Water Idea - would this work?

Mofra · 18 August 2009

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/18/2659367.htm

Physicist: Giant water bags answer to drought

An ambitious scheme has been put forward to solve the water crisis in the New South Wales south-east and Murray-Darling Basin.

Queensland physicist Doctor Ian Edmonds wants to harvest excess water in that State's north and float it down the eastern seaboard to the far south coast using giant inflatable plastic bags.

It would then be pumped into the Snowy via a pipeline from Tathra, near Bega.

Writing in the Water Engineering Australia magazine, Doctor Edmonds says each bag would contain 150 megalitres and be up to half a kilometre long.

He says the idea is not new.

"It originally came from the problem we had up here in Queensland a couple of years ago when Brisbane was in severe drought," he said

"I came up with this idea of transporting water from the Northern Rivers - the Tully and the Burdekin - by sea down to Brisbane.

"Since that time, of course, the problem has resolved itself."

Now this has caused a bit of disussion in my office. Personally I like the left field thinking from this physicist.
The argument put is that the feasibility of pumping water up to the Snowy Mountains is is similar to the feasibility of pumping water from the Tully, as the water pressures required would be the same for both, given the height that the water would need to be pumped to is similar. Is this correct?
Surely the distance the water is required to travel (and therefore the weight of water in the pipe) is a factor as well?
In any case, could this proposal work?

Fishbulb · 18 August 2009

That sounds pretty stupid. Sorry.

It's even dumber than the north south pipeline that'll bring water from The Goulburn!!

Just build some more dams or desal plants. Problem solved.

Krusty the Klown · 18 August 2009

Mofra said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/18/2659367.htm

Now this has caused a bit of disussion in my office. Personally I like the left field thinking from this physicist.
The argument put is that the feasibility of pumping water up to the Snowy Mountains is is similar to the feasibility of pumping water from the Tully, as the water pressures required would be the same for both, given the height that the water would need to be pumped to is similar. Is this correct?
Surely the distance the water is required to travel (and therefore the weight of water in the pipe) is a factor as well?
In any case, could this proposal work?

Pumping the water wouldn't be the problem, there are oil pipelines all over the world that operate this way.

I thought the problems would be with transporting the water by sea.

Small desal plants at Bega would probably be cheaper in the long run as they would be permanent. Great use of govt stimulus $$$$$

jono1887 · 18 August 2009

most ridiculous idea i've ever heard.... put water in a bag and float in on water... why dont they just desalinate it down in NSW

Smurf1976 · 18 August 2009

It's not at all ridiculous when you give it some proper thought. It's not original, the concept has been around since at least the 1950's, but maybe the time has come.

As for the pumping, the net vertical lift involved is the big issue but yes, horizontal distance is also a factor.

Depending on the actual topography of a pipeline route, assuming it is not straight up since it's going to be a fairly long distance, you'd likely have a combination of pump stations, rising mains, siphons, flumes, penstocks, mini-hydro plants and some pondages along the way to do it most economically.

A simple pipeline with multiple pumping stations could be built, but that's quite likely a more expensive way to do it (depending on actual site topography). Canals, flumes, lagoons etc are a much cheaper way to move water over distance than pipelines, but they don't work on uphill sections of the route.

stocksontheblock · 18 August 2009

I've got to agree, a pretty stupid idea, for a lot of reasons, yet the first that springs to mind is that this would be cheaper than coming up with a solution closer to the problem?

Is this one of those pie in the skies ideas, or has this been costed and hence shown to be effective?

So_Cynical · 18 August 2009

Smurf1976 said:
It's not at all ridiculous when you give it some proper thought. It's not original, the concept has been around since at least the 1950's, but maybe the time has come.

As for the pumping, the net vertical lift involved is the big issue but yes, horizontal distance is also a factor.

Depending on the actual topography of a pipeline route, assuming it is not straight up since it's going to be a fairly long distance, you'd likely have a combination of pump stations, rising mains, siphons, flumes, penstocks, mini-hydro plants and some pondages along the way to do it most economically.

Would have to go up about 900 meters over a very short distance (brown Mountain) then about 120Km of undulating hills (0 > 100 mtrs), then up another 200 meters or so to lake Eucumbene?

Whats really needed to fix our water, power and greenhouse problems is a deliberate and measured switch to power stations run by liquid-fluoride thorium reactors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

gooner · 18 August 2009

jono1887 said:
most ridiculous idea i've ever heard.... put water in a bag and float in on water... why dont they just desalinate it down in NSW

Because it costs a lot of energy (money, greenhouse gases) to take salt out of water. Floating it down might be cheaper - current might bring it down here easily.

Smurf1976 · 18 August 2009

So_Cynical said:
Would have to go up about 900 meters over a very short distance (brown Mountain) then about 120Km of undulating hills (0 > 100 mtrs), then up another 200 meters or so to lake Eucumbene?

Sounds doable but not cheap.

It might be more practical to use this water somewhere else in the Murray or Murrumbidgee catchement (effectively the same thing in this context since it's easy to divert between the two) rather than putting it into the headwater storages. Same end result in terms of benefits but might be cheaper to implement.

Datsun Disguise · 18 August 2009

Krusty the Klown said:
Small desal plants at Bega would probably be cheaper in the long run as they would be permanent. Great use of govt stimulus $$$$$

But what about when it rains again and the desal plant sits there spewing out fresh water that is not needed (and bloody expensive)? At least you could pack up the bags until the next drought - or lease them out to whichever part of the world is dry at the time.

The idea is easy to rubbish - it does sound a bit hair brained - but we should consider all options when faced with these sorts of problems. I'd be interested to see the economics of it. There's some basic equations that tell you how much power you need to pump water over distance and height - don't know if I've got my old text books or not - just need to match that power cost with the bag idea and avoid the capital cost of a pipeline and you're in business.

springhill · 18 August 2009

Heard this old chestnut a few years back when Barnett was talking of piping water down from Nth WA to Perth. Just waiting for someone to mention towing an iceberg......

son of baglimit · 19 August 2009

Fishbulb said:
That sounds pretty stupid. Sorry.

It's even dumber than the north south pipeline that'll bring water from The Goulburn!!

Just build some more dams or desal plants. Problem solved.

ummmm - rain - filling the dam - THAT is the issue.

remember this has been a 10 year drought, not 1 or 2 years. there is every reason to believe its a long term trend - and so you cant rely on rain falling anymore.

water transportation, from the far north to the goulburn/murray/darling/any specific major farmland feeding river system to ensure supply for food production. secondly redirecting/recycling storm water drains - the concrete jungle that is melbourne is its own catchment. cost billions - benefit billions. expect to hear about such schemes as this summer takes melbourne below 20% supply.

WE CANNOT RELY ON MELBOURNE BEING THE WET & COLD CITY ITS REPUTATION SUGGESTS.

Bafana · 19 August 2009

Would probably work but as an earlier post said desal would be much more efficient and cost effective in the long run especially if we could combine it with some green energy. Should also use treated waste water - mixed at 10% no one would ever know the difference.

stocksontheblock · 19 August 2009

Ohhh why not, I'll say it ... why not tow an iceberg?

Stan 101 · 19 August 2009

stocksontheblock said:
Ohhh why not, I'll say it ... why not tow an iceberg?

The local state fees to tow such a long wide load are exorbitant. There is also the cost of the pilot and police escorts.

cheers,

alston36 · 19 August 2009

Better off using Carnegies CETO, desalinate when in drought, generate power when not.

Mofra · 19 August 2009

son of baglimit said:
WE CANNOT RELY ON MELBOURNE BEING THE WET & COLD CITY ITS REPUTATION SUGGESTS.

Melbourne is officially the dryest Capital city in Australia (according to news reports), taking the mantle off Adelaide. Adelaide would still have it on longer term trends.

Mofra · 19 August 2009

alston36 said:
Better off using Carnegies CETO, desalinate when in drought, generate power when not.

Cheers alston, I had never heard of this until you posted. Just on the company website, sounds rather interesting and the devlopment appears to be fairly advanced according to the timeline (asusming the company is meeting timeframes).

jono1887 · 19 August 2009

Stan 101 said:
The local state fees to tow such a long wide load are exorbitant. There is also the cost of the pilot and police escorts.

not to mention the risk of being hijacked by Somalian pirates considering the price of ice these days!!

Fishbulb · 19 August 2009

son of baglimit said:
ummmm - rain - filling the dam - THAT is the issue.

remember this has been a 10 year drought, not 1 or 2 years. there is every reason to believe its a long term trend - and so you cant rely on rain falling anymore.

water transportation, from the far north to the goulburn/murray/darling/any specific major farmland feeding river system to ensure supply for food production. secondly redirecting/recycling storm water drains - the concrete jungle that is melbourne is its own catchment. cost billions - benefit billions. expect to hear about such schemes as this summer takes melbourne below 20% supply.

WE CANNOT RELY ON MELBOURNE BEING THE WET & COLD CITY ITS REPUTATION SUGGESTS.

Ummm....more dams = more water being caught.

Water Idea - would this work?

Mofra

Fishbulb

Krusty the Klown

Embittered Komedy Legend

jono1887

Smurf1976

stocksontheblock

So_Cynical

The Contrarian Averager

gooner

Smurf1976

Datsun Disguise

springhill

Make the drill work for YOU

son of baglimit

Bafana

stocksontheblock

Stan 101

alston36

Mofra

Mofra

jono1887

Fishbulb

Similar threads

Water Idea - would this work?

Embittered Komedy Legend

The Contrarian Averager

Make the drill work for YOU

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency