In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else wrote:
[...]
If reticulated water is unavailable, then you have no choice, and the
cheaper option is not available. A few install water tanks to make them
[...]

Well, that tends to put paid to your simplistic model of everyone
shopping at target.

--
R Kym Horsell

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken

In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else wrote:
[...]
If reticulated water is unavailable, then you have no choice, and the
cheaper option is not available. A few install water tanks to make them
[...]

Well, that tends to put paid to your simplistic model of everyone
shopping at target.

The "vast majority" (65%) of households seem to ignore cost in this matter.

--
R Kym Horsell

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken

In sci.skeptic wrote:
In sci.skeptic Martin Brown wrote:
[...]
Desalination is a relatively expensive energy intensive process unless
you can harness the sun to do it for nothing.
How much does your desalinated water cost?
The estimate for running cost is between .50 and .80 dollars per kilolitre.
What that will turn into before it hits households is another matter.
[...]

I just read a new report this morning (newspaper archives have been
pretty useless on this topic).

Apparently for the Sydney desal plant -- Melbourne's (where I live)
isn't due to run until 2012 so data is even less available -- the charge
recommended by IPART, the state economic regulator overseeing utility prices,
is $3 per kL for desal water.

This is around 2.6 times the usual water price.

Apparently IPART has also recommended that Syd households pay $3 per
kL for usage over avg household consumption.

The report also points out just the interest repayments on the $2 bn
cost of the plant will cost around .60 dollars per kL.

At present 1 AUD is at parity with USD; translate amounts as required.

--
R Kym Horsell

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken

On 13/11/2010 1:09 AM, wrote:
In sci.skeptic Martin wrote:
[...]
Desalination is a relatively expensive energy intensive process unless
you can harness the sun to do it for nothing.
How much does your desalinated water cost?

The estimate for running cost is between .50 and .80 dollars per kilolitre.
What that will turn into before it hits households is another matter.

My water bill (I still get a few kL pa from the mains because it's
mandatory) is 1.25 to 1.53 dollars per kL. And that's for "cheap" water
from the catchments. So what the market asks is maybe not a small
multiple of the running cost.

A desalinator has a significant capital cost, which has to be covered in
the price charged for water. Expressing the price charged by reference
to the running cost is just silly.

Sylvia.

On 13/11/2010 1:16 AM, wrote:
In sci.skeptic Sylvia wrote:
[...]
I'm maintaining that for the vast majority of consumers, who value water
purely based on the minimum amount they have to pay for it, from
whatever source, a price for water from water tanks does not exist.
[...]

Then, again, your beliefs are at variance with the actual case.


Evidence?

Sylvia.

In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13/11/2010 1:16 AM, wrote:
In sci.skeptic Sylvia wrote:
[...]
I'm maintaining that for the vast majority of consumers, who value water
purely based on the minimum amount they have to pay for it, from
whatever source, a price for water from water tanks does not exist.
[...]
Then, again, your beliefs are at variance with the actual case.
Evidence?

Why is that people who start agument-by-assertion always call for
evidence from the *other* person.

--
R Kym Horsell

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken

In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else wrote:
[...]
A desalinator has a significant capital cost, which has to be covered in
the price charged for water. Expressing the price charged by reference
to the running cost is just silly.
[...]

You're just contradicting your own arguments ahain.
In your own Googled value-cum-price theory you talk of "cost" and "value"
with "price" some vague place in between.

I guess you just ack it must be "silly".

--
R Kym Horsell

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken

In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13/11/2010 1:16 AM, wrote:
In sci.skeptic Sylvia wrote:
[...]
I'm maintaining that for the vast majority of consumers, who value water
purely based on the minimum amount they have to pay for it, from
whatever source, a price for water from water tanks does not exist.
[...]
Then, again, your beliefs are at variance with the actual case.
Evidence?

Why is that people who start agument-by-assertion always call for
evidence from the *other* person.

Sylvia Else, 12:43 12 Nov 2010:
Rainwater tanks are certainly not the solution. They are one of the most
expensive ways of providing water.

Sylvia Else, 16:42 12 Nov 2010:
[Argument by assertion:]
Lead acid batteries continue to have a high price despite the large
supply and demand because they are inherently expensive to manufacture.
[Or demand is falling? ]

Sylvia Else, 20:53 12 Nov 2010:
[Price, value, cost] are completely independent of each other, but in
a real market, if price does not lie between cost and value [so not
so "completely independent" ], then there
will be no transaction. If the price exceeds value, then the purchaser
won't proceed with a transaction. If it is less than cost, then the
seller won't proceed.

--
R Kym Horsell

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken

In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else wrote:
[...]
A desalinator has a significant capital cost, which has to be covered in
the price charged for water. Expressing the price charged by reference
to the running cost is just silly.
[...]

Pot, kettle, black.
You're just contradicting your own arguments again.
In your own Googled value-cum-price "theory" (somwhat too
lacking in predictive power to be called such, but I'm
generous you talk of "cost" and a subjective "value"
with "price" some vague place in between.

I guess you just ack it must be "silly".

Sylvia Else, 20:53 12 Nov 2010:
[Price, value, cost] are completely independent of each other, but in
a real market, if price does not lie between cost and value [so not
so "completely independent" ], then there
will be no transaction. If the price exceeds value, then the purchaser
won't proceed with a transaction. If it is less than cost, then the
seller won't proceed.

Sylvia Else, 15:56 13 Nov 2010
Expressing the price charged by reference to the running cost is just silly.

--
R Kym Horsell

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken