Damn the damn dams or be dammed! [Archive]

bitingmidge

29th May 2006, 06:58 PM

I'm already sick of the "NO DAM" mob in SE Qld.

For those who don't know, most of the urban area is a tad short of water, and at it's current rate of growth will need a tad more in the not too distant future.

In order to get some quick runs on the board, our premier announced a Dam to be built over the Mary River, without it would seem, actually doing any studies or even basic feasibilities.

Now I just happen to think, that if you need water, a dam is a pretty good place to go looking for it. I also happen to think that it's a pity that the Mary River is one of only two (arguably three) locations that the worlds "living fossil" the Australian Lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri) can be found, but I suppose they could always stuff one or two for the benefit of future generations.

All that aside, I'm a bit mystified by the appearance out of no-where of the old NoDam rentacrowd!

Bob Brown turns up in a canoe, telling us it's not on... rentacrowd call things like "get a tank"...

I wonder how many of them have town water connected, and if they live on rural properties whether they have dams of their own?

In the cities, how long will it be till the effects of drinking chemical pollutants built up in the tanks will appear?

I've lived in severe climates without reticulated water, and to me there's nothing romantic about fishing a dead animal out of the tank, or trying to strain wrigglers out of your glass of water..... but maybe I'm missing something?

Cheers,

P (another hand grenade from a rednecked tree hugging greenie)
:D :D :D

Rocker

29th May 2006, 07:03 PM

Midge,

I am not sure of the merits of the dam on the Mary River, but there is one thing I do know - if Bob Brown is on one side of an argument, then I am on the other.

Rocker

ozwinner

29th May 2006, 07:11 PM

I think Qld was damned when Cubby station was allowed to dam the Diamantina/Cooper just to grow cotton.
Cotton cant be worth that much.
There needs to be a national approach to water conservation, not a state by state thing.

Al :(

Wood Butcher

29th May 2006, 07:32 PM

Midge, great words!!!
Rocker, me too!

Al, Cubby's dams don't mean squat ATM. They're all empty:D

Waldo

29th May 2006, 07:57 PM

G'day Bittingmidge,

It's about time the Qld govt' got serious about putting in some new damns.

My late Dad used to work as a hydrographer in what was the Queensland Water Resources Commission and I knew full well that Qld needed more dams. Goss tried the Wolfdene damn back in '92 or something like that but he got scared of the back lash, Bettie is no better than Goss was, but at last 2 new dams might finally get up and running.

To the idiots who poo poo them :p :p :p :p :p :p :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: . Qld needs them and needed them long ago and they have to go somewhere, so someone is going to lose out with property loss etc.

The problem is the same down here with Braxie, he's too scared of the voters and Vic desperately needs more dams in the same way Qld does. But in his wisdom he doesn't think dams are the answer, buggered if I know how else you can catch some decent water with a catchment area that dams provide. :confused:

Waldo

29th May 2006, 08:03 PM

I think Qld was damned when Cubby station was allowed to dam the Diamantina/Cooper just to grow cotton. Al :(

G'day Al,

That's a massive public misconception, spread around by the Green mob etc. My Dad was responsible after 3 months of investigating the application before approving it (to be passed higher up for approval of course). He was a hydrograper working in the field for 23 years before working in water permitt applications, ala the likes of Cubby.

Cubby Station's dams, as massive as they are, do not take any run off from the Diamantina/Cooper Rivers nor do have they damed Diamantina/Cooper Rivers. Cubby's dams only take the runoff from their property and nothing else.

Just wanted to clarify that.

AlexS, if he sees this post, might be able to back me up on this as he was a Hydrographer in NSW, so he'd also be up to speed on what happened in Qld.

ozwinner

29th May 2006, 08:03 PM

WE dont need more dams here in Vic, our problem was that Citylink was useing 900,000 litres per day of our drinking water for 3 years, thats what depleted our reserves. :mad:
They used it to stop the tunnels from collapsing.
Now they recycle the water so dont use as much.

Al :mad:

Wood Butcher

29th May 2006, 08:04 PM

The local council in Toowoomba has the right idea for water shortage. If they get their way we'll be drinking recyled sewerage in a couple of years time!
So long as its done right I think it's a great idea.

ozwinner

29th May 2006, 08:08 PM

Cubby's dams only take the runoff from their property and nothing else.

.

Thats just it.
It was runoff, and it runoff somewhere else.
How can one group claim the rain that falls on their property?

OK from here on in, I claim all the air that is on my property.
See how stupid it sounds? :eek:

Al :confused:

Auld Bassoon

29th May 2006, 08:09 PM

Must agree with that!

Buzzer

29th May 2006, 08:11 PM

Good onya Midge, I agree.

More dams need to be built in QLD not just for Brisbane. Take Toowoomba for example, and their water restrictions for the well known "The Garden City".
I hear talk about recycling waste water.
In my opinion they should be talking about building dams for the rapidly growing population.
Are the authorities too afraid to make the tough decisions? I dont know.
Thats my 2 bob's worth.
Cheers,
Buzzer

Waldo

29th May 2006, 08:12 PM

G'day Al,

Runoff is runoff, but the dams on Cubby Station are below the water table of the Diamantina/Cooper Rivers. So it's water that doesn't reach the rivers - therein lies the public misconception.

ozwinner

29th May 2006, 08:13 PM

Its ok to build dams, but where does the water to fill them come from?

Al :confused:

ozwinner

29th May 2006, 08:14 PM

Waldo

29th May 2006, 08:19 PM

G'day,

I'm out of this now. Said my bit to set the record straight, so I'll have a poke somewhere else. :)

Answer to Al's question, there's a lot a flat land out there, a heck of a lot. It's the dams that are below the water table of the rivers.

echnidna

29th May 2006, 08:22 PM

The Wackers who oppose dams and wind farms are only doing 1 thing.

They are hastening the use of Nuclear Reactors in Oz.

Makes cheap power, the heat can be used for desalination.

Its gunna happen sooner or later coz Oz needs more power and more water

ozwinner

29th May 2006, 08:23 PM

I'm out of this now. Said my bit to set the record straight, so I'll have a poke somewhere else. :)

Answer to Al's question, there's a lot a flat land out there, a heck of a lot. It's the dams that are below the water table of the rivers.,

But you didnt set the record straight, if it was below the water table it would be a lake or a dam, which is exactly what Cubby has done, built large dams..

Al :confused:

outback

29th May 2006, 08:31 PM

Why can't we recycle water? Poor old Goulburn has SFA water, Morry thinks it's a swell idea for them to drink recycled water, but not for snobby Sydneyites. :confused:

outback

29th May 2006, 08:35 PM

And another thing, Cubbie station stopped the water becoming runoff, if it runoff to the river it'd be Ok, but the money hungry mongrels don't give a stuff about anyone but their stake holders. And don't even get me started on bloody cotton, biggest environmental nightmare since some bright bugger decided to import cane toads.

bitingmidge

29th May 2006, 08:36 PM

Why can't we recycle water?

One way or another, ALL our water is recycled.

Town supply gets filtered, flocked to get the suspended solids out, aerated, then injected with chlorine to kill the nasties. This gets rid of any poo that turns up in it.

Then the press get onto "recycled" water... the stuff that had a bit more poo in it at the beginning. It's been filtered, flocked to get the suspended solids out, aerated, then injected with chlorine to kill the nasties, then tipped into a river somewhere 'cause it's going to addle our brain if we drink it.

But we swim and fish in it anyway.

P
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

ozwinner

29th May 2006, 08:37 PM

Why can't we recycle water?

All water is recycled, where do ppl think it comes from?

Edit: Midge beat my by a nano minute.

Al :)

bitingmidge

29th May 2006, 08:39 PM

And another thing, Cubbie station stopped the water becoming runoff, if it runoff to the river it'd be Ok,

Isn't that what every farm dam does, to a lesser extent? They all must impact on the catchment.

I heard on the radio (so it must be almost true) that the Mary River currently runs at 92%, and after the big new dam it will be 85%. Does that mean that the big new dam will take 7% of it's water, and all the piddly little ones on farms currently take 8%??

See there's more to this than meets the eye, the have's want to stay having I think!

cheers,

P
;)

ozwinner

29th May 2006, 08:47 PM

See there's more to this than meets the eye, the have's want to stay having I think!

cheers,

P
;)

Shouldnt that be.
See there's more to this than meets the eye, the have's want to stay having a drink?

Al :p

Gra

29th May 2006, 10:54 PM

All this talk about being short of water, and the govt is selling the snowy????

What the:confused::confused:

AlexS

29th May 2006, 11:00 PM

Cubby Station's dams, as massive as they are, do not take any run off from the Diamantina/Cooper Rivers nor do have they damed Diamantina/Cooper Rivers. Cubby's dams only take the runoff from their property and nothing else.
I don't think Cubby takes water from the Diamantina/Cooper, they do take it from the Murray/Darling system. I've never worked in Qld, but my understanding is that above certain flow levels, they pump from the river to fill their dams. Unless they're right at the top of the river, some of that water is coming from land upstream of them. But, if they didn't take it, someone in NSW would take it for cotton, rice, oranges, or flowers. You can bet it wouldn't get to South Australia, and certainly not to Adelaide or the Murray mouth.

Don't think that building a dam to catch water flowing to sea is using wasted water. Sure, you could build a whole lot of small dams on the NSW coast, but you'd put a lot of fishermen out of business, and it wouldn't be long before the beaches all down the coast started receding. Were would you build dams for Sydney? I don't think there are any eonomically viable dam sites left in NSW, but perhaps you might get one in at Berowra.

The trading of water rights has been put forward as the answer to water shortages. By putting the price of water up to a market value, only efficient water use would be viable. That's fine, except that the environment (that's where we live, remember) hasn't got the money that Cubby or any of the other big irrigators have. When I talk about the environment, I don't mean the lesser spotted lungfish, nice as it might be to have around, but the natural things that we like and need to have around us to live.

There aren't many engineering solutions left. Recycling is the big one, and despite the huge capital cost in established areas, it's one we have to go with. The technology is there, and if they could keep the industrial waste separate, it would give the by-product of extremely fertile sludge. The only other solutions with current technology are changing our water use habits and planning. There's a strong argument that we are at or approaching the population we can support. The amount of irrigation we undertake is not sustainable - salinity problems are present in just about every irrigation area, and in the recorded history of irrigation (about 5000 years) no irrigation scheme has been sustainable for more than about 200 years.

Just my 2 bob's worth, but at least it's something I know a little about.

Wongo

29th May 2006, 11:17 PM

People in the 21st century are spoiled. Our water level is running low but how many people really care. Sure we can build dams, purify sea water or filter poo water but what about teaching people to use less water? Can't we change our life style a little bit?

I am sick and tired of seeing people spraying their footpath:mad: , watering their lawn every morning:mad: . Some bastards are just hate to be told. People keep having 15-20 minutes showers:mad: :mad: , bathing their kid with a full tub of water every day:mad: :mad: , leaving the tap running while brushing their teeth:mad: :mad: :mad: , etc…

Oh hell, stuff them all. I will keep having my 2 minutes shower, bathing both kids with small amount of water and use it for the garden.

Remember one day there will be no water, no oil, no paper and no electricity left for our kids. We are trying our best to reach that day quicker.

Glad I got it off my chest.

RETIRED

29th May 2006, 11:24 PM

johnc

29th May 2006, 11:36 PM

I think the dam crowd are forgetting one big point and that is we only drink around one percent of reticulated water, the bulk is used to water gardens and the like and a very large percentage is used to wash ourselves and our clothing and to flush toilets. Getting rid of waste water is an ever growing problem and if recycling reduces our need for dams and does something for the huge volume of sewer waste disposal then it is a win on two camps.

While listening to the run off argument consideration is being given in Victoria to the amount of run off that farm dams collect and prevent from reaching the water courses. This is a touchy debate and one that needs balance, there must be enough for stock watering and for some irrigation but rivers canot be starved either.

Whilst the once mighty Snowy gets a mention the enviromental cost in that river is not just depleted fish stocks but heavy silting in the river as low flows generally allow sediment to fall rather than scoured out and eventually moved out to sea. What this means for those down stream is very heavy flooding as the river does not have the capacity to carry away runoff from heavy downpours in the lower catchment. The run off argument lacks substance as a percentage, it is where the run off occurs that counts and how it improves the flow and quality of the water course itself.

There is a lot more that can be done to reduce water use, I am sure it is not just our area where the summer sees brown lawns when once water would have been squandered through the summer months to keep things green. Rainwater tanks in Vic are encouraged as a reserve for toilets and gardens, so it doesn't matter to much about the odd dead animal or build up of muck and wigglers. Generally we are reducing average water consumption, but we are still wasteful and I reckon the damn brigade should address first the fact that we have one of the highest per capita water consumption rates in the developed world on the driest continent.
There are two sides to the water equation and before we jam another dam on another stressed river isn't about time we had a good look at ourselves and the demand/supply equation and kept the emotional crap to one side.

John

Wongo

29th May 2006, 11:38 PM

Feel better now Scott?;) :D

Yes .:D

I do my 1.5km run every morning and I see it every day. It was raining 3 Sundays ago and this bastard watered his garden for 15 minutes. I stoped and told him that it had been raining so why waste water. I ran away but I don’t think he was too impressed.

Grunt

29th May 2006, 11:44 PM

There is a shortage of water in Australia. Water is going to be in short supply. Global warming will mean that we will have to make do with less water.

The answer is not to build more dams. There are many ways to recycle water that lands on our roads and roof tops. These options need to be investigated.

Dams reduce biodiversity. Us humans are not separate from the environment but we are part of it. We need biodiversity to survive. (http://www.greenfacts.org/biodiversity/)

We have to stop increasing our population. We can't continue to grow for ever. It's a finite world you know.

Chris

boban

29th May 2006, 11:50 PM

I'm somewhat confused by the problem with farmers catching some of the runoff from their farms with their dams. How is this different to water tanks in suburbia which seems to be the 'in' thing at the moment.

We are about to build a 100,000 underground tank to catch all our rainwater. Is this wrong? I've no idea and would like to know what the experts think.

Grunt

30th May 2006, 12:01 AM

In cities there is huge coverage of the available land with roof tops and roads. The run off goes directly into drains, then into city creeks and then into the ocean.

If the cities weren't there the a lot of water would be soaked up by the soil before if gets to the creeks. There is too much water going into creeks in the city after a heavy rains. Creeks in the city flood much more often then their country cousins.

Andy Mac

30th May 2006, 12:02 AM

I'm with Ozwinner, AlexS and Wongo at least, on this one.
Use less water for a start. Reconsider our use, stop wasting potable water for irrigation and industry, hosing driveways etc. An insignificant percentage of our piped water is actually used in the kitchen, as in drunk. Make people bloody well pay $$ for every litre used, not every litre over some arbitrary figure (no doubt based on some US high consumption pipe dream), or political favours for water extraction rights. Make people appreciate a precious resource, and stop wastage. Brisbane has a problem now with an aged and leaking distribution system, no preventative maintence by the sounds. Recycle sewage by all means, has anyone heard of Lemna? Biofiltration by aquatic plant, on farms.
I've also read that desalination has its own problems, in that the by-product is a highly saline solution that needs to get dumped somewhere, and usually straight out to sea where, due to its density, it sinks to the bottom and kills the local ecosystem. Mmmm, sounds great, and while we're at it are there any forests nearby so can 'chip em?:mad:
Waterless toilets should be made compulsory...I even heard of a place near here, a couple of acres with a highset house, using only rainwater. It was well renovated and extended, with a proper composting toilet, a couple of years old, complete with council approval. Saved the original owners a heap of water, so what do these city folk who bought the place do...pull the whole system out and whack in a good ol' septic system... at least they gave the sellers the system back!
And anyway, do I have something to add to the dam debate...my plan would be an interstate, or even national approach, a no holds barred system (stop pi55ing around with politics and think of the future for a change, with things like population growth considered) of a major system of linked pipelines to join north to south, on both sides of the country, and shuffle dam supplies according to local supply and demand. Not any centralised mega dams, but a linked set of many smaller ones. The way I see it, there is always somewhere in the country copping a bucketting, and the excess needs harvesting, but not robbed. I use the term "needs", because we need it, not because rivers need harvesting! Let the rivers keep flowing, by trying to balance the regional needs.
I think the country could do with a project that big!! Maybe then we stop could stop poking our nose into other peoples/countries problems and concentrate on solving our own first!:rolleyes:
And that's my 2c worth...or maybe 10.:)

boban

30th May 2006, 12:06 AM

OK but isn't it just a matter of scale. Surely the farmers dont catch all of the runoff, just a small percentage.

johnc

30th May 2006, 12:12 AM

Boban,

In the town water runoff from the roof goes into the street gutters (some goes illegally into sewer systems) then eventually picks up all sorts of contaminants and waste which get dumped into bays, and streams. The pollution in the form of phosphorous (detergent), oil, silt, heavy metals paper plastic and so forth causes more problems than the water solves.

Many farm dams simply intersect a water course trapping water that would otherwise flow into rivers. There is also fertiliser runoff as well as nutrients from animal dung that are not so good. There is an active program around here to prevent farm irrigation water runing off into the rivers compounding blue green algae growth in rivers and lakes. To this end farm reuse dams are installed and irrigation water is used more than once. You do have to be careful in reuse that the water does not become to saline.

The problem of water runoff is a complex one, we need runoff from areas that do not carry high nutrient loads, Typically forests and swamps that filter the water. We also need sufficient flows to maintain the quality of drinking and irrigation water, and maintain fish stocks and the health of our recreation areas and habitat for flora and fauna.

Town tanks are a social good, they reduce the movement of pollutants into our water ways. The rest of the water problem is far more complex and needs a lot more consideration than can be managed by the various red necks and green groups, although their ideas should not be cast aside out of hand as in the end it is everyones cooperation that will be required to reduce our thirst for water.

John.

Grunt

30th May 2006, 12:17 AM

I'm not against farmers having dams. I have a small one myself.

The problem is irrigators who take megalitres of water to grow things in places where there not meant to grow. If the cotton farmers grew hemp they'd use about 1/4 the water and improve the soil while they were at it. As a side they'd also get more fibre per acre.

If I drive around where I live, I see many dams. Some of them are bloody lakes. They evaporate more than a metre per year. A complete waste of water. They lose megalitres a year which should go into our waterways.

I have a small dam and I will build enough roof space to meet our personal needs, be able to grow enough food for us and our livestock. All of our sewage will go through a home sewage treatment plant (http://www.biolytix.com/)

Shedhand

30th May 2006, 12:56 AM

I think I'm getting back on thread...sort of.

1. I'm ashamed to be a Tasmanian when the wild eyed vegan Bob Brown rears his empty head.
2. Midge, can you get down-stream of the moron and drop a big rock on his canoe as he floats by.
3. Dam the Mary River.
4. Recycle grey water.
5. Stop growing cotton...biggest waste of water anyone ever thought of.
6. I always thought that when a species becomes extinct it was just part of evolution. (Survival of the fittest).
7. Al the lungfish contribute to the environment is that they poo in the water you guys drink. Good riddance.
Signed
Another Red-neck greenie hater. (except any woodies here). :D

outback

30th May 2006, 08:58 AM

As has been pointed out, Cubbie pulls water out only when it is flooding, BUT they have the ability to make the river literally run backwards when they fire up all the pumps. Then they put the water on bloody cotton. :mad:

I guess there is recycling and recycling, lets face it everything has been round a couple of times since the big bang.

I think Scot has it right, we are just a wasteful society. Some of us are just a bigger waste than others. :D

silentC

30th May 2006, 09:26 AM

I'm doing my bit. We installed a 96,000 litre tank this year in addition to the 20,000 litre one we already had. We have an onsite sewerage treatment plant from which the treated effluent will be used to flush toilets and water gardens.

Both tanks are full at the moment and it rained again last night. It's like watching money run away when they overflow. Six weeks ago the people across the road bought a load of water as did we. I think we may put in another tank. I floated the idea of a dam in the gully but the wife is one of those anti-dam types. Chief objections raised were related to mozzies and small children. Dam it all!

Wongo

30th May 2006, 09:57 AM

Too right Andy, put the price up and make it hurt. We need to change our attitude towards water. It is an important part of our life so we should cherish every single drop.

It would be a shame to have spent all the effort and energy to recycle water but only to see it go wasted.

When I first arrived in Sydney I was shocked. I mean wow you guys actually use good drink water to flush the toilet and wet your grass.

Well done Silent, water tanks are fantastic. My in-laws have 2 and we might do the same one day.

CameronPotter

30th May 2006, 10:17 AM

Jeez, this has got a response hasn't it...

I reckon that just building another dam is a bit short-sighted. What do you do next time?

It is like changing to nuclear, it can be done (and nuclear actually has relatively little waste/danger - but the waste/danger is serious).

The problem is that no resource is infinite. A better approach is along the lines of what a few people here are saying, water conservation.

Let's be sensible with what we have before considering using up resources that will have flow on effects later.

Oh also, Grunt is absolutely right about hemp...

Cam

silentC

30th May 2006, 10:28 AM

nuclear actually has relatively little waste/danger - but the waste/danger is serious
Here's an exerpt from a letter that was in the SMH yesterday:

Hydrogen fusion, an energy source that can provide base load electricity generation capacity beyond the foreseeable future, has been all but neglected in the energy debate.

Fusion, the energy source of the sun, is inherently safe, and as the process involves neither uranium nor plutonium, it does not increase the risk of nuclear proliferation. There is an unlimited supply of the heavy hydrogen fuel required and the waste products are safe and easily disposed of. The fusion process was identified as a potential energy source by an Australian scientist, Mark Oliphant, in the 1930s, and since then Australian scientists have contributed significantly to the quest to harness fusion as an energy source. Construction is about to commence on the last step towards taming fusion for power generation - a multibillion-dollar experiment called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, funded by the EU, the US, Japan, Russian, China, South Korea and India - but without Australian involvement. Discussion of Australian participation in ITER must be part of the current energy debate.

Wongo

30th May 2006, 10:32 AM

It is the typical way to solve a problem in modern society.

Electricity: We build more nuclear power station and burn more coal. What about use less?

Traffic: We build more roads and dig more tunnels. What about drive less and catch a bus?

Oil: pump more out of the ground or whinge about the petrol prices. What about drive less or drive a small car?

Grunt

30th May 2006, 10:44 AM

Exactly Wongo.

If you build more freeways, more people drive. The freeway between LA and San Diego is 6 lanes each way. Most of the day it moves at a crawl.

Power down, consume less and be happy. :)

silentC

30th May 2006, 10:47 AM

I blame it all on science fiction authors. Yup, they're the ones to blame.

Grunt

30th May 2006, 10:52 AM

Yup, everyone expects a StarTrek future. It ain't gunna happen.

As far as Hydrogen goes it takes more energy to extract the H part of H20 than is contained in the resulting hydrogen. We could build a nuclear plant next to the plant that converts water to hydrogen, next to a plant that burns hydrogen to make electricty.

Greg Q

30th May 2006, 10:53 AM

I blame it all on science fiction authors. Yup, they're the ones to blame.

I agree. Weren't we all supposed to have flying cars by now?

Wongo

30th May 2006, 11:00 AM

Grunt now you have mentioned the US so I can carry on. It is such a wasteful nation.

When I was there last year I learnt that no one (or not many) hang the washing up. Instead they put every load of washing straight into the dryer for an hour or 2. In winter time I can understand but not in hot summer like 38 degree in Louisville. It will take 5 to 10 minutes to dry.

Everyone drive a truck for no reason, Lights are on 24/7, air con on 24/7 etc etc.

It is just not right that a few hundred million people use a third of the world resources.

Economy is clever way to tell the poor “hey I can use more resources than you” I reckon.

Wow I am on fire.

silentC

30th May 2006, 11:24 AM

As far as Hydrogen goes it takes more energy to extract the H part of H20 than is contained in the resulting hydrogen
I hope they've thought of that, otherwise there are going to be a lot of very embarassed scientists when they get their next power bill.

On the subject of driers, I worked on a block of retirement units in Ryde many years ago. We put a clothes drier in each unit. I asked why (at the time they weren't exactly cheap to buy) and the builder told me that under the conditions of the multi-unit development consent, they had to provide EITHER x sq. metres of drying space per unit OR a clothes drier for each. Since the total drying space required consumed the area of 4 units (2 storey complex) it was much more lucrative to buy the driers and have room for 4 more units.

CameronPotter

30th May 2006, 11:40 AM

However, the thing with hydrogen is that it can be stored and can be used to fuel vehicles fairly efficiently. As with all conversion - it is not 100% efficient (heat loss etc) and so you are right about that Grunt, BUT, there is also loss of power by transmission lines etc and over distances of a certain length - it is actually MORE efficient to convert the electricity to hydrogen and then pump the hydrogen and then convert back to electricity, but of course this costs a packet!

As for fusion, that is presently pie in the sky. Yes they are building a station in France, but it is probably further off than flying cars. The trick is to achieve fusion such that it generates power. SUPPOSEDLY cold fusion was achieved years ago, but as no-one has been able to achieve it since implies that something funny happened. They are attempting slightly warmer fusion so far as I know. Fusion would be something like the holy grail for energy, but let's not hold our breaths.

Cam

(Who is willing to at least try to answer any question on power sources as I am pretty well qualified to talk about it).

Cam

Grunt

30th May 2006, 11:52 AM

Hydrogen isn't all that easy to transport. The hydrogen molecule is the smallest molecule. It's a real bitch trying to contain it. It leaks through glass, rubber plastic etc. Put it in steel pipes and it turns the steel brittle.

CameronPotter

30th May 2006, 11:57 AM

I did not say easy to transport, I said that it was more efficient - in a purely energy efficiency sense. I also said that it would be very expensive! :eek:

silentC

30th May 2006, 12:06 PM

Whenever I think of hydrogen it reminds me of my high school science teacher, Mr Satterlee. He was this quirky American guy with tunnel vision. One day he was talking about the conversion of water to hydrogen and oxygen in one of those glass thingies (techincal term escapes me). He went into the storeroom and came back with one in his hand. He holds it up and says "this piece of apparatus is very expensive, so I wont pass it around for you to look at. However, it works like this..." and as he said it, he turns around, his hand bumps into one of those big gooseneck water spouts we had in the labs and he drops the thing to the floor, where it shatters into a million bits. The sicence master, Mr Funnell, who was known for his temper, hears the noise and comes in to see what has happened. He looks at Mr Satterlee, who is standing there with his hand still gripping the ghost of the apparatus, and the red tide starts to rise from his collar. Steam starts to come out his ears and he just walks off. It it had been one of the students who broke it, there would have been bloodshed.

RufflyRustic

30th May 2006, 12:17 PM

Great thread Midge!

As Al said back on Page 1 - no use having more dams if there is no water, river, rain or runoff flowing into them.

I'm very interested in hearing opinions about why a major pipeline from Nth QLD to Sth QLD hasn't been built.

Beyond logistics, money and politics, why hasn't this option been considered? (or have I buried myself too deep during my holidays?)

Can anyone expand on this as I don't know enough about it beyond thinking it sounds worthy of futher investigation?

thanks
Wendy

CameronPotter

30th May 2006, 12:18 PM

Steam coming out of his ears? Maybe it was water vapour from a hydrogen fuel cell?? :D

AlexS

30th May 2006, 12:27 PM

Why aren't these compulsory in Australia?:confused:

Boban and others, I believe unit blocks now have to have storage capacity for storm runoff - is this so? Is this water later used or is it pumped into the sewerage system?

jmk89

30th May 2006, 12:30 PM

I'm very interested in hearing opinions about why a major pipeline from Nth QLD to Sth QLD hasn't been built.

Beyond logistics, money and politics, why hasn't this option been considered? (or have I buried myself too deep during my holidays?)

Yes Wendy, it has been considered. At about the time of the Snowy Scheme there was a guy ( whose name I have forgotten, but whowas, ISTR a Queensland pollie) who thought that it would be a great idea to dam all the NQ and FNQ rivers that flow into the sea and tunnel through the mountains and send the water into the Queensland interior. This was supposed to create a large inland river system which would support milliions of people and vast agricultural holdings in Queensland, South Australia and even NSW.

Apparently this won't work - something to do with heights of dams, and directions of rivers. Now of course there would also be the damage to the rain forests!! To try a coastal pipeline would be even harder.

The other great "pipe dream" of course is the one that would pipe water from the Kimberleys to Perth. The costings for that are between 1 billion to 3 billion (which really means that no-one knows what it will cost, but it is a b*&^dy big number).

silentC

30th May 2006, 12:37 PM

jmk89

30th May 2006, 12:37 PM

I've just remembered who it was - Dr J J Bradfield (the Sydney Harbour Bridge guy) - the other weaknesses alleged were that it he failed to take proper account of the evaporation.

Andy Mac

30th May 2006, 01:37 PM

That plan in WA was a political hot potato at one of their recent elections, and no doubt the costs would be outrageous...but only in todays terms. What if it really needs to be done in the future, when the costs have completely blown out? I think there was a dispute about pipeline vs. canal...
WA already has the sad story of C.Y. O'Connor, who brought water to the goldfields in the late 1800's and was roundly condemned for such a "pipe dream", by short-sighted cynics.
It was the proposed desalination project on Cockburn Sound (WA) which prompted the report about excessive saline output, but I think they've ignored the risks.

Cheers,

Grunt

30th May 2006, 02:37 PM

Actually, I blame the Romans. They invented internal plumbing. What was wrong with doing your business in a bucket and tossing it out the window. Or going out and squatting in the vegie patch.

Why do we need flushing toilets at all? When you think about it, it's a pretty dumb thing to do. The average person needs 2 litres of water a day, yet we flush 3 litres everytime we take a leak or 6 every time we do a number 2 (if we remember which button to push).

Them Romans, they have a lot to answer for. Roads, plumbing, aquaducts etc.
I think the only solution is that we stop crapping. It'll save 6 x 19 (babies excluded) million or so litres of water a day. Hang on tight.

silentC

30th May 2006, 02:40 PM

Or there's the obvious doggie solution to the problem....

Grunt

30th May 2006, 02:45 PM

Mmmm... poo

boban

30th May 2006, 05:13 PM

Boban and others, I believe unit blocks now have to have storage capacity for storm runoff - is this so? Is this water later used or is it pumped into the sewerage system?

Yes Alex they are called on-site detention pits and are the biggest waste of money I can think of. All they do is hold the water during a storm and let it out slowly over an extended period.

You are not allowed to store the water in there even they would make perfect storage tanks. My parents had on on their house in West Pennant Hills. It suddenly became blocked and thereafter used it as a water tank. It was perfect for the garden, cars etc. They never completely ran out of water.

Theirs was constructed like a swimming pool although you could have open areas hold the water and comply. As to how effective they are, the council engineers have told me that they "wish the money spent was consolidated and a public storage tank was constructed in a number of areas. Thats just common sense and the idea wouldn't stand a chance."

bitingmidge

30th May 2006, 06:13 PM

I agree completely with Boban regarding on-site detention pits. There are a whole heap of Local Authorities introducing all sorts of pathetic and expensive regulations without any thought for how it all works. One local authority I deal with even requires storage tanks to be topped up from the town mains :confused: :confused: :confused: !!

Urban councils in particular are simply burdening projects with non-sensical costs because they have a view that " the developer can afford it". They fail to realise time and time again, that the developer isn't paying, the end user is!

All of these things can be included if the market price is sufficient to cover the costs. My current project is geographically in the middle of nowhere (or actually it's on the edge of nowhere I guess) and fortunately commands a fairly hefty price premium, so we have been able to incorporate all manner of devices which actually work.

Strangely our customers couldn't give a square root that we've spent tens of thousands of dollars extra per unit to save them a few bob down the track, as well as minimise use of water and electricity. If the decision to buy had been based on two identical units one with the stuff for and extra $25k or one without, they all would have taken the one without.

I suppose I just want to reinforce the fact that some developers are actually taking action off their own bat, and paying out of their own pockets, and that's basically why I choose to work with them. Make no mistake though, no one is Santa Claus, if the product was not able to be sold, it couldn't be done.

This project contains 80 units with two or three bathrooms each, and some of the things we have incorporated include:

~around 500,000 litres (that's half a million) of water storage on site (rainwater captured from roofs)
~Toilets, washing machines and laundry tubs plumbed separately to rainwater tanks (Yes, we've actually duplicated the plumbing to allow this to happen).
~3 litre flush toilets - at a cost of a mere $900.00 per suite
~Triple and in some cases quadruple A rated taps and fittings
~Front loading washing machines
~Landscape plants derived fromt the local gene pool, already adapted to the conditions, so that sprinkling will be virtually eliminated.

We have incorporated similar smart stuff in the electrical gear as well, but that's for another thread!

At the end of the day, it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling to do it, probably more so because our customers will never know, but we could not afford to do any of it if we were in the first home market, or probably even in the median bracket.

By the way,(SPAM ALERT!!!) we still have a three or four absolute beachfront units left at around $1.2m, or poolside with courtyards for $700k if anyone is interested. http://www.pavillions-on1770.com.au/ ;) ;) ;)

Cheers,

P (Oops, I must have just had a dose of rant juice!)
:D :D :D

AlexS

30th May 2006, 10:07 PM

Yes Alex they are called on-site detention pits and are the biggest waste of money I can think of. All they do is hold the water during a storm and let it out slowly over an extended period.

I feared that was the case.

dazzler

30th May 2006, 10:51 PM

Why not just do what the tassie govt is doing with the meander dam

Just start building before the approval:rolleyes:

Shedhand

30th May 2006, 11:39 PM

Why not just do what the tassie govt is doing with the meander dam

Just start building before the approval:rolleyes:The only group which doesn't approve is the stupid greens. Kim (Shifty) Booth has suddenly become a feather-brained bird expert in an effort to stop the dam. Here's a GREEN member of parliament who owns a bloody sawmill and gets resource for that mill from old growth forests. The same goose who once reckoned eucalypt plantations were the go. Now they (the greens) reckon eaucalypt plantations are a blight becuase they are grown on rural land. Well excuse me. What is more useful, economically and environmentally, thousands of hectares of grass or thousands of hectares of trees. Fools, fools. Ignore all greens. They lie. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

The Tasmanian Government was relected. Its the majority which counts. Not a bunch of vegan, pot smokin, jobless hippies.
Rant Rant Rant blah blah. Gotta take my pill.

Rocker

31st May 2006, 09:10 AM

Hmm, a moderator seems to have deleted Midge's interesting post about water- and energy-saving devices in the units that he is building. I was notified of the post by e-mail, but it is no longer there in the thread. I can only imagine that this was because he mentioned the price of the units - up to $1.2 million. It seems to me that, if the post was deleted for being spam, this was a bit harsh. The post was not primarily spruiking his units.

Rocker

bitingmidge

31st May 2006, 09:16 AM

silentC

31st May 2006, 09:24 AM

You are not allowed to store the water in there even [though] they would make perfect storage tanks.
I was under the impression that when BASIX came in, you pretty much HAD to put in a rainwater tank to get the points on water conservation?

silentC

31st May 2006, 09:25 AM

Do we want it back?
Yes, bring it back. We wont think you're an egocentric wanker, honest :D

ozwinner

31st May 2006, 09:29 AM

Yeh bring it back, we all know your a a bit of a egocentric wanker anyway.

Al :) :D

bitingmidge

31st May 2006, 09:47 AM

Yeh bring it back, we all know your a a bit of a egocentric wanker anyway.

I can't :o :o :o

Can you??? It was post #65 I think?

HE CAN!! Hurrah for OZ!

Now I look like an egocentric wanker again! :eek:

P
;)

Andy Mac

31st May 2006, 09:54 AM

Yeah bring it back, its all grist for the mill!
There was some 'environmentally friendly' development in Brisbane recently, a set of units designed for minumum heating/cooling costs, and all the roofs were plumbed to a common underground tank, which seemed fairly large, ie. not a token gesture. The reticulation and maybe toilet flushing was acheived by on-site collection. That seems like a worthy development, I would have thought.:)

Cheers,

Grunt

31st May 2006, 10:15 AM

Now I look like an egocentric wanker again! :eek:

Damn, I didn't put that in the "What is Midge?" poll. Should we have another poll? It'll have to multiple choice.

silentC

31st May 2006, 10:19 AM

At the end of the day, it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling to do it
What a wanker!! ;)

We're on tank water at the new place (scheduled to complete any month now). Council requires a minimum of 90,000 litres, 10 of which must be held in reserve for RFS use. Our neighbours managed to empty their 96,000 litre tank twice in the first 5 months of this year. They've got young kids and they water their garden, so I suppose that could account for it.

We put in separate plumbing to all the toilets so that we can flush them using treated effluent from our Super Treat system. All the household waste water goes ino it, the solids are separated in the septic tank and the effluent is treated by bacteria. The output is chlorinated and filtered and then stored in a pump out drum which empties periodically. Most people set up sprinkler systems in designated areas to dispose of it. We're going to store some of it in a small poly tank and use it to flush the toilets. The amount of water going in should be ample to do that and there will still be plenty left over for the garden. That will save us about 90 litres of water a day. As long as it doesn't pong. But we have a few contingency plans up our sleeves in that eventuality...

Grunt

31st May 2006, 10:37 AM

Nearly 200,000 litres in 5 months! What do they do, leave the tap on?

silentC

31st May 2006, 10:42 AM

Well, let's be generous and assume that they are holding their 10,000 litres in reserve, and not using it like most people do, it's more like 170,000, but still a lot. Let's see, it rained late last year (December I think) and the tanks were overflowing. Early this year, they told me they were on the verge of buying a load in and then it rained again, tanks overflowing. Then I saw the water truck at their house about 3 weeks ago just before we got 100mm of rain, so I guess they emptied it twice in that time. Maybe they're into secret agriculture.

bitingmidge

31st May 2006, 11:28 AM

Notwithstanding how your neighbours operate silent, I did learn a bit about peak rainfall, and how to collect it while going through the above with our engineers.

Because of the rainfall pattern at our site, the tanks actually would have overflowed twice per year on average out of the last 20. There comes a time when simply providing more tanks is self-defeating if you don't have enough surface to collect from. (Your neighbours know about that it would seem!)

We proposed a grey-water harvest system (with tertiary treatment) which would have enabled the buildings to be self sufficient, but there is no way of getting that approved in Qld at the moment.

My "next" project is on an island which is a national park in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, water is created through desalination, and even though sewer has to be treated to a potable standard before the "waste" water is sprinkled on the airstrip (under very controlled conditions), it's illegal to drink the stuff though?

I can't figure that out, the processes are the same as Local Authorities use, and the testing and recording is the same as well, but some bloke in an office somewhere says it isn't good??

Gardens:

I've always had gardens derived from species that originate in similar climates to where our houses are. No point in planting rainforest species in a desert if you don't intend to water them.

I also have made a point of minimising lawn areas.

Presently we have a reticulated system which sprinkles for 10 minutes three nights per week ( and lots of mulch). It's a small indulgence, given that for 30 years before this place we didn't water at all, but I'm old enough to actually like the lawn looking a bit green!

When the water runs out, we'll use grey water as you propose. Don't forget that all these "new" systems have been specifically outlawed in the past for reasons of "public health". We are either a lot tougher now, or one day there'll be a pandemic of some rare disease caused by walking barefoot on grass which has been watered with a mix of Trix detergent and cucumber seeds.

I'm a year older today, maybe I'm old enough to stop bothering about all this? :D

Cheers,

P
:rolleyes:

Wongo

31st May 2006, 11:31 AM

I'm a year older today, maybe I'm old enough to stop bothering about all this? :D

Cheers,

P
:rolleyes:

You mean you don't give a dam.:p

Andy Mac

31st May 2006, 11:33 AM

Silent, that sounds like a good setup!
On the subject of water use and where most of it goes, I came across this article some time ago, in one of those Lefty sort of rags...admittedly published in UK (maybe there'd be too much trouble here!). Here's a quote or two:

"In 2000, Australia used 25m gigalitres of water. Just 2m of that total went to households, and nearly half of that, in turn, was used to water gardens. The vast bulk of it- 17m gigalitres, was used in farming."

"One way of measuring the efficiency of water usage is to work out how much of the resource you need for a dollar's worth of finished product. On this measure, healthcare and education use seven litres of water for each Australian dollar, banking uses nine litres, and most manufacturing comes in at less than 50 litres.
Irrigated agriculture consumes scales of magnitude more water. It takes 1,200 litres to make a dollar's-worth of sugar and 1,500 litres to make dairy products or cotton to the same value. The most thirsty crop is rice, which consumes 7,500 litres of water for every dollar of value."

Now that's scarey!:eek: But no mention of mining?! The whole article can be found here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1346105,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1346105,00.html)

Has anyone read Tim Flannery's "The Future Eaters"? I reckon it should be compulsory reading for every Australian, a bit of a wake up call to our complacence.

Cheers,

dazzler

31st May 2006, 11:35 AM

The only group which doesn't approve is the stupid greens. Kim (Shifty) Booth has suddenly become a feather-brained bird expert in an effort to stop the dam. Here's a GREEN member of parliament who owns a bloody sawmill and gets resource for that mill from old growth forests. The same goose who once reckoned eucalypt plantations were the go. Now they (the greens) reckon eaucalypt plantations are a blight becuase they are grown on rural land. Well excuse me. What is more useful, economically and environmentally, thousands of hectares of grass or thousands of hectares of trees. Fools, fools. Ignore all greens. They lie. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

The Tasmanian Government was relected. Its the majority which counts. Not a bunch of vegan, pot smokin, jobless hippies.
Rant Rant Rant blah blah. Gotta take my pill.

COME IN SPINNER!

Now THAT was too easy!:D :D :D :D

silentC

31st May 2006, 11:43 AM

There is no way known our local council would allow anyone to drink the water that comes out of a Super Treat or similar, even if you wanted to. In fact I'm not even certain they would approve of our little plan to use it in the toilets. There is an Australian Standard that could be referred to and I suppose that so long as our system conformed to that, they would have a hard time objecting. I bet they'd give it a shot though. I don't think it has a lot to do with what they think is going to work. I think it has more to do with bureaucracy.

They've had to buckle a bit though locally because our town sewerage system is not coping with the load now and so they have a choice of either paying to upgrade it, or allow a lot of land development to take place under a rural zoning so that people have to provide their own water and sewerage systems. We have neighbours 500 metres away on town water and sewerage (poor fools). Their rates are about $1500 per year, ours are $800. The Super Treat was about $3,000 and the tank was $9,000, so I suppose it will take a few years to pay it off - even adding in water usage charges - but pay it off we will.

I suppose they will come along one day and tell us we have to connect to the new multi-million dollar sewer that now runs past our front door. "Make me" is the phrase that springs to mind.

Rocker

31st May 2006, 11:49 AM

But no mention of mining?! [/FONT]
[/I]

Andy,

From my experience, mines are not a particularly heavy water users. They primarily use water to transport tailings to tailings dams. At the Ranger uranium mine in Kakadu, the main problem lay in disposing of excess contaminated water without polluting the environment. The mine did this mainly by evaporating the excess water with large sprinkler systems. However, at times when there was heavy rainfall the only feasible way of disposing of excess water was to release it into Magela Creek. This would only be done when the creek was in flood and the contaminated water would be highly diluted by the large volumes of water flowing down the creek.

Rocker

bitingmidge

31st May 2006, 11:56 AM

"Make me" is the phrase that springs to mind.

"Watch us" is the phrase that springs right back!

What I didn't note above was that in the project above, it was a condition of the planning permit that we connect to the power, telecommunications, water and sewer infrastructure.

I spent four months unsuccessfully negotiating a removal of those conditions, arguing everything from Trade Practices to Civil Rights, and we also paid $1.2m in local authority headworks charges, without discount for all the bits that we provided to reduce dependance on the local authority! I think you'll find that even if you don't connect, you'll still get charged for it.

I don't think householders even get the chance to argue!

Sorry.

P:(

silentC

31st May 2006, 12:01 PM

Shedhand

31st May 2006, 02:39 PM

COME IN SPINNER!

Now THAT was too easy!:D :D :D :D hehehe. Any chance I get mate I'll unload on the lying, lazy, smelly prycks!!! ;) :D :D :D

Andy Mac

31st May 2006, 04:05 PM

Shedhand

31st May 2006, 06:15 PM

Go Shedhand!!
I bet you must be chuffed that big business and the government never, ever lie. Completely trustworthy, with never a barrow to push...
And I can't ever remember a lazy, smelly redneck either.

Hehehe:rolleyes:At least those liars and cheats live in the real world and are accouintable to a certain extent. The filthy mung bean eating, nit plagued vegan forest dwellers live in lala land, eat funny mushrooms and lie a lot and are totally unaccountable to anyone except Popeye Bob (Brown). :mad: :mad: :mad:

Bah, I'm goin down to the shed.

FWIW lazy, smelly rednecks abound down here (I'm not one of them though) but they at least have their uses. ;) ;) ;) :D :D :D

Daddles

31st May 2006, 06:35 PM

Waldo

31st May 2006, 06:39 PM

G'day,

Fair go Daddles. :)

Eddie Jones

31st May 2006, 07:06 PM

Well, actually this very thing happened to a friend of ours who lives on the other side of town. When he built his house, he was told that he could not connect to the sewer and he was required to put in a septic tank, which he did. Then a couple of years later, the sewer line was upgraded and they told him and everyone else in his street that they had to connect. He refused, saying that he had been forced to install a septic tank at the council's bidding and they had no right to then come along and force him to decommission it. Maybe they're just pussies down here but they let him be.

My DA says that I must provide a complying onsite sewerage management system and onsite water storage, so I have met their conditions of consent. :D

Very lucky. My next door neighbour bought a house with an existing septic system. Found out a while later it was never approved, and apparently not to the council's standard anyway.

Few years later, along comes the sewerage, along with a letter stating everyone will be charged $1200 to connect. He contacts council and explains about the septic. Their response was no way would they connect him as he had a non-compliant septic. He says, "but I want to do away with the septic and use your nice new sewer". Their answer "no, wont connect you - won't discuss it any further". He says "ok stuff you I'll stay on the septic". He did just that. BUT HE STILL HAD TO PAY THE $1200!!

Shedhand

1st June 2006, 01:02 AM

You need to grow up shedhand. I'm sure you've got some half reasonable ideas in there somewhere, but this insistence in presenting yourself as a bigot is hiding them. How about calming down and talking some sense because your behaviour on this thread and some others is akin to the worst of the greenies you detest.

RichardHere we go again. Nah, on second thoughts. I don't have a beef with you Daddles. Just the lying anti-everything - tree huggers. If you want to identify with them go ahead.
I could probably sit here and run up a 100,000 word essay based on credible science which supports the forest practices in Tasmania but I'd rather be in the shed.
BTW telling people to grow up when they express an opinion you don't like is a tad facile mate.
Bigot is defined as a person who doesn't accept an opinion different from their own. I listen to the green's opinions but i don't accept them because I know and read the science of sustainable forestry practice and know equally that their opinions are based on lies, false hysteria, emotion and here-say. One can't be accused of bigotry if an alternate view is unproven and not based on good science.

Cheers ;)

Grunt

1st June 2006, 09:22 AM

Shedhand,

Which studies do you base your credible science on? Have they been paid for by forestry interests?

I take what the green groups AND what the forestry group say on the matter with a grain of salt. Both groups push lies and propaganda.

If sustainable forestry is possible it certainly isn't being widely practiced.

My view is that there is almost nothing that is practiced in a capitalist society that is sustainable. Capitalism relies on growth. If we have a 4% growth rate that means we double our consumption in 18 years.

That means we use twice as much of everything in 18 years. The 2 decades after that we will be using 4 times what we use today. In 40 years time we will consume 8 times what we use today. We live in a finite world and we can't keep consuming for ever. Exponential growth is just not sustainable.

Andy Mac

1st June 2006, 09:26 AM

I don't have a beef with you either Shedhand, and don't want to start anything here (after all, its a water debate:rolleyes: ), but to shout out abuse in with large multicoloured font doesn't really do justice to your well researched opinions!
Most reasonable people- and I put myself in that category- wouldn't have any problems with "sustainable forestry" practices, but I don't think woodchipping falls under that umbrella. Well, maybe it sustains a couple of hundred jobs, a multinational company or two and the odd politician, but doesn't sustain a forest!!
Now back to our water crisis...

Cheers!

bitingmidge

2nd June 2006, 01:12 PM

http://www.airwatermakers.com/

cop this lot! So now, presumably if you live in a humid environment, and presumably don't mind a bit of greenhouse gas generation (should this be in the lilypond thread?) you can make water from thin air!

Cheers,

P

Wood Butcher

2nd June 2006, 02:54 PM

I saw that on the news the other day. This bloke was talking about building a huge one to service Brisbane. The problem I see is that if you strip all of the moisture out of the air it won't bloody rain! I bet the wanks pushing for this project have forgotten all about that in their great wisdom.

One of the quotes on that website also sounds a bit wrong.
"Remote locations…. no delivery charges once the machine is installed."
Sounds a bit BS doesn't it. We'll charge you to deliver and install it then we won't charge you again. One would hope not.