Nestlé Waters exhausts water from Vittel

[sicetaitsimple]

so double investment, double maintenance, double billing and billing, with also a double network in housing and building to lead to a risk of error or a gas plant on the water points where the two networks will be available (when already see what the law requires for rainwater networks ...)

You just forgot double flanges, connection points, and linear pipelines, so double the risk of leaks.

In France, it is estimated that approximately 25% leaks drinking water networks on average. So we would go to perhaps 40% or 50%, because the potential leak would be doubled while the overall consumption should not change.

Completely agree for the rest.

[Janic]

I also have trouble believing in the profitability of the dual network ...
Already a minimum quality criterion should be established for the "non-potable" water delivered. Is it water from the river directly, with coarse filtration, or "clean" water not drinkable according to European laws but which would be considered drinkable by many people in other countries?

The minimum criteria (valid or not) are already established so question settled

If it is raw water without treatment, will people accept a variability in the quality of this water? there is always a complaining that it is too expensive even when it's free when the quality of what we provide them drops ... (and there it would not be free)

The so-called drinking waters are all treated so a settled issue too.

In the end we would end up with 2 network, one for drinking water that would be little used,

On the contrary ! In which cases is this drinking water used? For the food, the dishes, the care of the body does all that relates to the direct hygiene, possibly the watering of the vegetables of the garden. But laundry, toilets, watering cars, etc ... do not need to be drinkable

so with a risk of stagnation in the network and all that implies and another for water finally almost drinkable, so double investment, double maintenance, double statement and billing, with also a double network in housing and building for lead to a risk of error or a gas plant on the water points where the two networks will be available (when we already see what the law requires for rainwater networks ...)

This is only a problem of technique, not politics! The current losses of the network are related to the age of the cast iron pipelines which degrade, oxidize with time, this is no longer the case of the networks in "plastic" much more flexible to the solicitations of the ground. On the other hand, all the wastewaters no longer require any treatment, which is expensive and polluting. Finally, it is not a question of changing everything in one block, any more than the current networks have been done quickly. Similarly, lead pipes have not been banned on new homes and old houses. This is only technique! and therefore, people who refuse to drink tainted tap water, showers that stink of chlorine or ozone and other means would save the purchase of bottles of spring water or mineral.
Finally, when we see the crazy sums invested in the road network, the telephone networks and other modernities, a real network of really drinkable water would be derisory in comparison.

[Ahmed]

Janic, you write:

On the other hand, all the greywaters no longer require any treatment, which is expensive and polluting.

I do not understand why, the water must be cleared before discharge into the river ...

Further:

Lastly, when one sees the crazy sums invested in the road network, the telephone networks and other modernities, a real networks of really drinking water would be derisory in comparison.

It's always complicated to reason in terms of rationality (sic), while the ends of our society are irrational ...

[sicetaitsimple]

My question, asked in a way that wanted to be "humorous" not having found an answer, I repeat it.

The initial investment is largely offset by the following potability savings.

I can not resist considering the subject: source?

So, has it been demonstrated anywhere that the investment in two water distribution networks "is largely offset by the following potability savings"?

Facts, studies, ...... not personal fantasies.

[Janic]

So, has it been demonstrated anywhere that the investment in two water distribution networks "is largely offset by the following potability savings"?

Facts, studies, ...... not personal fantasies.

Excellent reflection! Before the installation of the current water distribution network, the inhabitants provided themselves in wells in contact with human and animal waste and this gave terrible epidemics. So a "drinking water" network, apart from its practicality, was also intended to reduce these costly epidemics in human lives, not just under direct floods.
As this example among all others: " http://archives.angers.fr/chroniques-hi ... index.html » In addition to the question of nutrition, there is the question of hygiene, whose practices are not well developed. Cities are experiencing major epidemics. Cholera affects Angers repeatedly, in 1832, 1833-1834, 1849 and again in 1854, causing more than a thousand deaths.

So you need a global assessment, not just public works.
A second network would reduce or eliminate the disadvantages of a single network. But it is true that if studies are limited to only the direct, immediate aspects, the balance sheet may appear as uninteresting, or even too expensive, which is probably the case today (apart from financing impossible currently seen the situation of municipalities)
It is like the cheap nuclear energy that eliminates the real cost of reprocessing, very long-term storage of waste, the maintenance of plants that become dangerous, the cost of future Chernobyl or Fukushima, etc. which distorts the "studies" that nuclear presents as realistic.