Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

No More Dams?

Jump to new
pilots said:
The one thing that burns me up here in Perth is we are short of water, yet we use drinking water to flush our toilets. How bad is that.
Click to expand...

Please clarify, I am struggling to see your point -

Instead of using drinking water in your toilets

would you prefer

to use toilet water to drink?
 
pilots said:
The one thing that burns me up here in Perth is we are short of water, yet we use drinking water to flush our toilets. How bad is that.
Click to expand...

Hong Kong they use salt water for fire fighting etc (in many parts anyways)
The missus insists that stormwater runoff should be collected - and if necessary distributed in a second set of mains for "general purpose" - that way it could be untreated. or minimal treatment :2twocents

http://www.mail-archive.com/sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org/msg16272.html
In many part of the world the public water mains supply water which may be technically within WHO guidelines for potability is essentially brackish. In the Arabian Gulf this is produced by blending ground water with distilled/desalted water. People use this for general household duties, flushing and irrigating but not drinking. Drinking water is supplied via tank trucks and is referred to as 'sweet water'

There is no possibility of marine growth as the salinity is too low and the water is taken from aquifers which are now suffering from years of over abstraction. While it's possible to use sweet water to charge a sprinkler system or fire main after installation or servicing it is very hard to keep to this fill. Hence the primary problem being pumps - as has been suggested there are a good range of sprinkler valve sets and components which are intended for marine use - I have seen some really good kit from Tyco on production platforms in the North Sea

It does seem however that it is the pumps which really suffer in such environments and I have seen some horrific impeller blade erosion in Nigeria on pumps that are less than 5 years old.

Incidentally, Hong Kong has salt water fire mains in many parts of Kowloon - look for the yellow hydrants ! (The ones on the old Kai Tak airport approach have nine 64mm outlets !)
Click to expand...
 
2020hindsight said:
The missus insists that stormwater runoff should be collected - and if necessary distributed in a second set of mains for "general purpose" - that way it could be untreated. or minimal treatment
Click to expand...

Does your missus have any suggestions on how this runoff storm water should be collected and distributed?
 
Interesting we have a federal enviro minister rejecting a state decision.
Politics at its best.
If you think thats bad then wait until Rudd signs the Copenhagen Treaty because ONLY the UN will have the say on how this place is run.
 
Soft Dough said:
Please clarify, I am struggling to see your point -

Instead of using drinking water in your toilets

would you prefer

to use toilet water to drink?
Click to expand...

Every new house that is built should be made that the Grey water is collected, the shower water, and this would be used to flush the loo. Our trouble is that the water you use you are paying for, if we start to be sensible and use Grey water our local government won't make as much money from you as they do now.
 
Sdajii said:
1. I spent years at uni studying biology, I have worked in labs and animal houses as a biologist.

2. ... The turtle is unusual in some ways, but only because of its genetic background. The breathing through the bum thing was hyped up, many Australian turtles breathe through that part of the body.

3. The lungfish on the other hand is one of the most incredibly important species on the planet, not just because it is extremely unusual and looks incredibly cool, but it is a fish with a bloody lung!
Click to expand...

Sdajii,
I must admit the turtle bends the imagination a bit lol.
a. Maybe their DNA could be blended into future generations of pearl fishermen or some such - would make snorkling a breeze. (ignoring the odour that is).
b. Must be a bludy nuisance when they want to wolf-whistle to their girlfriend turtle lol. :eek::eek3::eek:

cheers, 2020
PS I spose whales breathe through a hole in their back , so what's the big deal. :confused:
 
Calliope said:
Does your missus have any suggestions on how this runoff storm water should be collected and distributed?
Click to expand...
she seems to think that problem will be sorted out by others. - still where there's a will ...
(But one thing I do have personal experience of ... in HK , when you do a road diversion, say in midlevels of HK island, you have a stack of services to sort out - fresh water mains, salt water mains, gas, electricity etc etc )
 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...of-traveston-dam/story-e6frg71x-1225797125893

The Labor government was right to push for the dam, especially with southeast Queensland's population set to reach 4.4 million in another 20 years. The hapless LNP opposition, however, dominated as always by the narrow interests of the Nationals' bush base, turned its back on Brisbane and opposed the dam.

What is needed, and not just in Queensland, is a new mindset. In 2004, after decades of population growth in Sydney but no new dams, former NSW premier Bob Carr ruled out the option because "it would take years to build and even longer to fill, not to mention the damage done to surrounding farmland and natural areas". Melbourne has added a million people since the Thomson reservoir was built in 1983, and the Institute of Public Affairs has calculated that desalinated water will be six times the price of water from a new dam. Desalination plants also have a heavy carbon footprint through their power use. All in all, the Traveston decision is one of breathtaking absurdity, the cost of which will haunt southeast Queensland for a generation.
Click to expand...

I guess breathtaking absurdity sums it up. People who don't live in S.E. Queensland may disagree, but I suggest they read this editorial in full.
 
The only breathtaking absurdity was the selection of the site. A better site exists to build a dam, with better geological properties and without significant species in it. If a dam is needed, build a dam, but do it properly rather than making a crap dam in an important site. With rainfall as it is, a new dam might turn out to be useless anyway, just sitting around mostly empty. Desalination is drought proof, so your 4.4 million people will have water to drink even if it doesn't rain.

Breathtaking stupidity is allowing politicians and economists to be making these decisions rather than the scientists who understand the situation. Here, a pig-headed politician naively believed that "building a dam equals more available water!" because once upon a time rainfall was constant and the best dam sites were unused. This is no longer the case, so dams aren't necessarily the best option, even if you completely ignore conservation or human rights.
 
pilots said:
Every new house that is built should be made that the Grey water is collected, the shower water, and this would be used to flush the loo. Our trouble is that the water you use you are paying for, if we start to be sensible and use Grey water our local government won't make as much money from you as they do now.
Click to expand...

100% agree.

But then again that is what happens when

1. Your federal government is run by a bunch of fools ( ETS anyone? )

2. You have tiers of government who cost shift.

I work in Health, and you would be astonished as to the federal / state shift of cost.
 
Sdajii said:
With rainfall as it is, a new dam might turn out to be useless anyway, just sitting around mostly empty. Desalination is drought proof, so your 4.4 million people will have water to drink even if it doesn't rain.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read the editorial as I suggested.

In August 2007, Brisbane's supply fell to 16.7 per cent, when former premier Peter Beattie warned John Howard that health and hygiene were at risk. But had the Traveston Dam existed, rainfall would have filled it four times from 2003 to 2007.
Click to expand...

Sure, desalination is drought proof. The water is also several times more costly to produce than water from a dam, and has a huge carbon footprint, but I guess the carbon Greenies and the endangered species Greenies don't speak to each other.

We have a desalination plant down the Gold Coast which cost $1.5 billion. It is a white elephant. And now that the NIMBYs know they hold all the cards, obtaining sites to build more may prove impossible. The barricades are going up already.

I don't know where you come from, but as a resident of S.E. Qld, the decision to scrub the dam is very disquieting.
 
Julia said:
Calliope, what's the problem with the desal plant at the Gold Coast?
Click to expand...

Courier Mail 9 Nov;

FEARS the $1.2 billion Gold Coast desalination plant was rushed, compromising its quality, have been raised by officials overseeing the troubled project.

The Tugun plant, meant to be a showpiece of the State Government's $9 billion water grid, has been plagued by problems including rusting pipes, cracking concrete, faulty valves and leaching of contaminants from a rubbish dump.

The Government is refusing to take delivery of the facility until next June because of serious faults that have delayed the handover by 18 months.
Click to expand...

The locals are not happy Julia. They claim it is a noisy eyesore. Any attempt to replicate it up our way will be fiercely resisted. If Anna wants one so badly let her site it on the Brisbane River near Parliament House.
 
Any thoughts on turning the rivers back into the centre, as Joh Bjelke Petersen suggested.

It all just flows away after the rain and if we kept it we could populate the western side of the Great dividing Range.

At least in NSW. It might affect the reef if we did it in Queensland.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Any thoughts on turning the rivers back into the centre, as Joh Bjelke Petersen suggested.
Click to expand...
:topic
gg, as Joh used to say
"you can lead a horse to drink , but you can't make him water"
Trouble with Joh was, you never knew if it was wit or dementia :2twocents
probably half and half - i.e.

half-wit , and half dimentia ;)
 
Calliope said:
You obviously didn't read the editorial as I suggested.



Sure, desalination is drought proof. The water is also several times more costly to produce than water from a dam, and has a huge carbon footprint, but I guess the carbon Greenies and the endangered species Greenies don't speak to each other.

We have a desalination plant down the Gold Coast which cost $1.5 billion. It is a white elephant. And now that the NIMBYs know they hold all the cards, obtaining sites to build more may prove impossible. The barricades are going up already.

I don't know where you come from, but as a resident of S.E. Qld, the decision to scrub the dam is very disquieting.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the laugh :)

As comical as it is to talk about what would have happened if the dam had been completed at the start of 2003 as though that was a realistic option, we of all people should understand the concept of 2020hindsight. Approving a dam in 2009 and having it completed a considerable amount of time after that does not allow us to capture the rain that fell years before the dam's proposal!

It's like saying "Gee, back when the SP of company X was increasing at an absurd rate well above its true value it would have been great to buy! If I bought some 10 years ago I'd have made heaps of money by now! Gee, I should buy some today!" and then saying "Oh, you're an idiot, can't see see how much the share price has gone up! This is such a terrible shame!" when the proposal to buy is knocked back.

It seems rather daft to say "Gee, the amount of rain we are getting is decreasing, so let's build a dam based on the amount of rain we used to get" rather than "Gee, rainfall is decreasing, maybe we should find a drought proof solution to our water problem". At the very least, given the situation, surely you can concede that there is merit to the ideas of alternative water strategies rather than the traditional method which relies on reliable rainfall. Dams only work when it rains. The fact that we have having problems with a drought means we have less rain. The outlook is apparently for an increase in the severity of the drought.

As I said, even if a dam was (or is) the best solution, the site being proposed was not the best option, whether or not you care about conservation.

Incidentally, I too lived in SE QLD (Brisbane) for a while. I left in 2007, quite honestly, because Brisbane was such a backwards place.
 
Sdajii said:
Thanks for the laugh :)
Incidentally, I too lived in SE QLD (Brisbane) for a while. I left in 2007, quite honestly, because Brisbane was such a backwards place.
Click to expand...

Now I know what you are on about. SE Qld is certainly no place for a superior being like you. You will not be missed.
 
Ruby is on the right track.....put rainwater tanks on every house, with government subsiding the cost.
Tanks wouldn't entirely solve the water shortage but they'd certainly relieve it. It's surprising how little rain it takes to fill a tank. And it's surprising how many times it rains, even during a drought.

And free up natural water supplies that are tied up by the bloody greenies. Julia makes a good point about the abundance of fresh water on Fraser Island. Just a small portion of that water piped to the mainland would go a long way towards supplying the water needs of south east Queensland.
And it could be done without upsetting the eco system on Fraser Island and in the surrounding ocean.

I'm in the fortunate position of having unlimited water at my place...36,000 litre rainwater tank which is never less than about 80% full. And a bore of 11,000 lite per hour capacity, with water of excellent drinking quality. In fact we usually drink bore water in preference to rainwater.
Our garden is 1.7 acres and we can water it to our hearts content. In hot dry weather our sprinklers run day and night until the entire garden gets a good soaking.
 
Top