically affect us of time or not and costs. Single substance toxicity is difficult enough. Cross substance toxicity is even more complicated and expensive to test for.
The investment costs, maintenance and replacement costs, plus potential law suit costs are substantial. One or two showcase of decentralized water treatment today is ok. It is still better to concentrate in a few places for water recycling to facilitate monitoring and control. Too many sites and pipes and membrane locations opens the can of worms of complexity and guarantees the probability of an incident reaching 1 very quickly. Rooftop rainwater collection and purification maybe more cost feasible to augment existing water supplies. I admit I have not thought through that carefully. But it seems NEA is more concerned with mosquitoes than water in Singapore. So rainwater collection is still disallowed legally. But great work in their fight against Dengue with more new cases. I will say less of H1N1 for our MOH Cow.
Toilet flushing has been considered for water conservation long time ago else where BUT NOT IN SINGAPORE's context. I guess the one with thick head is you! Doesn't it sound strange to you that for a country that is always lamenting the importance of water sources could well allow portable water to be wasted away in toilet flushing? No?
So far, nothing brought up here is new, just a matter of application. I didn't assert that I have come up with new idea here; in fact I have already stated very clearly that other countries have been doing it. So where the hell do you get the idea that I am asserting I am smart in that area? Here again, you are rambling one round without saying anything exciting here.
Shorted sightedness again. The whole system will benefits generations, not just one generation! You mean after you are dead, the whole sunk cost is expanded and the newer generation have to pay for another set of sunk cost? Talking about common sense! Geesh!
Goh Meng Seng
So far, nothing brought up here is new, just a matter of application. I didn't assert that I have come up with new idea here; in fact I have already stated very clearly that other countries have been doing it. So where the hell do you get the idea that I am asserting I am smart in that area? Here again, you are rambling one round without saying anything exciting here.
Shorted sightedness again. The whole system will benefits generations, not just one generation! You mean after you are dead, the whole sunk cost is expanded and the newer generation have to pay for another set of sunk cost? Talking about common sense! Geesh!
Goh Meng Seng
we have a similar dilemma in california, albeit made less geopolitically troublesome by north and south sharing the same statehood. north normally produces more water than south, but south sucks more water than north due to the large habitated area and population. the situation is exacerbated by a statewide drought. water rationing is imposed in several northern counties in the last 2 years. but the average household here uses a lot more water than the average household in sg, mainly because we water our lawns regularly to keep the yard green and pristine, and yes, with mainly portable water from the tap. more households are using "grey" water, but the percentage is negligible to make a real dent.
after the news breakout about pharmaceutical residue in portable water from the tap, there was public alarm. sales of filtration devices, bottled water, and delivered water went thru' the roof. however, many lately found that bottled, filtered and delivered water were mostly from tap water. anyways, filtration doesn't remove all impurities, especially viruses and drug residue dissolved in water. folks are still fooled by alarmist reactions, but still cling to the faintest attempt at treating or doing something to the water which is consumed, just to feel "safe". a lot of the more drastic filtration devices, using ro with uv light, are sold. in a way, that contributes to a "distributed" attempt at water purification where citizens pay for the hardware at their own choosing. a billion dollar market is spawned.
for me, i don't trust the state and county govs in getting the water thoroughly cleaned, and i don't trust bottled, filtered and delivered water from companies which claim they tap it directly from snow and mountain springs. i decided to invest in an affordable distillation system, the waterwise 8800, which produces 6 gallons in a day, more than enough for drinking, cooking and making coffee. it doesn't use much electricity and it operates quietly. at the end of each distillation cycle, one can see the muck and guck at the bottom of the boiling container, and this from so called clean tap water.
<style></style>Thanks for the long reply.I agree with you that decentralization is not for Sinkie.Certainly not.Given its size of course.Perhaps for Malaysia,India or China.
Coming back to what I indeed asked/wrote..You misunderstood.Perhaps my communication skill is badly in need of servicing.
But unwittingly you too raised what I queried,like this---"If they do decentralize massively and outsource and I am still in Singapore, I will buy Evian for bathing, drinking and washing. Problem RO membranes, is after X times of usage, it gets compromised and does not do the job well. This will be definitely cheaper than the foreseeable medical bills."
Precisely!
That is indeed my question.That is how many sinkies actually drink out of the tap?..Mac & Coke ,remember !..So why all this fuss about the most distilled water delivered to our homes so that we can flush it down our toilets and drains?..Since we consume hardly much of the 'pure' water delivered to our homes at the highest cost possible....Do we really need 'pure' water to flush toilets & bath?...Can there be a delivery system that could pump "Evian" to our homes just for drinking ?..
I am inviting bright ideas here.Solutions that is...
Nobody knows for sure...
Cost is always difficult to estimate - there's capital expenditure cost, and then there's operational expenditure cost.
If one want to minimize opex costs, generally the capex goes up.
Centralization allows for economies of scale for certain things, like just buying x pumps instead of x*y smaller pumps for y smaller plants - the total capex is lower with bigger pumps than smaller pumps. Also, the opex cost of running 1 giant pump at capacity is lower than running y pumps at capacity to achieve the flow of that 1 giant pump.
However, what one gain on economies of scale, it lose on operational flexibility when is particularly critical when all sort of funny things start happening the older the whole infrastructure gets.
Then the O&M costs start going up, which might more than offset the original intended savings in opex if a centralized system is used.
Have always been in the belief that real-time flexibility is superior to anticipated economies of scale obtained by centralizing.
Cheers,
Trout
<style></style>
That is indeed my question.That is how many sinkies actually drink out of the tap?..Mac & Coke ,remember !..So why all this fuss about the most distilled water delivered to our homes so that we can flush it down our toilets and drains?..Since we consume hardly much of the 'pure' water delivered to our homes at the highest cost possible....Do we really need 'pure' water to flush toilets & bath?...Can there be a delivery system that could pump "Evian" to our homes just for drinking ?..
I am inviting bright ideas here.Solutions that is...
having alternate pipes and a delivery system are too cost prohibitive to build. construction becomes more challenging with a lack of space and underground ductway for such a massive piping project. moreover, pipes corrode and collect deposits over time, and the more massive the network of pipes, the higher the cost of maintenance and the more daunting the task. everyone in sg go eat shit and drink pee.
One main Big Factor is Cost structure, lets illustrate for Water Bill which most people do not read, understand and even questions.
1) p.cu = $1.17
2) Water borne fee p.cu = $0.28
3) Water conservation Tax @ 30% & 45% of water usage.
4) Sanitary application fitting per unit = $2.8
5) GST @ 7% of final bill.
Assuming water consumption of 50 cu per month, ie.
1) p.cu = $1.17 = (1.17 x 50) = $58.5
2) Water borne fee p.cu = $0.28 = (0.28 x 50) = $14
3) Water conservation Tax @ 30% & 45% of water usage. = ($58.5 x 45%) = $26.32
4) Sanitary application fitting per unit = $2.8 ($2.8 x 3 units) = $8.4
5) GST @ 7% of final bill. = ($58.5 + $14 + $26.32 + $8.4) x 7% = $114.7 p.m
Point 2 is a double count as the cost is recovered from Raw water processing to Newwater plant.
Point 3 do we need a water conservation tax of 45% (very high rate)
Point 4 is not a true reflection of usage as many people can use 1 unit & via vs.
Point 5 GST of 7%, already a conservation tax is imposed, let alone it is an infrastruture services of necessity.
So What is the real cost of water ??????
Raw water processing est. $0.4 p. cu
Newwater price at $1 p.cu (sale price), production cost <$0.80.
Raw water from Malaysia, $0.0xxx per thousand gallon
Cost of R.O from sea water i.e. $1 p.cu depending on energy price.
Cost of Rain water treament from malaysia $0.xx ????? not known.
Distribution cost $0.1 p.cu.
So folks have a very good thought for the cost & price of water in sillypore.
1) p.cu = $1.17
2) Water borne fee p.cu = $0.28
3) Water conservation Tax @ 30% & 45% of water usage.
4) Sanitary application fitting per unit = $2.8
5) GST @ 7% of final bill.
Assuming water consumption of 50 cu per month, ie.
1) p.cu = $1.17 = (1.17 x 50) = $58.5
2) Water borne fee p.cu = $0.28 = (0.28 x 50) = $14
3) Water conservation Tax @ 30% & 45% of water usage. = ($58.5 x 45%) = $26.32
4) Sanitary application fitting per unit = $2.8 ($2.8 x 3 units) = $8.4
5) GST @ 7% of final bill. = ($58.5 + $14 + $26.32 + $8.4) x 7% = $114.7 p.m
Point 2 is a double count as the cost is recovered from Raw water processing to Newwater plant.
Point 3 do we need a water conservation tax of 45% (very high rate)
Point 4 is not a true reflection of usage as many people can use 1 unit & via vs.
Point 5 GST of 7%, already a conservation tax is imposed, let alone it is an infrastruture services of necessity.
So What is the real cost of water ??????
Raw water processing est. $0.4 p. cu
Newwater price at $1 p.cu (sale price), production cost <$0.80.
Raw water from Malaysia, $0.0xxx per thousand gallon
Cost of R.O from sea water i.e. $1 p.cu depending on energy price.
Cost of Rain water treament from malaysia $0.xx ????? not known.
Distribution cost $0.1 p.cu.
So folks have a very good thought for the cost & price of water in sillypore.
Actually 1 miniature treatment plant can essentially be contained with a 40 ft shipping container and made to sit on top of a block of flats. I have designed and built a couple of those container membrane plants with sufficient daily flow to supply a block of flats. I actually do think we can massively decentralize the treatment infrastructure to near PoU locations.
And really, you don't need RO membranes with raw reservoir water, just UF membranes would sufficient, and then post UF-treatment with UV (to kill any microbes which might have permeated) and activated carbon filter (to bind any possible EDCs which might have permeated).
Well, its not like the malaysian water we get is very clean to begin with, and we've been quite happy with it for a very long time.
Cheers,
Trout
Last edited:
BTW, your common sense Maths is no sense at all.
I will give you the lead. If the piping system last 100 years (it should last more), you should calculate the projection of total amount of water possibly used within these 100 years, taking into consideration of population growth. 30% of that and you calculate the potential savings vs New Water. This should be the proper way of making comparison study, not your kind of coffeeshop calculations.
Furthermore, while the costing of reconfiguration of piping is fixed, New Water treatment fees is not. It means that the difference in pricing between New Water and non-portable water produced may vary. Do your Maths and see whether the sunk cost is worthy of investment.
Goh Meng Seng
I will give you the lead. If the piping system last 100 years (it should last more), you should calculate the projection of total amount of water possibly used within these 100 years, taking into consideration of population growth. 30% of that and you calculate the potential savings vs New Water. This should be the proper way of making comparison study, not your kind of coffeeshop calculations.
Furthermore, while the costing of reconfiguration of piping is fixed, New Water treatment fees is not. It means that the difference in pricing between New Water and non-portable water produced may vary. Do your Maths and see whether the sunk cost is worthy of investment.
Goh Meng Seng
Dear Trout,
Could we do the same for non-portable water?
Or simply just put another set of pipes down for toilet flushing and using untreated water piped for that purpose?
Goh Meng Seng
Actually its not that complicated if the alternate water supply pipes are only differentiated near PoU if need be. The water mains just carries the raw reservoir feed water (sand-filtered to rid of suspended solids before it enters the mains) as opposed to tertiary treated fresh water which it is carrying now.
The supply differentiation only occurs before PoU. In industrial estates requiring high quality water, drinking water and raw water, the raw reservoir water is split into 2 streams, one which get channeled into the grey water supply system for your typical flushing, irrigation use, and the other to a small treatment plant which is subject to UF-UV-activated carbon treatment. The effluent from the plant is drinking quality, and is split again into 2 streams, one which is subjected to RO-DI treatment in a further purification step and supplied as high grade industry water, while the other is supplied as portable water.
In residential sites, the RO-DI treatment step is negated, and just the portable and greywater supplies are present.
You still use the same water mains, and the differentiation only occurs near PoU.
Just my 2 cents.
Cheers,
Trout
<style></style>Allow me to think out of the box.Suppose,just suppose we deliver a reasonably 'cleaned' water to our homes which does not cost as much as the 'Newater".Which is good enough to flush toilets and bath.But not good enough to drink.But we add say further distillation and purification plant for drinking purpose on top of each and every HDB block which delivers water as good as "Evian"...(we could very well pump Evian if need be.)..Don't we have solution?
Last edited:
If what Trout has suggested could work, there should not be a problem with alternate piping.
Meaning, raw water piped to individual block of flats using the present piping system. Then split into two, one for treatment for portable water while the other for toilet flushing.
Goh Meng Seng
Yes, that would be ideal and who needs New Water anymore?
We may still retain sewage treatment water for industrial use.
Goh Meng Seng
Similar threads
