From: mayor@london.gov.uk
To: rhamnus@hotmail.co.uk
Subject: RE: MGLA080711-2536 Upgrade of the London sewer system
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:28:52 +0100
Dear Rhamnus
Thank you for the email to the Mayor, regarding the Thames Tunnel Sewer proposal by Thames Water and for the link to the article which I read with interest. These have been passed to me to reply to.
London needs investment in its sewerage infrastructure to prevent an average of 39 million tonnes of untreated sewage from discharging into the Thames each year. This follows extensive studies over the past 10 or so years and whilst the proposed solution is both expensive and disruptive, it is less so than other potential solutions that have been identified. If nothing is done, these sewage discharges are projected to get significantly worse over the coming years.
The key issue is actually the rainfall that the sewers also collect. This is what causes the overwhelming of the sewer system. Consideration has been given to solutions that involve removing the rainwater. However, it was quickly realised that a comprehensive approach to this would involve the remodelling of the entire sewerage system and excavating virtually every street in London. Therefore this kind of approach is more appropriate to a longer term strategy and indeed the Mayor's London Plan sets this in train, but I would expect it to take in excess of 50 years to achieve meaningful results.
However, it is also clear that we need a solution to the current problems in a shorter timescale and the Thames Tunnel Sewer project is the only solution that offers anything like a reasonable approach.
Thank you for your time and interest
Yours sincerely
Kevin Reid
Principal Programme Manager
From: rhamnus@hotmail.co.uk
ReplyDeleteTo: mayor@london.gov.uk
Subject: RE: MGLA080711-2536 Upgrade of the London sewer system
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:26:09 +0100
Dear Kevin
Thank you very much for your response. I was somehow expecting such reply indicating that the tunnel is the least expensive and disruptive of all the other options considered. However, it is not clear in your words if the particular option of removing the discharge of our own waste into the sewer system (as proposed in the web page from The Low Tech Magazine) has been considered at all, as the article from that web page seems to claim that their proposed options are somehow cheaper than the alternative, not to mention the savings that could be made in the long term in potable water and energy, and the possibility of recycling nutrients via our own waste that can later be used as fertiliser, making this alternative a more sustainable one overall.
Could you confirm that this particular alternative (the installation of vacuum sewer systems to stop the discharge of our own waste into the sewer system) has already been considered and the reasons why it has been rejected against the current 'favourite option' of the super sewer?. I do agree that something needs to be done, but I remain to be convinced that the alternative of the Thames Tunnel is the best option so far.
Looking forward to your response.
Yours sincerely
Rhamnus
Hi Rhammus,
ReplyDeleteIsn't it tiring reading the same old lies rehashed time and again... In case you didn't know, 48% of the 39m tonnes are being taken care of by the Lee Valley tunnel, already under construction, much cheaper and less disruptive than the super-sewer (it is not part of the £3.6bn madness). Source: table 4.2 from Thames Water's own "needs report" for the project.
You are right, innovative solutions are what the country needs but somehow they seem a lot less exciting? For example, what's the point of shoving rainwater down the super-sewer with draughts threatening? Ofwat also note that the construction of the SS will have a significant effect on climate change, one of the very things it's supposed to mitigate...
Oh well, so long as the billions are spinning...
Keep the good work!
Regards,
Christian
Secretary, Save Your Riverside Action Group (*not speaking on behalf of the campaign*)
Thanks for your comment Christian. Perhaps what we need is to gather a group of London citizens with the same ideas against the proposed Thames Water super sewer, and to try to campaign against it by offering more sustainable alternatives for our future. I will start by linking your group to this page
ReplyDeleteRegards