- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,340
- Reactions
- 17,657
I don't have a lot of info on that particular dam, I'm commenting in terms of dams in general. But based on the info that I do have, it will require about 750 GWh of electricity to produce an equivalent volume of water via desal.Smurf - I'm sure you've heard of TRAVESTON being referred to as "the saucer"?
Mainly because it would have been knee-deep for a grasshopper.
I'd be amazed if hydro was ever seriously considered there (and now it has been abandoned it seems).![]()
In terms of renewable energy, that power is more than the entire output of the two significant non-pumped storage (which don't generate net energy) hydro schemes Qld has. Or you could say it's 15% of the output of the entire Snowy hydro scheme. Or in terms of CO2 emissions it's equivalent to burning 326 million litres of petrol a year.
So it's not massive but it's certainly significant in terms of CO2 emissions from the desal alternative. That dam was, to my knowledge, effectively the single largest energy saving project ever proposed in Australia.
All that said, if the claims about are a flooded (29 km²) and depth (1.5 m) are correct then it's not what I'd call an ideal dam site. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have provided 150 GL of water per annum, but as a dam I'd have to say that it doesn't seem an overly good one.
Are there not other sites that could be developed either on that river or on somewhere else?
Or if the claims about leakage are correct (possible although I'm somewhat doubtful) then how about simply pumping water from the river instead of damming it? Once you take evaporation and any leakage into account from a dam you could still extract significant volumes purely by pumping assuming the river does have flow most of the time. Technically that's very easy and, as long as we're not talking about taking all the water out, need not have an overly great environmental impact.