- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,120
- Reactions
- 16,955
The order of storage depletion, Hume before Dartmouth, makes sense given the storage capacity versus inflow range for the two storages but agreed with the underlying message.If you look at the two graphs, you can see how MDBC firstly significantly depleted Hume Dam from approx. 93% in mid Nov 2005 to approx. 12% at the start of May 2006, while leaving Dartmouth Dam at approx. 65% for the year. Then, when the expected winter rains didn't come they switched to significantly depleting Dartmouth Dam from approx. 65% at the start of August 2006 down to approx. 10% at the start of May 2007. In the same timeframe, due to the lack of inflows, Hume Dam had also dwindled to approx. 7%.
I'd be rather interested in knowing what modelling the MDBC has done for this and how they worked out that it was OK to run flat out with the storages declining to that level. I strongly suspect the answer is they haven't actually worked it out at all beyond a 12 month timeframe.
The longer the projection period the lower the accuracy, but I've seen 5 year projections done reasonably well so it is possible.
IMO the real underlying problem is that water management (and a lot of other things) no longer look beyond a 12 month timeframe. Everything now is about this year and this year's financial results. Same with electricity, same with gas, same with oil industry and lots of other things. It's all about today, not tomorrow.
It wasn't always like this. I know for a fact that a lot of investigation work into dams etc was being done in the 1960's for projects planned to be up and running in the 1990's. Literally looking 30 years ahead, realising that something was needed, and then doing a proper investigation of all the available options in order to determine which was best.
The real reason that sort of thing fell in a hole is political. Dams aren't popular and those opposed to them thrive on it not being urgently needed. Never mind that it will take a decade to build, 3 years to fill and is needed then. That doesn't count. If the need isn't immediate then whoever is proposing it will be subject to all manner of "surplus capacity" claims which, whilst true in the short term, are anything but true in the long term.
Bottom line IMO is the only way we'll fix the water is to actually run completely dry. Just as the only way Joe Public will ever understand the oil situation is when they can't buy petrol. Just as they won't listen to anyone telling them about the need for investment in power generation until the lights have actually gone out. Short term, they always focus on the negative effects of these things rather than looking to tomorrow.