Damn the damn dams or be dammed!

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

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Ian S.Falconer (School of Physics, University of Sydney)

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.

---

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?

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. :)

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufflyrustic

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).

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).

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.

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,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

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.

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

Mmmm... poo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

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."

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boban

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.

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

Just start building before the approval:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocker

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

---

No, I deleted it because I re-read it and thought I was being a bit of a egocentric wanker! :eek: Maybe it was just a bit late at night! (Do we want it back?)

P
:D :D :D

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Do we want it back?

---

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

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

Al :) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ozwinner

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
;)

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,

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

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

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.

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: