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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

"Chookie" wrote in message
news:ehrebeniuk-23D51A.16283707012008@news...

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.


My dam is 2.3 megalitres, maybe you mean gigalitres.

Sometimes we forget how darn big Australia is. History also tells us that
most of those giant engineering projects don't end well.


True. In all the enthusiasm to make the desert bloom humans have produced
quite a few disasters due to unintended consequences.

David

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...
"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.

Exactly

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?


Not to mention that every time you build a dam you cover many kilometres of
land, often very productive land as it is in in river valleys.

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).



A more realistic view.

David

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

"Jonno" wrote in message
...
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?

BBQ and tomato

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

George W. Frost wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
...
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?

BBQ and tomato


Ah yes, those sauces are tainted.
They is polluted with american, jerrican and mexican (they cant, only
think they can) ingredients. Oil, petrol and hot peppers, which doesnt
do much for anything. It creates pushy oily pollies and unstable
governments which are a pain in the rear.
Sugggest oil pipelines, which can then be converted to water pipelines.
Much smarter.(Dont tell the Queenslanders)

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

"George W. Frost" wrote in message
...
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

Hmm... that's fantastic. Any links for that Kwinana Plant? This is the first
time I heard about it.

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
(snip)

A more realistic view.

David I don't know if you are old enough to remember the old 'Nation
Review'. If you aren't old enough, it was a newspaper full of well written
meaty articles but with a tendency to the leftist side of the political
spectrum. I don't care about that: I just want information and thoughtful
comments so I can make up my own mind.

Given the dearth of decent commentary of any sort over the past decade or
so, I have long wished for such a publication and I think I have finally
found something very similar.

I wrote my comment on water and topography yesterday and today picked up a
publication that I've only read only once before but I'm going to do so
regularly in future. The publication is called "Dissent" and it has some
interesting articles on the environment (and one article on the escalation
of debt in Aus with a very disturbing chart showing debt to GDP from 1880 to
now - I haven't read it yet but am itching to do so). Anyway, I suspect you
might have a simialr interest in some of the things I do so just want to
mention it in case you are interested. Cost $7.70 - seems to be a
quarterly.

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
(snip)

A more realistic view.

David I don't know if you are old enough to remember the old 'Nation
Review'.

I am. I do.

I wrote my comment on water and topography yesterday and today picked up a
publication that I've only read only once before but I'm going to do so
regularly in future. The publication is called "Dissent" and it has some
interesting articles on the environment (and one article on the escalation
of debt in Aus with a very disturbing chart showing debt to GDP from 1880 to
now - I haven't read it yet but am itching to do so). Anyway, I suspect you
might have a simialr interest in some of the things I do so just want to
mention it in case you are interested. Cost $7.70 - seems to be a
quarterly.


I will keep my eyes open

thanks

David

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

"Blackadder XXIV" wrote in message
u...

"George W. Frost" wrote in message
...
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

Hmm... that's fantastic. Any links for that Kwinana Plant? This is the
first time I heard about it.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...9/s1748557.htm

http://www.sese.uwa.edu.au/__data/pa.../Seah_2005.pdf

http://au.geocities.com/perth_water/july04.html

http://www.water-technology.net/projects/perth/

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

LindaB wrote:
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
(snip)

David I don't know if you are old enough to remember the old 'Nation
Review'.

Lean, mean and nosy like a Ferret.

Don't know it at all!

Linda (not the one wantng to do the lawn, the one with the Zucchinis.
Any ideas for Cherry Tomatoes???)
Er grow them, give them enough water, dont plant them under trees where
there is shade, and kids, and allow them to ripen.
Then eat them? Sounds good to me!!!!

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

LindaB wrote:
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
(snip)

David I don't know if you are old enough to remember the old 'Nation
Review'.

Lean, mean and nosy like a Ferret.

Don't know it at all!

Linda (not the one wantng to do the lawn, the one with the Zucchinis.
Any ideas for Cherry Tomatoes???)
Oh Chardonnay goes well with them, as does a salad, onions and good company!

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

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.

lol.

1. They all get as far as realizing that the great surplus of water up
north is a myth.
2. It costs money to build and maintain the pipeline and to pump the
water. Far more that it would cost for any other scheme.




It does seem sad that some parts of our land suffer from too much water -

Yep, the bits we irrigate.

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.

replace porcelan thrones.

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

Blackadder XXIV wrote:

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.

Reduce, reuse, recycle.


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.

lol, are you looking at the same map that tourists look at?


What's the cost? One billion dollars? Ten billions dollars?

Probably closer to 100 trillion dollars.
for what point?
So idiots in cities can flush it all away.

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

FarmI wrote:

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.

Which is the exact problem that all our current irrigation systems suffer.

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

David Hare-Scott wrote:

True. In all the enthusiasm to make the desert bloom humans have produced
quite a few disasters due to unintended consequences.

And the Ord River Irrigation Scheme is another one unfolding.

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

"Terryc" wrote in message
...
David Hare-Scott wrote:

True. In all the enthusiasm to make the desert bloom humans have
produced
quite a few disasters due to unintended consequences.

And the Ord River Irrigation Scheme is another one unfolding.

Terry
The Ord has been recognised as a disaster for the last 20 years or so. Geese
love rice and any other thing that grows & ya can't shoot the Bs. Leave the
tropics alone and bomb a few cities, drastic but effective.

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

SG1 wrote:
"Terryc" wrote in message
...
David Hare-Scott wrote:

True. In all the enthusiasm to make the desert bloom humans have
produced
quite a few disasters due to unintended consequences.
And the Ord River Irrigation Scheme is another one unfolding.

Terry
The Ord has been recognised as a disaster for the last 20 years or so. Geese
love rice and any other thing that grows & ya can't shoot the Bs. Leave the
tropics alone and bomb a few cities, drastic but effective.


Whether the Ord river system is a disaster or not remains to be seen.
The problem is how well is it managed and how many fingers are there in
the pie. This is usually the problem when things go wrong. Too many
cooks spoil the broth...

Too many critics when they dont get their way etc.

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

SG1 wrote:

And the Ord River Irrigation Scheme is another one unfolding.


Terry
The Ord has been recognised as a disaster for the last 20 years or so. Geese
love rice and any other thing that grows & ya can't shoot the Bs. Leave the
tropics alone and bomb a few cities, drastic but effective.

I'd forgotten about that bit. Seems they are now having salinity
problems appearing up there as well.

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

Jonno wrote:

Whether the Ord river system is a disaster or not remains to be seen.
The problem is how well is it managed and how many fingers are there in
the pie. This is usually the problem when things go wrong. Too many
cooks spoil the broth...

It is already clear that it is another salinity disaster unfolding. You
can not continually drop extra water onto land without bring soil salts
to the surface. It is just a matter of time.

The Ord also faces a major problem of distance to market. Unless it has
a unique crop, that is a major handicap.




Too many critics when they dont get their way etc.

Oh, are people still farming ostriches?

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

"Terryc" wrote in message
...

Oh, are people still farming ostriches?

Australians all love ostriches
When they are young and free.
We've golden soil
and wealth for toil...........

David

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

"Jonno" wrote in message
SG1 wrote:

The Ord has been recognised as a disaster for the last 20 years or so.
Geese love rice and any other thing that grows & ya can't shoot the Bs.
Leave the tropics alone and bomb a few cities, drastic but effective.

Whether the Ord river system is a disaster or not remains to be seen.

If what the experts say is right, we are already living in a post peak oil
world.

The Ord is build in an area of very low population. When fuel is in short
supply for purposes of both production and transprt of the final product,
the best place to produce food is where there is a population base to whom
the goods are to be sold. The Ord doesn't fit that description so either we
need a massive population shift to near the Ord, or there is a need to
figure out how to get the goods to the population base without using huge
amounts of increasingly expensive fuel.

The Ord is not looking good to be a big success on fuel usage grounds alone.

The problem is how well is it managed and how many fingers are there in
the pie. This is usually the problem when things go wrong. Too many cooks
spoil the broth...

????? I can't follow your thinking here at all. What 'cooks' do you have
in mind? What broth are they spoiling and what do you mean by this comment?

Too many critics when they dont get their way etc.

Unfortunately there are at least 2 classes of critics amongst the general
populace. There is the mindless crowd that seems to be most vocal and is
generally made up of the really dumb Joe Public who simply whinges, talks to
John Laws or Alan Jones or the varous other State shock jocks and is totally
clueless. Those who carried on about Chapelle Corby were this type of
person. Then there are another sort of critic who actually uses their head
and trys to gather information, does some analysis and then makes up their
mind. I think that we are blessed with too many of the former and too few
of the latter.

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
SG1 wrote:

The Ord has been recognised as a disaster for the last 20 years or so.
Geese love rice and any other thing that grows & ya can't shoot the Bs.
Leave the tropics alone and bomb a few cities, drastic but effective.

Whether the Ord river system is a disaster or not remains to be seen.

If what the experts say is right, we are already living in a post peak oil
world.

The Ord is build in an area of very low population. When fuel is in short
supply for purposes of both production and transprt of the final product,
the best place to produce food is where there is a population base to whom
the goods are to be sold. The Ord doesn't fit that description so either we
need a massive population shift to near the Ord, or there is a need to
figure out how to get the goods to the population base without using huge
amounts of increasingly expensive fuel.

The Ord is not looking good to be a big success on fuel usage grounds alone.

The problem is how well is it managed and how many fingers are there in
the pie. This is usually the problem when things go wrong. Too many cooks
spoil the broth...

????? I can't follow your thinking here at all. What 'cooks' do you have
in mind? What broth are they spoiling and what do you mean by this comment?

Too many critics when they dont get their way etc.

Unfortunately there are at least 2 classes of critics amongst the general
populace. There is the mindless crowd that seems to be most vocal and is
generally made up of the really dumb Joe Public who simply whinges, talks to
John Laws or Alan Jones or the varous other State shock jocks and is totally
clueless. Those who carried on about Chapelle Corby were this type of
person. Then there are another sort of critic who actually uses their head
and trys to gather information, does some analysis and then makes up their
mind. I think that we are blessed with too many of the former and too few
of the latter.




Hmm I reckon Bernard Shaw saw it right when he said “Two percent of the
people think; three percent of the people think they think; and
ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think.”

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
SG1 wrote:

The Ord has been recognised as a disaster for the last 20 years or so.
Geese love rice and any other thing that grows & ya can't shoot the Bs.
Leave the tropics alone and bomb a few cities, drastic but effective.

Whether the Ord river system is a disaster or not remains to be seen.

If what the experts say is right, we are already living in a post peak oil
world.

The Ord is build in an area of very low population. When fuel is in short
supply for purposes of both production and transprt of the final product,
the best place to produce food is where there is a population base to whom
the goods are to be sold. The Ord doesn't fit that description so either we
need a massive population shift to near the Ord, or there is a need to
figure out how to get the goods to the population base without using huge
amounts of increasingly expensive fuel.

The Ord is not looking good to be a big success on fuel usage grounds alone.

I dont know if fuel is the problem, as a large amount of food is shipped
world

wide and still manages to make a tidy profit.

The technological problem of salts is one that can be overcome but costs
there may create a similar problem as in Mildura. They're also
surviving. Just!

The problem is how well is it managed and how many fingers are there in
the pie. This is usually the problem when things go wrong. Too many cooks
spoil the broth...


????? I can't follow your thinking here at all. What 'cooks' do you have
in mind? What broth are they spoiling and what do you mean by this comment?

Its hyperthetical. If you have too many people involved in corruption or
"cooks",

the brew, in this case the Ord river system, doesnt get the proper
attention to detail,

and spoils the broth or the outcome for that particular situation or
project.

Usually this happens because of ill will towards each other.

The "cooks" get quite spiteful if they dont get their won way, to thew
point of

sabotaging a system. I think political influence has something to do
with it.

I hope thats not too hard for you...
Too many critics when they dont get their way etc.

Unfortunately there are at least 2 classes of critics amongst the general
populace. There is the mindless crowd that seems to be most vocal and is
generally made up of the really dumb Joe Public who simply whinges, talks to
John Laws or Alan Jones or the varous other State shock jocks and is totally
clueless. Those who carried on about Chapelle Corby were this type of
person. Then there are another sort of critic who actually uses their head
and trys to gather information, does some analysis and then makes up their
mind. I think that we are blessed with too many of the former and too few
of the latter.

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

"Terryc" wrote in message
news:47839209$0$28599

lol, are you looking at the same map that tourists look at?

No, the Australia 1:5000000 General Reference Map Third Edition.

Big water pipe schemes have been done before. Notably in 1905, the Perth to
Kalgoorlie pipe system by Charles Yelverton O'Connor. O'Connor and his pipe
system got a fair bit of criticism- but it was completed and it works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Y._O'Connor

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:

Unfortunately there are at least 2 classes of critics amongst the general
populace. There is the mindless crowd that seems to be most vocal and is
generally made up of the really dumb Joe Public who simply whinges, talks
to John Laws or Alan Jones or the varous other State shock jocks and is
totally clueless. Those who carried on about Chapelle Corby were this
type of person. Then there are another sort of critic who actually uses
their head and trys to gather information, does some analysis and then
makes up their mind. I think that we are blessed with too many of the
former and too few of the latter.

Hmm I reckon Bernard Shaw saw it right when he said “Two percent of the
people think; three percent of the people think they think; and
ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think.”

Oooh lovely! I saw a good one liner yesterday:
"Your best side! You're sitting on it!"

Aquaducts - irrigating Australia
 

FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
SG1 wrote:

The Ord has been recognised as a disaster for the last 20 years or so.
Geese love rice and any other thing that grows & ya can't shoot the Bs.
Leave the tropics alone and bomb a few cities, drastic but effective.

Whether the Ord river system is a disaster or not remains to be seen.

If what the experts say is right, we are already living in a post peak oil
world.

The Ord is build in an area of very low population. When fuel is in short
supply for purposes of both production and transprt of the final product,
the best place to produce food is where there is a population base to whom
the goods are to be sold. The Ord doesn't fit that description so either we
need a massive population shift to near the Ord, or there is a need to
figure out how to get the goods to the population base without using huge
amounts of increasingly expensive fuel.

The Ord is not looking good to be a big success on fuel usage grounds alone.

The problem is how well is it managed and how many fingers are there in
the pie. This is usually the problem when things go wrong. Too many cooks
spoil the broth...

????? I can't follow your thinking here at all. What 'cooks' do you have
in mind? What broth are they spoiling and what do you mean by this comment?
Its hyperthetical. If you have too many people involved in corruption or
"cooks",

"the broth", in this case the Ord river system, doesnt get the proper
attention to detail,

and spoils "the broth" or the outcome for that particular situation or
project.

Usually this happens because of ill will towards each other.

The "cooks" get quite spiteful if they dont get their own way, to the
point of

sabotaging a system. I think political influence/inteference for their
own means has something to do with it.

I hope this explains it., and isnt too hard for you to follow....


Too many critics when they dont get their way etc.

Unfortunately there are at least 2 classes of critics amongst the general
populace. There is the mindless crowd that seems to be most vocal and is
generally made up of the really dumb Joe Public who simply whinges, talks to
John Laws or Alan Jones or the varous other State shock jocks and is totally
clueless. Those who carried on about Chapelle Corby were this type of
person. Then there are another sort of critic who actually uses their head
and trys to gather information, does some analysis and then makes up their
mind. I think that we are blessed with too many of the former and too few
of the latter.