Worst drought ever

[2020hindsight]

It's official. Lake Gordon (Tas) has hit the big 40. Not 40% unfortunately and not even a 40m walk from the edge to the water - it's a lot further than that now.

No, it's literaly a 40m straight vertical drop from the top water level to the actual water level. And it's still falling. As a percentage it's 13.6% full at the moment and is at its second lowest level since operation commenced (that record low level being only 3m lower).

The system total is about 19% and falling roughly 0.1% per day.

You're not gonna like this Smurf, but I imagine Lake Pedder looks pretty much the same now as it did as a pristine lake in 1972.

except that the once beautiful beaches are now buried in 30 years of sludge I imagine.

A mate's brother honeymooned down there before the dam - reckoned it was "exquisite".

You gotta admit, all this development comes at a price - to the planet, to the environment, to our souls.

Tell you what, those various state govts of yours (of I assume both persuasions) have been pretty intransigent and provocative over the years. - no public consultation etc .

http://stott.customer.netspace.net.au/pedder.htm

In 1972, without any public consultation, this exquisite lake was drowned under 50 feet of water by the Tasmanian Government, to create a hydro-electric scheme. There is now a PROPOSAL to drain and restore the lake. These magnificent photos were captured by Gavin Johnstone before it was flooded

 

[2020hindsight]

PS I believe that Chops suggested that nuclear would make the most sense in Tas. Not sure why he said that - think it was something to do with requiring water. (be surprised if you couldn't recycle said water btw).

But considering you have all those energy hungry industries - zinc etc - it might make some sense

You said once " exporting zinc is like exporting electricity".
Trouble is you'll be importing electricity to do it. - Like taking rice to China as they say.

ZFX price?

 

[2020hindsight]

controversial conceded .. as per post before the last

http://www.rankin.com.au/essay7.htm

South West Tasmania has gone down in history as the place that stimulated the birth of the modern conservation movement in Australia. But this fact, of course, can hardly be described as an achievement when so much wilderness was lost in the process. The legacy of these early conservation campaigns, however, is that a group of individuals formed whose expertise in communication and understanding of political matters and processes helped them fight with great success other environmental issues across the country in the coming decades.

In South West Tasmania, the great failure, for Australia, of course was the flooding of Lake Pedder in 1972. The great success was preventing any further building of hydro-electric dams on the Gordon River. All subsequent proposals were cancelled by a High Court decision in July 1983 in the face of growing national outrage.

Smurf the photo is from your post ( Gordon? Pedder? whichever - same principle)
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1099428

 

[Smurf1976]

You're not gonna like this Smurf, but I imagine Lake Pedder looks pretty much the same now as it did as a pristine lake in 1972.

except that the once beautiful beaches are now buried in 30 years of sludge I imagine.

A mate's brother honeymooned down there before the dam - reckoned it was "exquisite".

You gotta admit, all this development comes at a price - to the planet, to the environment, to our souls.

Tell you what, those various state govts of yours (of I assume both persuasions) have been pretty intransigent and provocative over the years. - no public consultation etc .

Lake Pedder right now is 1.44m below full or about 13.5m above natural. Level variations are limited in order to maintain the scenic beauty of the area as well as maintaining the fishery etc. 100% of the inflow to the lake is used, but the storage is drawn down more than 1.5m only under emergency conditions (which we are rapidly approaching).

Detailed studies of the lake were undertaken in 1995, including a dive to the bottom complete with ABC film crew. The resulting footage was publicly shown on the then state-based 7:30 Report - indeed Pedder took not one segment but literally the entire program for the whole week.

The condition of the original lake was found to be largely the same as pre-dam apart from a notable absence of man-made rubbish which once littered the area. Silt was in the order of 1mm on the original beach.

Independent opinion polling at that time put public support for retaining the lake in its dammed form at 95% with 1% in favour of an attempt to restore it to its natural condition. 4% undecided.

A Commonwealth inquiry (noting that the Australian Government seemed to favour draining) found against draining the lake on the basis of both science and an outright lack of public support for such a move.

The move to drain the lake ended when Bob Brown himself acknowledged, live on ABC TV, that saving the Franklin had thus far failed economically, an admission which followed his and many others' acknowledgement that damming Pedder had caused no lasting damage not capable of being reversed relatively easily.

More recent opinion polling puts support for new large hydro-electric dams in the order of 70% although no such dams are actually proposed at present. That level of support is largely unchanged over the past 30+ years.

As for the other options, public support for gas is around 2% with wood, oil and nuclear being effectively zero. Coal around 7%, wind 11% and the balance (approx. 10%) being opposed to any form of energy development or economic growth in general (the deep green view).

Those figures are circa 2005. Anecdotally, public support for hydro seems to have increased since that time and is probably in the low 70's now. Even the Greens now talk about "clean, green hydro-electricity" and have turned their backs on ALL the alternatives they once supported.

The Lake Pedder dam was built with, and still has, the support of the majority of the Tasmanian population. As a tourist attraction the Gordon power scheme outranks the Franklin River 25 to 1.

All that said, the Hydro itself has errected a small display at a lookout point over Lake Pedder. It pays tribute to the conservation movement and goes as far as to acknowledge the environmental downside of hydro-electric development.

Personally, and you might be surprised at this, I'm somwhat of an environmentalist. Best way to put that is to say I knew plenty about what was then termed "the greenhouse effect" and oil depletion before I'd been anywhere near even one hydro power station. Seeing that coal-fired power, tourism and all the other non-hydro alternatives would be short lived it simply made sense to me that dams were the lesser evil. Prior to my becoming aware of this circa 1988, I did actually think the conservationists were right. Now even many of the hardline greens are starting to reach similar conclusions as the evidence mounts that climate change may indeed be real - and if it is then their major economic policy position of increasing relaince on tourism (ie oil) is in serious trouble.

The attached photo of Pedder was taken last year with the level almost exactly the same as it is now. The photo of mine in the previous post is of Lake Gordon at about -36.5m this time last year. It would be completely empty without the flow from Pedder.

Surely a more pressing question is how Qld and Vic will cope with no coal industry? Or how WA and SA will cope without gas? Or how Sydney will cope with the demise of oil? Lamenting the temporary loss of Pedder, and both sides acknowledge that it is temporary, seems rather trivial in comparison.

I could also mention that 30,000 years ago Pedder is thought to have looked much like it does now. That is certainly what the scientific evidence points to. It was a large lake with a relatively flat bottom. Erosion cut channels through the rock and lead to the lake level dropping to its 1971 condition. If that's true (and it's difficult to prove either way) then that opens up a whole new can of worms...

 

[2020hindsight]

1. Lake Pedder right now is 1.44m below full ... Level variations are limited in order to maintain the scenic beauty of the area

2. .... As for the other options, public support for gas is around 2% with wood, oil and nuclear being effectively zero. Coal around 7%, wind 11% and the balance (approx. 10%) being opposed to any form of energy development or economic growth in general (the deep green view).

3. ... Even the Greens now talk about "clean, green hydro-electricity" and have turned their backs on ALL the alternatives they once supported.

4. ... As a tourist attraction the Gordon power scheme outranks the Franklin River 25 to 1.

5. ... All that said, the Hydro itself ... goes as far as to acknowledge the environmental downside of hydro-electric development.

6. Personally, and you might be surprised at this, I'm somwhat of an environmentalist.

7. ... all the other non-hydro alternatives would be short lived it simply made sense to me that dams were the lesser evil.

8.... Now even many of the hardline greens are starting to reach similar conclusions as the evidence mounts that climate change may indeed be real -
9... Surely a more pressing question is how Qld and Vic will cope with no coal industry? Or how WA and SA will cope without gas? Or how Sydney will cope with the demise of oil? ...

smurf thanx for the insight.
1. some attempt to keep the place looking greenish anyway. - and you wonder which will win out - the artificially maintained water level - the scenery or the power demand - if things continue in the current dry (drought?) dirn.

2. public support for no devt at all ? - gotta be the self funded retirees

3. "clean, green hydro-electricity" - no argument it's clean, no CO2 generated etc.

4. you wonder if those tourist figures have a hint of political spin - but interesting and surprising.

5. good to see they see both sides.

6. good to see you see both sides lol

7. I hitchhiked round Tas in the 60's with a mate when may of the dams and pipes were being built - stayed at construction camps a few times - talk about flaming freezing! - down to eight lives after than one .

8. yep - the penny has to drop eventually I guess.

9. yep - no doubt the other states will play around with CCS carbon capture and storage for a while - who knows, it might even work lol. (believe it when I see it - but, hey, give it a try by all means).

Then my guess is one day we'll bite the bullet and go nuclear. Somewhere possibly in the 2100's - I believe you agreed back there somewhere.

Summary :- Can't turn back time that's for sure - and probably (sadly) can't afford to keep the island as some sort of "green museum".

Having said all that, South Island NZ has the most beautiful natural lakes and landscape - reflections of the Remarkables etc Milford Sound sheesh - even a few glaciers albeit rapidly receding
You will always have problems competing with them on the tourist front.

PS One thing - a few years ago now - but I know if you wanted a fight then - then all you had to do was walk into a pub frequented by timber workers , and suggest that the greens had a case lol.

 

[Smurf1976]

smurf thanx for the insight.
1. some attempt to keep the place looking greenish anyway. - and you wonder which will win out - the artificially maintained water level - the scenery or the power demand - if things continue in the current dry (drought?) dirn.

2. public support for no devt at all ? - gotta be the self funded retirees

3. "clean, green hydro-electricity" - no argument it's clean, no CO2 generated etc.

4. you wonder if those tourist figures have a hint of political spin - but interesting and surprising.

5. good to see they see both sides.

6. good to see you see both sides lol

7. I hitchhiked round Tas in the 60's with a mate when may of the dams and pipes were being built - stayed at construction camps a few times - talk about flaming freezing! - down to eight lives after than one .

8. yep - the penny has to drop eventually I guess.

9. yep - no doubt the other states will play around with CCS carbon capture and storage for a while - who knows, it might even work lol. (believe it when I see it - but, hey, give it a try by all means).

Then my guess is one day we'll bite the bullet and go nuclear. Somewhere possibly in the 2100's - I believe you agreed back there somewhere.

Summary :- Can't turn back time that's for sure - and probably (sadly) can't afford to keep the island as some sort of "green museum".

Having said all that, South Island NZ has the most beautiful natural lakes and landscape - reflections of the Remarkables etc Milford Sound sheesh - even a few glaciers albeit rapidly receding
You will always have problems competing with them on the tourist front.

PS One thing - a few years ago now - but I know if you wanted a fight then - then all you had to do was walk into a pub frequented by timber workers , and suggest that the greens had a case lol.

1. Depends on what happens. Load exceeds firm supply anyway so not much chance of ever getting to full. Pedder will be the very last storage to be lowered (it's actually law) but it's getting to the point where it could be necessary. It actually takes quite some time to get the water out and into Lake Gordon so it can't be left until Gordon is literally at zero.

4. The tourist figures are collected by the "green" side of government departments (Parks & Wildlife, which opposed the Hydro even decades ago) and are officially reported since it's a World Herritage Area.

The Hydro used to have a toll gate on the road to the power scheme and the number of vehicles they counted were about the same as the number of people claimed to visit the Gordon Power Scheme now that the "other side" is collecting the data. Most of those cars used to have at least 2 people so possibly a bit of spin going on but if it is then the effect is to understate the number going to Gordon PS rather than to inflate it.

The Franklin figures have been pretty stable for years - not even Bob Brown himself disputes that it hasn't become a major attraction (though he's obviously not keen on mentioning this). That said, to be fair I should point out that the abandoned dam site (which isn't actually on the Franklin by the way) is a significant tourist attraction, though still less than the Gordon dam which was actually built.

Green museum. Well it could be done for sure. But, and here's the rub, for it to work the mainland states have to accept that they'll be paying $ billions a year forever and getting nothing tangible in return. Could be done but given Canberra's record on paying what is promised it would be a brave state government that let it happen.

That alone is substantially why the recent state governments aren't so interested in conservation - the promised $ never do turn up via compensation and only part turns up via tourism. Then people kick the government out for not being able to afford health, education etc. Hence the love affair with big business - at least they pay up even if there are some shoddy deals involved. I can't say I blame them really when you think about the reality of politics.

NZ. And the other thing the South Island of NZ is fairly well known for is... Well let's just say that 60% of NZ's electricity is from hydro...

 

[2020hindsight]

I'm not an expert on this, - I'm assuming that
a) Eucumbene levels are more meaningful that any of the downstream levels because of the fact that there's no opportunity to fill it from "elsewhere" (unlike the others)
b) that a comparison of Eucumbene levels in 2007 vs 1998 (for instance) tells a pretty sad story.
c) obviously there's (normally) a big inflow in late spring from snow.
http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/lakeLevels.asp?pageID=47&parentID=6&mode=submitted

Incidentally, also shown below is a graph of the Murray inflows excluding Snowy - compared to long term averages
http://www.mdbc.gov.au/subs/river-info/weekly-report/current_wr.pdf

yep! - it's obviously all hysteria, and we shouldn't even give the IPCC and co the benefit of the drought. (I mean doubt)

 

[noirua]

Lots of water evaporates along the way and some of these rivers and lakes could be covered. A bit expensive I suppose but something has to be done. Otherwise its pipe it all the way with pumping stations. I did work on a contact with pipes up to 1.3 metres diameter and large loops at the pumping stations.

 

[2020hindsight]

more recent news.. Easter allocation of water for widlife ( a 9 year "event" apparently)
http://www.mdbc.gov.au/subs/river-info/weekly-report/current_wr.pdf

sheesh Menindee Lakes are currently only at 35% storage - after one the best years for a long time.

 

[2020hindsight]

I did work on a contact with pipes up to 1.3 metres diameter and large loops at the pumping stations.

noi, yep - and the new desalinator in Sydney will have 1.8m diam pipes that will run full and flat out - you wonder the power input required. - still, "plenty" (?) of energy stored in the dams in the snowy hydro - ironies abound

 

[Smurf1976]

I'm not an expert on this, - I'm assuming that
a) Eucumbene levels are more meaningful that any of the downstream levels because of the fact that there's no opportunity to fill it from "elsewhere" (unlike the others)
b) that a comparison of Eucumbene levels in 2007 vs 1998 (for instance) tells a pretty sad story.

Lake Eucumbene is the largest storage for the Snowy scheme so that is why it is more meaningful. The Snowy accounts for 30% of Australian hydro-electric output and has about 3740MW of peak capacity so it's quite significant electrically. Also it is of course a major water diversion into the Murray.

It is indeed a sad story over the past decade. Drought is not the sole cause of the present storage situation but it is certainly a major factor.

 

[Prospector]

This is Clayton Bay, which featured on the front page of The Australian on Friday I think it was. These photos were taken over Easter. The first picture shows the River swimming pool - the photo was taken lakeside looking to shore; now, instead of water there are Danger signs warning of the sucking mud that is there - we saw a stong guy get stuck up to his thighs in thick black sludge, because that is all that remains. The water was about 2 feet deep next to the river reeds. The next picture is the yacht club - with two things missing - water and boats. And more danger signs.

The water is both areas was about 2 metres deep. This is Lake Alexnadrina, and it will get worse as the Govt pumps water out of Alexandrina into Lake Albert. This is because Lake Albert (and Lake Alexandrina) will become sulphuric acidic if allowed to dry out completely. That means the soil will be permanently toxic - never to sustain any fish, plants ever again! Nice work people!

There are several indigenous communities whose only source of water has ever been in Lake Albert, and it is not possible to extend mains water to them.

 

[2020hindsight]

c) obviously there's (normally) a big inflow in late spring from snow.

water level graphs here:-
http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/lakeLevels.asp?pageID=47&parentID=6&mode=submitted
snow graphs here :-
http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowDepth.asp?pageID=46&parentID=6

btw, There was quite a good fall of snow in 2007. Hence the increase in Eucumbene storage in spring. Almost parallel (if much lower level) to storage in 1998.

But have a look at 2006. For a start there was 75mm of snow instead of 150mm in 2007. And there ain't no storage improvement in spring either.
Maybe there are other factors at play here.
Summary - damned if I'd be investing in snow skiing in Snowies.

PS you think maybe if they turned the snowmakers on 24/7 , it might make a difference to Eucumbine levels in Spring this year ?? :eek3:

PS Maybe they'll rename them the "Used-to-be-Snowy Mountains"
Bit like One Tree Hill in Auckland - now that the tree is dead / gone?. "Once-had-a-tree Hill"

 

[Smurf1976]

btw, There was quite a good fall of snow in 2007. Hence the increase in Eucumbene storage in spring. Almost parallel (if much lower level) to storage in 1998.

But have a look at 2006. For a start there was 75mm of snow instead of 150mm in 2007. And there ain't no storage improvement in spring either.
Maybe there are other factors at play here.

The main "other factor" is discharge rate.

The Snowy is an intermediate and peaking scheme as far as power is concerned as the following data will illustrate. Load factor is average output as a % of peak (based on long term average inflows).

Power station Load factor

Guthega 27%
Murray 1 17%
Murray 2 17%
Tumut 1 32%
Tumut 2 32%
Tumut 3 4%
Blowering 39%
SNOWY SCHEME TOTAL 15%

So even with high rainfall, it's what the turbines that are doing that will determine lake levels. Run flat out and the scheme will dry up with anything short of an outright flood.

This is very different to, say, the Tasmanian system which was built as a base / intermediate load system with no specific emphasis on peak until some recent modifications. Load factor for the Tas system is 31% to 83% for individual power stations and 52% for the system as a whole.

 

[2020hindsight]

The main "other factor" is discharge rate.

true, but I imagine it is safe to say that (speaking generally) storage / reserve will be depleted in bad years. Just like the graph of my reserve bank account dips when my petty cash account gets hit, and income dries up. (sorta)

I'm not saying there was no spring run-off (compare no income) in 2006. Just that it was "spent" before it hit the "account" - just like my pay.

PS or are you saying that for some reason they needed more than usual power output in 2006?

 

[2020hindsight]

PS In any case, - viewed together with the snowfall graph, all symptoms of a "bad year" generally (2006), I would have thought. - which then lead into 2007, not much better - in fact , "Batton down the hatches" stuff . And now Eucumbene at record lows (since inception).

 

[Happy]

This aborted pseudo-scientific large dome project actually makes sense.

You buy water once and if project is large enough and there are no losses, water and everything else will be recycled endlessly, as it is done in nature.

Remember quite a while ago there were totally sealed glass spheres with, water, plant, shrimp and there was something else, but forgot.
The longest one survived for 2 years.

Plant produced oxygen and served as food, shrimp produced fertiliser and CO2, third thing was doing something too (could be water), kind of perpetum mobile, until one ingredient kicks the bucket.

 

[Smurf1976]

true, but I imagine it is safe to say that (speaking generally) storage / reserve will be depleted in bad years. Just like the graph of my reserve bank account dips when my petty cash account gets hit, and income dries up. (sorta)

I'm not saying there was no spring run-off (compare no income) in 2006. Just that it was "spent" before it hit the "account" - just like my pay.

PS or are you saying that for some reason they needed more than usual power output in 2006?

Any hydro system has a firm annual output rating as well as a number of other ratings (probability based).

I'll give you an example.

Scheme x has a storage capacity of 4680 GWh and an annual average output of 1472 GWh.

However, if the machines are run at full gate (maximum water flow) it's possible to discharge at an annual rate of 3400 GWh.

So in this example, even if the storage was 100% full and rainfall was 100% of normal, it's quite possible to completely drain the storage in about two and a half years.

Likewise if the storage is empty, it's possible to refill it in about 3 and a quarter years if the power station was transferred to emergency use only. It could be refilled in less than 7 years even with half normal inflows.

So generation output is a big determinant of storage levels.

Looking at the Tasmanian system, water is transferred between catchments electrically. That is, if you want to transfer storage between (say) Lake Gordon and Lake Echo then it is done electrically. Run Lake Echo discharge below average and offset that with higher generation output from Gordon. Then wait... And presto! Echo is up, Gordon is down even though no water physically flows between the two.

Same principle applies with any of the 6 major catchments which are not hydraulically interconnected - storages are balanced over time through changes in generation output rather than physical transfer of water. The only time this fails is if either (1) rainfall is zero or very close to it or (2) you don't have sufficient capacity installed to draw on the major storages. Other than that, it's a lot cheaper and easier to shift it via transmission lines than via canals, tunnels etc.

Snowy has a LOT more flexibility to manipulate storage levels over time than does Tas. A lot more. And that is due to the predominantly thermal system on the mainland - Snowy can run anywhere between baseload and emergency peaking use only if they choose. They thus have a lot of control over water discharge and thus storage levels.

What I'm saying is that Snowy could have held levels higher if they had wanted to. Obviously that would have been at the expense of downstream water users, but from a power generation perspective it was quite doable.

Meanwhile, still not much run-off down here.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/01/2204979.htm

 

[Smurf1976]

Well we have some rain at last!

Pity about the 176 km/h winds that came with it. Trees down, a few houses wrecked, fences blown across the road, windows blown in and an outright mess all over the place. And not one but 200 power lines down (just about all fixed now). Don't think too many people would have slept too well last night with all that going on between midnight and 6am.

Strangest one would have to be the shipping container that literally blew off the back of a truck and landed on the road, taking a light pole out in the process. It takes quite a bit of wind to blow one of those off I would think.

There was a bit of rain though and it fell in some useful places so that's good. Releases from the major storages are now quite low (and levels are rising slowly) as there's lots flowing in to the system elsewhere. Let's hope there's more rain to come, though preferably without so much wind next time.

 

[chops_a_must]

Well we have some rain at last!

Pity about the 176 km/h winds that came with it. Trees down, a few houses wrecked, fences blown across the road, windows blown in and an outright mess all over the place. And not one but 200 power lines down (just about all fixed now). Don't think too many people would have slept too well last night with all that going on between midnight and 6am.

Yeah, we get some good rain earlier in the week, and all the farmers do is complain!!!

What was I saying about that current indicating weather patterns linking WA and TAS the other week?

I'll see what the water is doing... learning to surf all weekend.

But the 7.30 report tonight... has done nothing for my stereotype with farmers and the SA problem. Seriously, how stupid are SA farmers?

Complain about the environmental status, feign to be "murray defenders", and when emergency plans about saving a world heritage site are mooted... nup... can't have that! Too bad about the sulfuric acid!! Screw that, we want to irrigate!!!

Farkin farmers!

The penny clearly has not dropped. Even when they are trucking in water to keep cattle alive, there are clearly absolutely no contingency plans. Clearly the farming is never going to be sustainable in the lower murray, ever. But nup... irrigation up the river should be stopped so WE can irrigate! Bloody hell... don't they even listen to what they say? Makes me so angry.

They have to either switch to other methods, or give up. There is no way they can survive. And the gutlessness of the SA government, is I believe, the reason nothing is being done from other states. And you can see why. Both farmers and government are completely deluded, aren't even tackling with reality.

Until SA farmers actualy acknowledge that most cannot continue, nothing will be done.

My respect for most Australian farmers continues to decrease.

Cheers.