Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
Has there been a serious study done to see the feasibility of channeling
water from our far north to some of the drier parts of our continent? I'm thinking of a massive pipe and aquaduct system. It does seem sad that some parts of our land suffer from too much water - whilst other parts suffer from its lack. I'm not thinking that such a mammoth scheme could be achieved in 10 or even 100 years- but what's the alternative? Desalination plants don't seem to be that effective. It would require cooperation from Federal, State and local - but if achieved- it would be a boon for future generations. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
I agree, dollar for dollar desalination plants seem to be subject to
government abuse and back-door deals with corporations and politicians. Pipelines should be able to go both ways. I think someone in the fifties did a technical feasibility study. They seem to become white elephants during times of plenty...Creating a terrible waste of taxpayers funds. Blackadder XXIV wrote: Has there been a serious study done to see the feasibility of channeling water from our far north to some of the drier parts of our continent? I'm thinking of a massive pipe and aquaduct system. It does seem sad that some parts of our land suffer from too much water - whilst other parts suffer from its lack. I'm not thinking that such a mammoth scheme could be achieved in 10 or even 100 years- but what's the alternative? Desalination plants don't seem to be that effective. It would require cooperation from Federal, State and local - but if achieved- it would be a boon for future generations. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
"Blackadder XXIV" wrote in message u... Has there been a serious study done to see the feasibility of channeling water from our far north to some of the drier parts of our continent? I'm thinking of a massive pipe and aquaduct system. It does seem sad that some parts of our land suffer from too much water - whilst other parts suffer from its lack. I'm not thinking that such a mammoth scheme could be achieved in 10 or even 100 years- but what's the alternative? Desalination plants don't seem to be that effective. It would require cooperation from Federal, State and local - but if achieved- it would be a boon for future generations. P A Yeomans wrote several books (Water for every farm, Keyline Plan and City Farm) on using water that is diverted from run off. As most of the rivers in the north flood then are dry a week later it is a waste of a water resource as it heads out to sea. Farmers could utilise trapping water on their farms and having several water storages. Then they could irrigate when needed. This is providing they are on loam based soil with adequate slope. Unfortunately now I think the government has decided to charge for dams and storage of water. Citing that they are stopping flows to the rivers. Unfortunately this has good points and bad. By not having dam storage the water runs off into the rivers. By having storages you reduce the runoff but once the dams are full run off proceeds as nature intended. So we need to look at the long term benefits not a governments term in office. Agriculture is a big user of water. So reducing it's impact by requiring farmers to have adequate storages on their land is a better option. This of course is providing they have the right conditions to do so. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
"Loosecanon" wrote in message ... "Blackadder XXIV" wrote in message u... Has there been a serious study done to see the feasibility of channeling water from our far north to some of the drier parts of our continent? I'm thinking of a massive pipe and aquaduct system. It does seem sad that some parts of our land suffer from too much water - whilst other parts suffer from its lack. I'm not thinking that such a mammoth scheme could be achieved in 10 or even 100 years- but what's the alternative? Desalination plants don't seem to be that effective. It would require cooperation from Federal, State and local - but if achieved- it would be a boon for future generations. P A Yeomans wrote several books (Water for every farm, Keyline Plan and City Farm) on using water that is diverted from run off. As most of the rivers in the north flood then are dry a week later it is a waste of a water resource as it heads out to sea. Farmers could utilise trapping water on their farms and having several water storages. Then they could irrigate when needed. This is providing they are on loam based soil with adequate slope. Unfortunately now I think the government has decided to charge for dams and storage of water. Citing that they are stopping flows to the rivers. Unfortunately this has good points and bad. By not having dam storage the water runs off into the rivers. By having storages you reduce the runoff but once the dams are full run off proceeds as nature intended. So we need to look at the long term benefits not a governments term in office. Agriculture is a big user of water. So reducing it's impact by requiring farmers to have adequate storages on their land is a better option. This of course is providing they have the right conditions to do so. Saw a flood warning for the Balonne river yesterday so maybe "Cubby" will get a bit of inflow and manage it's first cotton crop in 3 or 5 years. No I am not stirring but it is damn wet out here. Where I live (not far from Dirrin) we have an average annual rainfall of 500mm. Last year we had 590 odd, 300 in Nov/Dec, previous year 300mm for the year. This year 53mm so far in 7 days. Can't do any gardening because everything is waterlogged, waded through 2 inches of water to read the rain gauge this morning. Well at least the cockies are smiling, not the wives though. P.S. Bradfield scheme, about the 20/30s I believe proposed the diversion of coastal water to the inland. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
"Blackadder XXIV" wrote in message u... Has there been a serious study done to see the feasibility of channeling water from our far north to some of the drier parts of our continent? I'm thinking of a massive pipe and aquaduct system. Yes several over the last 150 years. The Dept of Water Resources (or some similar name, they change these things from time to time) published a book primarily for farmers a couple of years ago about the national water situation. This was in the context of the changes to legislation re water sharing plans etc. It makes very interesting reading. It includes a summary of the most notable of such schemes and concludes that while they sound good initially, when you do the cost-benefit analysis very long pipelines or canals are not worth it. If anybody is keen to know about this I will try and find my copy and give you the reference. It does seem sad that some parts of our land suffer from too much water - whilst other parts suffer from its lack. I'm not thinking that such a mammoth scheme could be achieved in 10 or even 100 years- but what's the alternative? Desalination plants don't seem to be that effective. Indeed. Desal is very expensive to run, more so in the context of the greenhouse gases produced, unless you can run it using renewables. It would require cooperation from Federal, State and local - but if achieved- it would be a boon for future generations. Of course. Let's see how they do over the Murray Darling, which is crying out for action, over the next few years. Don't hold your breath waiting for a result. We have a dirth of statesmen and a plethora or politicians. While ever politicians are only looking to get elected for the next 3 years there is little chance of plans that require long term planning and commitment. David |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
David Hare-Scott wrote:
"Blackadder XXIV" wrote in message u... Has there been a serious study done to see the feasibility of channeling water from our far north to some of the drier parts of our continent? I'm thinking of a massive pipe and aquaduct system. Yes several over the last 150 years. The Dept of Water Resources I think they changed it after getting too much mail addressed Dept. of Watery Sauces. Pete |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
Pete wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote: "Blackadder XXIV" wrote in message u... Has there been a serious study done to see the feasibility of channeling water from our far north to some of the drier parts of our continent? I'm thinking of a massive pipe and aquaduct system. Yes several over the last 150 years. The Dept of Water Resources I think they changed it after getting too much mail addressed Dept. of Watery Sauces. Pete How would you know, what are your sauces? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
In article ,
"Blackadder XXIV" wrote: Has there been a serious study done to see the feasibility of channeling water from our far north to some of the drier parts of our continent? I'm thinking of a massive pipe and aquaduct system. Some twit in WA tried to get elected by telling everyone he'd dam the Fitroy and pipe the water to Perth. Problem is that unless the pipe runs downhill all the way (3700 km), you need to pump that water uphill -- and that's really, really energy-intensive. A litre of water, after all, weighs a kilo. To give you an idea, Warragamba Dam (Sydney's main dam) has an output of 2.6 million litres a day. Sometimes we forget how darn big Australia is. History also tells us that most of those giant engineering projects don't end well. -- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
"Jonno" wrote in message
... I agree, dollar for dollar desalination plants seem to be subject to government abuse and back-door deals with corporations and politicians. Pipelines should be able to go both ways. I think someone in the fifties did a technical feasibility study. They seem to become white elephants during times of plenty...Creating a terrible waste of taxpayers funds. I guess the same could be said about a massive aquaduct system - eg. plenty of corruption and graft. Which is sad, as we could certainly do with such a water system. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
"SG1" wrote in message ... P.S. Bradfield scheme, about the 20/30s I believe proposed the diversion of coastal water to the inland. What happened to that plan? The cycle of drought and flood seems obvious. A system of irrigation pipes and reservoirs and aquaducts may be the thing for it. Of course, by the time, they finish it - we might well be experiencing record rainfall. lol. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
... result. We have a dirth of statesmen and a plethora or politicians. While ever politicians are only looking to get elected for the next 3 years there is little chance of plans that require long term planning and commitment. David Indeed, what a tragedy. Perhaps the problem can be solved by the Federal, State, and local govt giving up their powers to a Water Bureau - so that long term planning and construction can be done - by relying on pollys who get elected every 3 years we seem to be getting feel-good solutions that do bugger all- like the time a whole reservoir of water got chucked down the river and straight into the sea. Goodness knows what exactly that helped. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
"Chookie" wrote in message
news:ehrebeniuk- Sometimes we forget how darn big Australia is. History also tells us that most of those giant engineering projects don't end well. No of course we can't. We've got a relatively small population in a continent the size of Western Europe or North America. But this cycle of drought and flood will remain with us for generations - and our population size is growing too. Desalination plants aren't the answer. And I don't think water rationing will work either. Staring at a map of Australia, you can see that we've got a system of rivers- there should be someway we can tap into them - creating canals, reservoirs and aquaduct systems (underground) to pipe water from areas which flood to areas which are dry. What's the cost? One billion dollars? Ten billions dollars? Probably more. Will it be done in ten years time, twenty? forty years perhaps? I think its feasibily - anything is better than seeing parts of our nation flood, farming communities dry out, and just swatting the flies off our faces. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
If we put in water, the desalination plants will die.
Please dont! Blackadder XXIV wrote: "Chookie" wrote in message news:ehrebeniuk- Sometimes we forget how darn big Australia is. History also tells us that most of those giant engineering projects don't end well. No of course we can't. We've got a relatively small population in a continent the size of Western Europe or North America. But this cycle of drought and flood will remain with us for generations - and our population size is growing too. Desalination plants aren't the answer. And I don't think water rationing will work either. Staring at a map of Australia, you can see that we've got a system of rivers- there should be someway we can tap into them - creating canals, reservoirs and aquaduct systems (underground) to pipe water from areas which flood to areas which are dry. What's the cost? One billion dollars? Ten billions dollars? Probably more. Will it be done in ten years time, twenty? forty years perhaps? I think its feasibily - anything is better than seeing parts of our nation flood, farming communities dry out, and just swatting the flies off our faces. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... "Blackadder XXIV" wrote in message u... Has there been a serious study done to see the feasibility of channeling water from our far north to some of the drier parts of our continent? I'm thinking of a massive pipe and aquaduct system. Yes several over the last 150 years. The Dept of Water Resources (or some similar name, they change these things from time to time) published a book primarily for farmers a couple of years ago about the national water situation. This was in the context of the changes to legislation re water sharing plans etc. It makes very interesting reading. It includes a summary of the most notable of such schemes and concludes that while they sound good initially, when you do the cost-benefit analysis very long pipelines or canals are not worth it. If anybody is keen to know about this I will try and find my copy and give you the reference. It does seem sad that some parts of our land suffer from too much water - whilst other parts suffer from its lack. I'm not thinking that such a mammoth scheme could be achieved in 10 or even 100 years- but what's the alternative? Desalination plants don't seem to be that effective. Indeed. Desal is very expensive to run, more so in the context of the greenhouse gases produced, unless you can run it using renewables. It would require cooperation from Federal, State and local - but if achieved- it would be a boon for future generations. Of course. Let's see how they do over the Murray Darling, which is crying out for action, over the next few years. Don't hold your breath waiting for a result. We have a dirth of statesmen and a plethora or politicians. While ever politicians are only looking to get elected for the next 3 years there is little chance of plans that require long term planning and commitment. David True, a simple solution would be to run a desalination plant in the Bight, pipe the desal water to Lake Eyre, keeping that filled and with the sun, accompanied with the heat, would evaporate the water, the evaporation would have to go somewhere and that is up in the atmosphere, creating clouds and hopefully weather which would result in water. Another desal plant either north or on the eastern coast with the water piped inland toward the centre. What about another desal plant with the drinkable water run through the Murray-Darling system? might stop the migration of riverside farmers and irrigators away from the area because of having to pay too much for water for too little results because of no water. But, as you say, any politician is only looking forward to his or her political lifetime and the cost would put any result out of contention. The government needs to make a decision and do something now before the cost rises that much it would not be feasible to even contemplate it but, having said that, for chrissake, do not have an environmental study or a feasibility study which would cost billions and take years of wasted time. It has been done in OZ befo Kwinana Desalination Plant, located just south of Perth, Western Australia, turns water from the Indian Ocean into nearly 40 million gallons of drinking water per day. The reverse-osmosis plant is the first of its kind in Australia and covers a few acres in an industrial park next to the ocean. The Emu Downs Wind Farm, with 48 wind turbines north of Perth, provides enough renewable energy to power the plant. Even the South Australians are thinking about it : The Point Paterson Desalination Plant is a planned municipal-scale solar-powered desalination plant with land-based brine disposal just outside Port Augusta, South Australia. The plant will integrate renewable energy and desalination technologies to create environmentally-friendly electricity and water. In particular, the project will significantly reduce the usual greenhouse impacts associated with grid electricity demand for desalination The Israel'is seem to have achieved it: http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...230_495029.htm http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com/... &TM=43851.36 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
"Blackadder XXIV" wrote in message
Staring at a map of Australia, you can see that we've got a system of rivers- there should be someway we can tap into them - creating canals, reservoirs and aquaduct systems (underground) to pipe water from areas which flood to areas which are dry. What's the cost? One billion dollars? Ten billions dollars? Probably more. Will it be done in ten years time, twenty? forty years perhaps? I think its feasibily - anything is better than seeing parts of our nation flood, farming communities dry out, and just swatting the flies off our faces. If you are looking at a topographical map, you will notice that Australia is virtually flat and that means that most rivers are shallow and that the rivers that have water in quantity, have it for only a relatively short period of time and event hen it spreads out on the floodplain. Canals have worked over relatively short distances in other countries with a much higher population density but in our conditions they would suffer evaporation badly. Reservoirs work best where there are steep ravines through which a river passes and this has largely already been done where it can be. In order for pipelines to be effective you would need permanent access to large quantities of water to make building them effective and where woudl that be? Dorathea Mackellar was right. "Droughts and flooding rains" That has always been our pattern and that is also why Aus has the topographical profile it does now. We live in a truly ancient continent and I strongly suspect that peak oil and the lack of progress on solar energy means we will not be faced with any solutions in the short term (by which I mean anything up to 50 years from now). |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|