« May 2007 | Main | August 2007 »

Computerworld's David Ramel has posted a great tutorial, "How to get yourself on YouTube, for business or pleasure." I'd recommend it for anyone who's been thinking about posting a video on this site but isn’t sure how to get started. Come to think of it, I’d also recommend it for those who haven’t thought at all about online video. After you read this you should have lots of ideas about using online video for your company.

Ramel even provides a live video demonstration of how he composed and uploaded his own video. The article provides a fairly comprehensive overview of why and where you should be using online video, plus a brief introduction to how it's done. He suggests several ways video can be used effectively in corporate communications:

• Executive presentations and company events: share important announcements, commentary and special events with your employees and customers with online video
• Employee training: I'd include customer training, too
• Help desk demonstrations: don't just tell; show
• Marketing: "A picture is worth a thousand words, and thousands of pictures streamed together at 29.97 frames per second is worth a lot more," Ramel writes. This is where video sharing often shines best.

It doesn’t take a big production to have a big impact. We recently launched an all-new website at www.ktron.com, and I wanted to see if the search engines had indexed our new pages. On the first page of search results for "single screw feeder" I found a video I had posted on waterandwastewater.com showing K-Tron’s S60 Single Screw Volumetric Feeder.

Some Production Tips
Ramel suggests these settings for the best results on YouTube. I checked with PowderandBulk.com's publisher, Joe Taylor, and he says these are a good choice for this site, too:

• MPEG4 (Divx, Xvid) format   
• 320x240 resolution   
• MP3 audio   
• 30 frames per second (technically 29.97)

Try Two Camcorders
Another good idea from Ramel: use two camcorders, capturing the same thing from different angles, or different things that are happening at the same time. Not only does this allow you more creativity in putting the final video together, as Ramel suggests, it also gives you much more latitude in editing for the very best sound bites without annoying jump cuts.

Don Dunnington
Blog Moderator

Water meters are a great tool for leak detection, demand management with an appropriate pricing structure and may even have benefits such as delaying infrastructure upgrades. But what do you do when there is a clean plentiful supply of water?

I've recently moved from the drought stricken climate of coastal Australia, where even public showers at the beach have been permanently shut off; to Castlegar, on the Columbia River valley in British Columbia, Canada.
 
My History

In previous a job, I was part of a team that provided supply and demand advice to municipalities around Australia. In many cases a key part of the demand management was related to the installation, maintenance and reading of water meters, combined with a balanced pricing structure for the supply of that water to households and businesses.

Most of the arguments for water demand management stemmed from a lack of water, shrinking dam levels, rivers drying up and increasing populations. Even so, water meters are not the best solution for all situations.
 
Back to today...

Why Water Meters?

This was the question posed by the staff of our local council in a public forum to discuss the issue a couple of nights ago. Note that this was a meeting to gain input from the residents, not to impose the city's ideas onto an unwilling public! Four main reasons were given as to why the city of 7000 residents was considering the voluntary installation of water meters...

1. Conservation
2. Equality
3. System Performance
4. Long Term Financial Implications

Now, I'm all for conserving water, I'm probably the "greenest engineer" in this valley, but I do see conservation from an Australian perspective, where we would literally run out if we don't curb our consumption. That is seriously not an issues here, the water we use, or the water we don't use... it all flows down the river eventually. Probably of more importance is making sure the wastewater is as clean as possible from the backend of the treatment plant.

The equality argument wears a bit thin on me. For all of you who understand the cost of supplying already clean water to residents; a bit of chlorine, some pumping with minimal lift, we're looking at less than 3 cents a day for the average household. Thee are massive fixed costs, pipeline replacement, reservoir, treatment facility and pump maintenance as appropriate, and these should be shared between everyone who chooses to connect to city supplied water. 

The argument that all other commodities, i.e. gas and electricity were on a per consumption basis is commonly posed, generally power and gas companies have shareholders and are expected to turn an annual profit, the needs of the consumer are pretty low down on the priority list when there's a monopoly and money to be made. So whether your neighbor is using double or half the water you are, we're talking less than two cents a day of actual cost difference between households.

System performance arguments are the most compelling in this situation, but probably reflect previously misspent funding more than current administration problems. The network is slowly reaching capacity on Maximum Day Demand conditions, which around here typically span a couple of weeks in July and August each year. The consumption in these months is about 4 times higher than the average over the whole year.

Demand management activities and public awareness of capacity issues may provide a solution to this time period where problems are likely. This is where a review of results in other similar communities may show benefits in softer solutions such as funding installation of low-flow showerheads, water restrictions, dual flush toilets, household leak detection programs and even enforcement of summer watering bylaws.

If the current trends of consumption continue, then upgrades of the system become necessary. A figure of $500,000 to $1,000,000 replacement cost per kilometer of pipe is pretty reasonable for the type of works required. The argument was made that if the city can defer or eliminate the replacement of pipes, we would be saving money as a community.

The city is growing, new construction and building permits are likely to be at the highest level for over 20 years, people are moving out of the larger cities, looking for a quieter lifestyle, some are retiring and wanting gardening space, some are moving here for the employment opportunities, more affordable housing and a great place to raise kids. The city will need to replace many of their aging watermains, likely including parts or all of the distribution main in the next decade, water meters or any form of demand management are not going to prevent that eventuality.

Government Funding

This program would be mostly paid for by provincial funds under grants and taxes, which can be used for municipal infrastructure programs.

It's difficult to imagine how many of the municipalities around Canada could survive without the regular injection of funds for capital works programs they receive in the form of grants or tax credits from the provincial or federal governments. Instead of being held absolutely responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of their potable water systems, sources of funding such as the B.C. Community Water Improvement Program and other infrastructure grants are highly sought after by municipalities of all sizes, though often without adequate planning or thought as to the best way to spend any money that may be received.

The way these grants are structured typically revolve around a set percentage of capital or planning cost funding, so the municipality puts in 25%, the province fronts up for the remaining 75% to a maximum dollar value that is determined at the stage of granting. My experience with this method of funding is that many municipalities see the offer of money and cook up a project to suit. In many, maybe most cases, the value to the community is pretty good, but sometimes, the ideals set out in the funding documentation of say a sustainable development or building a better community water network, look different on paper to the funding administrators in the provincial government compared to the reality on the ground.

Discussion

I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this issue. Conservation seems like a great ideal, but with the amount of water running through this valley, it is like asking someone to stop breathing! Equality is an argument only if the true fixed and volume based costs are revealed, then a fixed fee and per kilolitre fee could be established. What are your thoughts on voluntary water meter installation? Should it be all or none? How are the true costs of water supply managed in your municipality? Should levels of government be accountable for how they spend funding such as the gas tax money?
Leave a comment with your thoughts. Thanks!

About the author:

Mike Thomas is a Civil Engineer designing and managing residential and municipal projects in Castlegar, BC, Canada. He is dedicated to providing sustainable designs for sustainable communities. You can read more of his work at UrbanWorkbench.com