I can't remember where but i saw Thames Water and other water companies suggest having a four minute shower and we've actually implemented that at home. It's great if it saves money but we've done it because there are four of us who all have to have showers in the morning and get to work and one is always late! We tried to have a rota but if one overslept by even ten mins, the rota was ruined! The four minute shower actually helps and keeps us on track. If that saves water as I saw it does, even better!
How much difference does the shower head freebie make a difference?
For our customers, we have two types of shower water saving devices they can order for free.
ShowerSave (not meant for electrical showers) this handy device you can screw on your shower hose, a family of four for example could save up to 31,200 litres of water and £126 a year (you much rather be spending that on something else right?!)
Water Efficient Showerhead (not meant for electrical or multijet showers) This is really cool! It regulates 6 litres of water per minute, again a family of four could save 21,840 litres a year and £87 (again maybe treat yourself to a cheap and cheerful flight somewhere!)
Hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions
I'm a bit confused about the savings difference between your "ShowerSave" and "Water Efficient Showerhead" freebies!
Your site gives flow and savings information for both devices based on a family of four:
It says the ShowerSave is capped at 8lt/min and could save up to 31,200 litres of water and £126 a year.
It says the Water Efficient Showerhead is capped at 6lt/min and could save up to 21,840 litres and £87 a year.
What I don't understand is how the ShowerSave which caps at 8 litres a minute can possibly save more water than the showerhead which is capped at 6 litres a minute? Assuming both are exclusively used for showers, surely it should be the showerhead that is saving more water / energy?