It's Not Easy Being Green

Did anyone just see the BBC2 programme above just now? (8pm Tuesday) There was a guy who was diverting his rainwater into a storage tank and then using it for flushing his toilet. Does anyone know what building control would think about this? Are there regulations covering this sort of thing? And do the regulations actually make any sense anyway (unlike partP!)?
I was thinking the tricky part would be soem sort of filtration to ensure your 15mm pipes to the toilet aren't being continually bunged up. I guess you'd need an overflow and also a connection to the storage tank to the mains supply in case there isn't much rain.
How would you prevent the water stagnating?
Also, the tank would need to be below roof height but above toilet cistern height which does limit the options somewhat.
Anyway, any thoughts anyone?
Jon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I suppose it could just as easily be sold to us with direct delivery from the sky. :-)

Eat lots of hot currys?

--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mike Halmarack" <...> wrote in message

I was wondering how long it will take to environmentally repay the materials and other resources used in making the water wheel by producing about 60 watts. Likewise with wind turbines. need to consider the resources used in producing it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John wrote:

Indeed, and the cost payback would probably be enormous. I imagine the whole lot will rot and fall apart before it's paid for itself. But the engineer in me thinks it would be wonderful, regardless of such economic realities!
Jon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Depends how much you buy and how much you make/steal/reuse/adapt.
--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even that's not free. To be realistic carbon-wise, you've got to cost your time in terms of carbon emissions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John wrote:

Will he really only get 60W from that wheel?
MBQ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

That's probably optimistic too. To get 60W he'd need to be flowing 20 litres/sec over a 3 metre drop, and converting the potential energy to electricity with 100% efficiency.
Phil.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Er - that's nearly 600W.
Work done is force[1] x distance[2]. Force of 20 litres is 196N. 3 x 196X8W
[1] In Newtons [2] In meters
--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Guy King wrote:

oops - forgot 'g'
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29 Mar 2006 01:53:56 -0800 someone who may be snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote this:-

The question they didn't answer is why they went for a water wheel, rather then a turbine. A turbine would produce more electricity, but doesn't look as attractive.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HI David
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 07:22:30 +0100, David Hansen

I think they have plans for a wind turbine as well...
I think that the water wheel was perhaps an 'easier' first project, and would probably provide a continuous source of power (as long as the stream is flowing) whereas the wind turbines will only produce power when there's enough wind....
As with all of these things - the challenge is to store the energy 'somewhere' until you need it. If you can find a cost-effective way to store it, then it may be 'better' to have something like a water-wheel that produces a reliable (although lower) output - rather than a wind turbine which produces higher output but intermittently....
Regards Adrian
======return email munged================take out the papers and the trash to reply
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 07:44:41 +0100 someone who may be Adrian
this:-

I was thinking of a water turbine. Although these don't look as attractive their output is more closely matched to the input needed for generating electricity, usually avoiding the need for a gear box. Water wheels need gear boxes to convert the slow rotation of their output shaft into something suitable for connection to a generator, which adds more losses. Although advances in electronics, driven by the wind turbine industry, make this less of a problem than it was such electronics are not 100% efficient either.
Water wheels were used to drive machinery by line shafting in mills, but if/when electricity was installed it was provided by a turbine, fed from the same water supply.
It will be interesting to see how much more slowly the water wheel rotates when electricity is being taken from it.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:13:30 +0100, David Hansen

I would hazard the guess that at these small power levels the waterwheel is less lossy, as long as the buckets don't leak.
Pelton wheels seem to be most efficient at high head, then as the head gets lower propeller type devices are better.

This interest me, I take it that a Pelton wheel is only power matched at one speed, when the buckets are moving at half the water velocity, so to avoid throttling losses you either drive it constantly or change nozzles?
What struck me about the breast shot wheel is that it is not lossy and there is some feedback, with it's speed adjusting to the torque extracted from it. As the load increases then the wheel slows and allows the buckets to fill a bit more, presumably maximum power is then when the buckets are brim full, which is maximum torque times the slowest speed is it not?
I did a rapid calculation that, I am ashamed to say, seemed to indicate my family's (total) energy needs would be provided by 500m^3 falling through 30 metres every day!
AJH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The nozzle is variable - it's a tapering thing with a spear-shaped rod that fits up the the middle to throttle the flow.
--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:57:44 +0100 someone who may be AJH

Changing nozzles is possible, but is a spanner job. Having two or three turbines, like two or three boilers, gives flexibility. Also excess electricity can be dumped into storage.

Indeed. I expect to see it rotating rather more slowly when electricity is being generated.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:53:06 +0100, David Hansen

Makes more sense to store it as water at the higher head where possible.
This is one of the things we calculated when deciding on the diesel genset, the cost of storing electricity as chemical energy was more that the value of the generated electricity, storing it as diesel was cheaper even if the specific consumption went up.
AJH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do the regulations say you need a water meter if you connect a turbine to the main? ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 20:36:11 GMT, "dennis@home"

I imagine it's OK as long as they are not connected by a hosepipe :-)
A neighbour says he was offered a new plastic water pipe from the road to the house in exchange for accepting a water meter, tempting.
AJH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, they forbid it in the first place. Sorry!
--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.