3 ms·

With some quick back-of-the-napkin math, I get just under 4 years of daily showers to break even (with their $400 retail price, assuming a generous $0.02/gal ($

With some quick back-of-the-napkin math, I get just under 4 years of daily showers to break even (with their $400 retail price, assuming a generous $0.02/gal ($15/CCF), which is the highest residential marginal seasonal rate where I am). If I wanted to reduce my water usage, I'd just take shorter showers and alternate days when I've not yet become smelly. These cost $0 and yield immediate savings.

coryl 11y ago
If I wanted to reduce my water usage, I'd just take shorter showers and alternate days when I've not yet become smelly. These cost $0 and yield immediate savings. Changing a person's behaviour, including your own, is pretty hard, its its less likely you'll actually follow through and take less showers. Some people also live in households with multiple people, so that can affect your math as well.
- dwightgunning 11y ago
  Changing a person's ability to recognise this is even harder.
iloveyouocean 11y ago
Imagine the savings you would see by taking shorter showers, alternating days, and using a misting shower head.
arrrg 11y ago
Saving water doesn’t make sense at all in a great many places where (clean) water is abundant, population is stagnant and infrastructure already exists. In other words, in many places water supply is mostly all about fixed costs and trouble with the water supply are not in any way related to consumer use of it in showers. (Agricultural use that leaves the water harder to clean up completely and an ageing population that flushes more and more drugs down toilets are more likely to crop up as issues, both unrelated to the amount of water that is used to shower.) In fact, disuse of water infrastructure can actually damage pipes and be very costly as opposed to just leaving the water running from time to time. (Just the logical consequence when the infrastructure – something that in the case of water can easily last half a century or more once built – is the main cost factor, not the water.) Obviously this is not universal and there are also a great many places where water really is a scarce resource.

coryl 11y ago

If I wanted to reduce my water usage, I'd just take shorter showers and alternate days when I've not yet become smelly. These cost $0 and yield immediate savings. Changing a person's behaviour, including your own, is pretty hard, its its less likely you'll actually follow through and take less showers. Some people also live in households with multiple people, so that can affect your math as well.

dwightgunning 11y ago
Changing a person's ability to recognise this is even harder.

iloveyouocean 11y ago

Imagine the savings you would see by taking shorter showers, alternating days, and using a misting shower head.

arrrg 11y ago

Saving water doesn’t make sense at all in a great many places where (clean) water is abundant, population is stagnant and infrastructure already exists. In other words, in many places water supply is mostly all about fixed costs and trouble with the water supply are not in any way related to consumer use of it in showers. (Agricultural use that leaves the water harder to clean up completely and an ageing population that flushes more and more drugs down toilets are more likely to crop up as issues, both unrelated to the amount of water that is used to shower.) In fact, disuse of water infrastructure can actually damage pipes and be very costly as opposed to just leaving the water running from time to time. (Just the logical consequence when the infrastructure – something that in the case of water can easily last half a century or more once built – is the main cost factor, not the water.) Obviously this is not universal and there are also a great many places where water really is a scarce resource.