No Dam!
- Thread starter TidalPete
- Start date
Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:
TidalPete
BREWING BY THE BEACH
That's what that bloody woman will threaten us with but there are better spots for a dam & other options.
TP
MarkBastard
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19/5/08
- Messages
- 3,857
- Reaction score
- 49
not in my back yard!
TidalPete
BREWING BY THE BEACH
WHY NOT?
Most of our water is being pumped to Brisbane right at this very moment for your use & to add insult to injury from the 1st December we have to cop your bloody water restrictions as well. :angry:
So it's only fair & correct that the next dam to be constructed should be spot bang in the centre of "your own backyard" as you so aptly put it.
This would be a perfect application of the "User Pays" system. :super:
TP
MarkBastard
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19/5/08
- Messages
- 3,857
- Reaction score
- 49
LOL I wasn't literally saying I don't want it in my backyard.
I'm saying that everyone loves dams except when they're in their backyard. Considering my backyard is about 4m above sea level and within a couple of KM of moreton bay it wouldn't be very suitable.
I'm saying that everyone loves dams except when they're in their backyard. Considering my backyard is about 4m above sea level and within a couple of KM of moreton bay it wouldn't be very suitable.
Andyd
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30/10/05
- Messages
- 1,092
- Reaction score
- 105
It's always dangerous getting on a soap box on this one, but...
Are the environmental impacts of running a Desal plant more acceptible to those of creating a dam? It certainly doesn't seem that a cross -impact study has been conducted...
If the report says the dam won't collect water, then that's one thing. But citing "unacceptable impacts on matters of national environmental significance" without also pointing out the end-to-end environmental impacts of running two (yes count them, two) desal plants 24x7 is just not a responsible thing to do for a government. This is clearly a case of of popularity play over rational government. Is Garret implying that desal plants have no "national environmental significance"? I certainly hope not...
At the end of the day there are some undeniable truths. Our population is growing, and therefore the demands on infrastructure increase proportionately (in fact the way we're going there is even a multiplicative factor in there). So we can either:
1) Improve infrastructure
2) reduce demand on infrastructure (i.e. go back to life ala 1800's)
3) reduce the population
If we're going to decide on (1) then lets make sure the debate considers all options and the end-to-end environmental impacts of each on their own merit to determine the best path forward.
Andy
Are the environmental impacts of running a Desal plant more acceptible to those of creating a dam? It certainly doesn't seem that a cross -impact study has been conducted...
If the report says the dam won't collect water, then that's one thing. But citing "unacceptable impacts on matters of national environmental significance" without also pointing out the end-to-end environmental impacts of running two (yes count them, two) desal plants 24x7 is just not a responsible thing to do for a government. This is clearly a case of of popularity play over rational government. Is Garret implying that desal plants have no "national environmental significance"? I certainly hope not...
At the end of the day there are some undeniable truths. Our population is growing, and therefore the demands on infrastructure increase proportionately (in fact the way we're going there is even a multiplicative factor in there). So we can either:
1) Improve infrastructure
2) reduce demand on infrastructure (i.e. go back to life ala 1800's)
3) reduce the population
If we're going to decide on (1) then lets make sure the debate considers all options and the end-to-end environmental impacts of each on their own merit to determine the best path forward.
Andy
TidalPete
BREWING BY THE BEACH
Not referring to you personally MB but all Brisso's in general.
I think I better not post again on this thread.
Let's just say that the decision is for the greater good & not just for the population of Traveston Crossing.TP
raven19
Homer is God
- Joined
- 24/9/08
- Messages
- 5,297
- Reaction score
- 23
You forgot one Andyd...
4) All QLD brewers to become 'no chill' advocates. :lol:
Seriously though - So many pro's and con's with regard to any option taken. Whatever the decision is many people wont be happy with the outcome.
Also, desal Plant waste is not good stuff to dispose of iirc...
MarkBastard
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19/5/08
- Messages
- 3,857
- Reaction score
- 49
I don't think there should be any permanent desal plants. They should only be used for emergencies IMO. That is unless they can make green ones.
I don't know enough about this issue and I'm sure 99% of other people don't either, but I'm not gunna take a side with the knowledge I have.
I don't know enough about this issue and I'm sure 99% of other people don't either, but I'm not gunna take a side with the knowledge I have.
We have the same issues here in Victoria.
People in "catchment" areas dont want new dams because of the environmental impact.
Farmers dont want pipelines because of the environmental impact
People in coastal areas dont want desal because of the environmental impact.
Every one bitches and moans about water restrictions... they just dont want a solution in their back yard.
My 2c.
There should be far more recycling at a domestic level of grey water.
Blackwater should be treated and recycled more (they are doing that a bit down here - my local sports fields are watered with recycled treated sewerage water.)
All homes should be built with 3 incoming and outgoing plumbing systems. Governemt should be providing assistance for people looking to upgrade existing plumbing systems to save water.
Sand filters, RO and UV filters can elliminate 99.9% of crap in grey water making it (from my understanding) clean enough to drink - yet at the moment most local councils wont even let you use grey water to flush your toilet because of risk of disease and smells. Infact most literature advises not to hold grey water for more than 24 hours.
Entire new estates could have grey water plumbing and small "estate wide" water treatment plants could be set up and the water recycled.
But then you have the enviromental impact if the additional plumbing/PVC/energy use and so the cycle continues...
Realistically here in Victoria we need 2 desal plants, some serious investment in solar farming and wind farming and a new dam.
We're getting one desal plant and one of our coal fired power plants is being upgraded to gas fired.
The government really isnt serious about the environment (not that the whole greenhouse gas thing bothers me as I dont believe in global warming any way). My parents recently built a new home for themselves and my grand parents (large house with attached unit) the house is about 55 squares - thats a shit load of roof space. They have 2 x 22,000 litre tanks - they were only obligated to put in one 3,000L tank. They have gas powered hydronic floor heating and water heating which required they upgrade to a higher flowing natural gas regulator at the boundry. They have a 4 oven AGA stove which puts off an astounding amount of radiated heat (AGA stove remain constantly on.
They fitted miglass double glaized aluclad windows off their own bat (not required by regulations). Surely this should be a minimum requirement these days - double glaizing is fairly cheap compared with even 5 years ago. They built the house from poured earth and you should have seen the bull crap they had to go through to get it passed through council and engineering - yet its far more energy efficient than double brick.
They have no solar? Seriously WTF? Surely they should have been made to fit solar water heating even if it was used just to preheat the water before going to the hydronic boilers.
No solar electricity - even though they have been forced to upgrade to 3 phase because they couldnt get a large enough single phase feed in. The bedrooms are all fitted with 4 x 50watt 12V halogen downlights - if my calculations are correct thats roughly 300watts when they are on by the time you allow for the inefficiency of the transformers. They have a room called the "great room" is 14 meters x 8 meters made up of 4 bays. Each bay has 8 x 50 watt MR16's - thats 400 watts before losses - or well over 1kw when they are all on. WTF - how is this allowed when they are "so actively" trying to reduce peoples carbon foot prints.
Dont get me wrong - sure I believe we need to be doing something about our impact on the environment. But dont bullshit me that wankers like garrett actually know what they are talking about. Just another puppet.
People in "catchment" areas dont want new dams because of the environmental impact.
Farmers dont want pipelines because of the environmental impact
People in coastal areas dont want desal because of the environmental impact.
Every one bitches and moans about water restrictions... they just dont want a solution in their back yard.
My 2c.
There should be far more recycling at a domestic level of grey water.
Blackwater should be treated and recycled more (they are doing that a bit down here - my local sports fields are watered with recycled treated sewerage water.)
All homes should be built with 3 incoming and outgoing plumbing systems. Governemt should be providing assistance for people looking to upgrade existing plumbing systems to save water.
Sand filters, RO and UV filters can elliminate 99.9% of crap in grey water making it (from my understanding) clean enough to drink - yet at the moment most local councils wont even let you use grey water to flush your toilet because of risk of disease and smells. Infact most literature advises not to hold grey water for more than 24 hours.
Entire new estates could have grey water plumbing and small "estate wide" water treatment plants could be set up and the water recycled.
But then you have the enviromental impact if the additional plumbing/PVC/energy use and so the cycle continues...
Realistically here in Victoria we need 2 desal plants, some serious investment in solar farming and wind farming and a new dam.
We're getting one desal plant and one of our coal fired power plants is being upgraded to gas fired.
The government really isnt serious about the environment (not that the whole greenhouse gas thing bothers me as I dont believe in global warming any way). My parents recently built a new home for themselves and my grand parents (large house with attached unit) the house is about 55 squares - thats a shit load of roof space. They have 2 x 22,000 litre tanks - they were only obligated to put in one 3,000L tank. They have gas powered hydronic floor heating and water heating which required they upgrade to a higher flowing natural gas regulator at the boundry. They have a 4 oven AGA stove which puts off an astounding amount of radiated heat (AGA stove remain constantly on.
They fitted miglass double glaized aluclad windows off their own bat (not required by regulations). Surely this should be a minimum requirement these days - double glaizing is fairly cheap compared with even 5 years ago. They built the house from poured earth and you should have seen the bull crap they had to go through to get it passed through council and engineering - yet its far more energy efficient than double brick.
They have no solar? Seriously WTF? Surely they should have been made to fit solar water heating even if it was used just to preheat the water before going to the hydronic boilers.
No solar electricity - even though they have been forced to upgrade to 3 phase because they couldnt get a large enough single phase feed in. The bedrooms are all fitted with 4 x 50watt 12V halogen downlights - if my calculations are correct thats roughly 300watts when they are on by the time you allow for the inefficiency of the transformers. They have a room called the "great room" is 14 meters x 8 meters made up of 4 bays. Each bay has 8 x 50 watt MR16's - thats 400 watts before losses - or well over 1kw when they are all on. WTF - how is this allowed when they are "so actively" trying to reduce peoples carbon foot prints.
Dont get me wrong - sure I believe we need to be doing something about our impact on the environment. But dont bullshit me that wankers like garrett actually know what they are talking about. Just another puppet.
Andyd
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30/10/05
- Messages
- 1,092
- Reaction score
- 105
I've got to agree with Komodo on everything he's put down there, well put!
Bring on better recycling practices and higher uptake of things like personal solar energy systems (recognising the caveat that in a decade we're all going to be wondering how to dispose of the panels that need to be replaced, not to mention the environmental impact of producing them in the first place...)
Andy
Bring on better recycling practices and higher uptake of things like personal solar energy systems (recognising the caveat that in a decade we're all going to be wondering how to dispose of the panels that need to be replaced, not to mention the environmental impact of producing them in the first place...)
Andy
Every decision has good and bad outcomes. Have always been a fence sitter on the issue of a dam, but thought it was a stupid place to put a dam and a bad design. The population increase on the Sunshine Coast and SE QLD in general dictates that there must be water (and other) infrastructure put in place to cope with the growth. Therefore a dam or desal plant has to be constructed to cope, no matter where you put either there will be environmental issues and unhappy people. Construction of either creates jobs.
Screwy
Screwy
No shit - they do store water that is other wise "wasted" though. Dont recall Gippsland floods?
3 years ago I camped around the aberfeldy area just the other side of the thompson a few weeks before we went up there it had flooded and a lot of camping areas weren't accessable. Those that were were mostly burned out from bush fires. It had started bucketting down the day we left and a day later gippsland was underwater. I went up 3 weeks later and there was water marks on the trees we were camped near 5 meters up the trunks. Unfortunately none of that water in that particular area (like a lot of gippsland) goes into any catchment.
Now in any ones language thats a shit load of water lost to sea - and the greenies were out there bitching about the erosion and all the soil that ended up in the estuarine water ways and helping algae plumes because of the sudden influx of nutrients. A dam could have reduced the effects of the flood, stopped the top soil ending up in esturine water ways, possibly helped with the bushfires earlier which were essentially the cause of the flood and the amount of topsoil and debris ending in the water ways.
Every one knows dams dont make water - joe public isnt that stupid.
Theres several dams that have been proposed from the 50's that nothing has been done about because as we have "supposedly" gotten smarter and more environmentally sensitive we've decided (stupidly) that the impact too great. I dont know how much travel of this country you have dont - but its pretty freaking huge and even the biggest proposed dam is really a pimple on a massive ass cheek by comparison. Dams are also a (huge) potential source of hydro power - and STORED energy! Also gippsland is a prime area (along with tassie - about the only two areas in the whole world) suited to cloud seeding. Not forgetting also that a fair percentage of Melbournes power comes from Gippsland already so power transmission infrastructure is already inplace (although not in the right spot because the coal still has to be transported to the power stations).
But before we build dams we need to fix dams we already have. Lysterfield lake the tower is built higher than the wall. NEW investigations have to be made to the viability of raising the dam wall. Quite a few dams in western victoria (in the grampians) are in disrepair I believe lake fyans for example can only ever fill to 1/3 capacity because the dam wall leaks?
3 years ago I camped around the aberfeldy area just the other side of the thompson a few weeks before we went up there it had flooded and a lot of camping areas weren't accessable. Those that were were mostly burned out from bush fires. It had started bucketting down the day we left and a day later gippsland was underwater. I went up 3 weeks later and there was water marks on the trees we were camped near 5 meters up the trunks. Unfortunately none of that water in that particular area (like a lot of gippsland) goes into any catchment.
Now in any ones language thats a shit load of water lost to sea - and the greenies were out there bitching about the erosion and all the soil that ended up in the estuarine water ways and helping algae plumes because of the sudden influx of nutrients. A dam could have reduced the effects of the flood, stopped the top soil ending up in esturine water ways, possibly helped with the bushfires earlier which were essentially the cause of the flood and the amount of topsoil and debris ending in the water ways.
Every one knows dams dont make water - joe public isnt that stupid.
Theres several dams that have been proposed from the 50's that nothing has been done about because as we have "supposedly" gotten smarter and more environmentally sensitive we've decided (stupidly) that the impact too great. I dont know how much travel of this country you have dont - but its pretty freaking huge and even the biggest proposed dam is really a pimple on a massive ass cheek by comparison. Dams are also a (huge) potential source of hydro power - and STORED energy! Also gippsland is a prime area (along with tassie - about the only two areas in the whole world) suited to cloud seeding. Not forgetting also that a fair percentage of Melbournes power comes from Gippsland already so power transmission infrastructure is already inplace (although not in the right spot because the coal still has to be transported to the power stations).
But before we build dams we need to fix dams we already have. Lysterfield lake the tower is built higher than the wall. NEW investigations have to be made to the viability of raising the dam wall. Quite a few dams in western victoria (in the grampians) are in disrepair I believe lake fyans for example can only ever fill to 1/3 capacity because the dam wall leaks?
bum
Not entitled to an opinion
- Joined
- 19/2/09
- Messages
- 11,585
- Reaction score
- 911
Um. Think about the locales of every dam you've ever seen.
Then think about the locales of every flood you've ever seen.
Notice a difference in the topography?
Regardless, you're suggesting that dams are constructed just in case significantly higher than average rainfall happens to occur in the place the dam is built.
Bum wheres the Thompson Dam?
Wheres the Mitchell river?
Where does most rain fall?
Sorry mate but you're arguement just fell right on its arse there
AS for significantly higher? no actually we just need a rainfall thats average - remember average is over a period and in this country inparticular we are subject to fluctuating rain fall.
Eildon Weir was "supposed" to take 10 years to fill to capacity going on average rain fall when they extended the dam wall in the 50's - it took less than one. Yet now the dam is at what - about 20% capacity (been a while since I've been up there). Now in the 50's the dam was increased in capacity tenfold - that means that @ 20% is still holding 100% more water that it was before the dam wall was completed and it took LESS than 1 year to fill to capacity of more than 5 times the volume of sydney harbour.
Wheres the Mitchell river?
Where does most rain fall?
Sorry mate but you're arguement just fell right on its arse there
AS for significantly higher? no actually we just need a rainfall thats average - remember average is over a period and in this country inparticular we are subject to fluctuating rain fall.
Eildon Weir was "supposed" to take 10 years to fill to capacity going on average rain fall when they extended the dam wall in the 50's - it took less than one. Yet now the dam is at what - about 20% capacity (been a while since I've been up there). Now in the 50's the dam was increased in capacity tenfold - that means that @ 20% is still holding 100% more water that it was before the dam wall was completed and it took LESS than 1 year to fill to capacity of more than 5 times the volume of sydney harbour.
bum
Not entitled to an opinion
- Joined
- 19/2/09
- Messages
- 11,585
- Reaction score
- 911
Is this the same Thompson Reservoir that is currently at 20%?
Is this the same Mitchell river that has and annual flow equal to less than 100 days of metropolitan Melbourne's water consumption?
Over the oceans. The current drought conditions experienced are not due to there not being any rainfall - it is due to shifting rainfall (or immigration if you're a big 50/50 fan). I read an article recently discussing the emergent notion that it is man's manipulation of watercourses that is causing this.
Beg to differ.
How can it not be significantly higher when you're talking about flood waters? Was your camping trip in Atlantis?
Thus proving that dams don't make water so there's no point making one when there isn't any? Except that it is significantly easier of course.
Similar threads
