Traveston Dam Rejected

[Haggis McHaggis]

Garrett Rejects Traveston Dam

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett says he will not allow the Traveston Crossing Dam near Gympie in south-east Queensland to go ahead.

Mr Garrett says his decision was based on the risk the dam posed to the environment.

"After considering the Traveston Dam proposal and the best available scientific evidence and other material ... it is my intention to say no to the Traveston Dam," Mr Garrett said in Brisbane today

Huzzah

The Mary River is beautiful and that's the way it's going to stay, at least for now. Hopefully Anna will finally use some brains on this one and instead of resorting to de-sal, which is also fraught with downfalls, gives serious considerations to some more rational options.

Anyone that's lived in NQ for any length of time (dlanod & rawhead, would be particularly interested in your thoughts) would have seen the Burdekin River in flood. When the north floods out, enough water runs out of the mouth of the Burdekin every hour to fill Sydney Harbour. If they channelled that over the Seaview Range to the west and into the river systems it'd run south and inland, filling the Thompson & Barcou rivers and would open up more land in central QLD to agriculture. The Thompson & Barcoo join up into Coopers Creek and feed Lake Eyre.

There are several options there. You could either have Lake Eyre with water in it far more often if not permanently which is debatably an environmental impact that we shouldn't have given the system of life out there has evolved to lay dormant in wait for occasional flooding, and desert life could suffer from the change in ecology. For mine, I'd channel it into the The Paroo River, which is a major tributary of the Darling River, yet in most years the flow dissipates before it reaches the Darling. It would save the Murray-Darling system and would certainly make it more secure into the future.

The point is that you could do all this and channel enough water into Brisbanes dams to fill them all in a matter of hours. At that point it would simply make sense to enlarge the dams we already have to store more of that water. Given the impact such a scheme could have on QLD/NSW/VIC/SA it should be federally & state funded. This idea isn't by any means new. It's been knocked back over cost before. But with the potential to open up more farmable land in QLD, secure the nations food supply in the south, secure SEQ's water supply, and save the Murray-Darling in one hit it surely would be worthwhile.

The aqueduct systems the romans built showed more vision than our slack water management practices in this country since foundation. They talk about nation building, time to do some of it.

 

[dlanod]

Haven't seen the Burdekin a whole lot, too far south for me, but the main issue is that I understand the flow is very changable. Not what you're looking for in a water supply I'd suspect.

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

Haven't seen the Burdekin a whole lot, too far south for me, but the main issue is that I understand the flow is very changable. Not what you're looking for in a water supply I'd suspect.

Yeah relying solely on the Burdekin would be too sporadic. Thing is, enough water goes over the dam there during floods to fill all of SEQ's dams in a few hours. The original idea was called The Bradfield Scheme and proposed to divert flood water from the Tully River into the Herbert River and then into the Burdekin where it would be pumped to the west of the Great Divide. It was originally proposed in 1938

 

[Tassie4ever]

As a Tasmanian I have a little experience of Greeenie terrororism. Anyone who thinks Bobbie and his cohorts will stand by and allow a river to be diverted all that way is deluded.

And that's before we get to the economics of pumping water all that way. Look at the map- it is just not feasible. If it was possible and economic it would have been done.

The Greeenie solution is always the same- use less [water, electricity, whatever]. Or the Toowoomba solution- get the water from Brisbane, no problem.

I would like someone explain to me how the same government can aim for our population to double or what, while at the same time say there is no way a new dam will ever be built. The sight of Garrett opining that we wouldn't need the water until 2026 anyway made me sick. WE WERE AT 17% A YEAR AGO- IT WAS SCARY.

The PR of the NIMBY's is now so well developed, and the media, especially the ABC, so helpful in assisting the cause, no dam will ever be built, ever, anywhere in Queensland. We even get protests over building supermarkets, for god's sake.

Work it out! Dams can only be built on a river, where there are farms because there is water. This will be where few people actually live. Mainly cows. It will probably be picturesque and green. All good media copy.

I remember sitting in David Hamill's [ex Goss Transport Minister] office one day, and he agreed with our group that a North-South bypass was inevitable [the old Route 20 argument] but that equally inevitably as soon as a route was proposed the lesser-spotted hyperventilating frog would be discovered, and because it only occurred in that habitat all bets were off.

The "Smart State".

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

As a Tasmanian I have a little experience of Greeenie terrororism. Anyone who thinks Bobbie and his cohorts will stand by and allow a river to be diverted all that way is deluded.

And that's before we get to the economics of pumping water all that way. Look at the map- it is just not feasible. If it was possible and economic it would have been done.

The Greeenie solution is always the same- use less [water, electricity, whatever]. Or the Toowoomba solution- get the water from Brisbane, no problem.

I would like someone explain to me how the same government can aim for our population to double or what, while at the same time say there is no way a new dam will ever be built. The sight of Garrett opining that we wouldn't need the water until 2026 anyway made me sick. WE WERE AT 17% A YEAR AGO- IT WAS SCARY.

The PR of the NIMBY's is now so well developed, and the media, especially the ABC, so helpful in assisting the cause, no dam will ever be built, ever, anywhere in Queensland. We even get protests over building supermarkets, for god's sake.

Work it out! Dams can only be built on a river, where there are farms because there is water. This will be where few people actually live. Mainly cows. It will probably be picturesque and green. All good media copy.

I remember sitting in David Hamill's [ex Goss Transport Minister] office one day, and he agreed with our group that a North-South bypass was inevitable [the old Route 20 argument] but that equally inevitably as soon as a route was proposed the lesser-spotted hyperventilating frog would be discovered, and because it only occurred in that habitat all bets were off.

The "Smart State".

ROFL. I want to see this lesser-spotted hyperventilating frog you speak of.

On the cost of the Bradfield Scheme, which is the reason that's been given for knocking it back at each review. The Scheme was reviewed in `93 at the request of the North Australian Water Development Council which was a board made up of all the shire councils then potentially involved in the project. It was costed at an estimated $2.49bil to complete. It was also estimated that the direct benefit to the QLD economy alone anually from then on would be around $2.02bil, so after 2 years up & running it pays for itself comfortably. It'd certainly create more employment than any other option.

We built the Snowy hydroelectric scheme back in the day and nowdays we just don't think with any great scope. I can't stand the idea of de-salination. The power consumption alone makes them as bad for the environment as the Traveston proposal. Unless we plan on using nuclear power at some point in the near future. Then we'll really see your mate Bob start hopping around like an adhd baby

 

[Tassie4ever]

ROFL. I want to see this lesser-spotted hyperventilating frog you speak of.

On the cost of the Bradfield Scheme, which is the reason that's been given for knocking it back at each review. The Scheme was reviewed in `93 at the request of the North Australian Water Development Council which was a board made up of all the shire councils then potentially involved in the project. It was costed at an estimated $2.49bil to complete. It was also estimated that the direct benefit to the QLD economy alone anually from then on would be around $2.02bil, so after 2 years up & running it pays for itself comfortably. It'd certainly create more employment than any other option.

We built the Snowy hydroelectric scheme back in the day and nowdays we just don't think with any great scope. I can't stand the idea of de-salination. The power consumption alone makes them as bad for the environment as the Traveston proposal. Unless we plan on using nuclear power at some point in the near future. Then we'll really see your mate Bob start hopping around like an adhd baby

We're getting well away from footy here, so the mod's will strike soon for sure.

The "lesser spotted hyperventilating frog" is a metaphor- but it seems to crop up very regularly, by whatever name [eg, the bum-breathing turtle]

Bradfield will never happen, never, just as the Snowy scheme would never happen in this day. Apart from the immense costs, the opportunities for laying down in front of bulldozers to save the ?? River spotted fish would be immense. Tassie has been there, done that.

The Greenies would never allow a major river to be diverted, and we've seen how strong Rudd is- he can't even get cheaper books through.

Bobbie does not speak on behalf of Tasmanians. He represents only a very small minority, but because he says what the ABC luvvies think, he is very often invited to offer his opinions, strictly limited of course. For example, nowhere will you read that 46% of the Tasmanian landmass is locked up forever, can't be touched, logged whatever. Last time I raised this fact with the Wilderness Society I was told that most of this 46% was "button grass plains".

As for desal or whatever, I have a theory. Why don't we ask all of those who object to everything [dams, shopping centres, etc] to come up with an alternative before they knock whatever on the head.

For example- if you object to a mobile phone tower in this location, where should it go? Or will you give up your mobile?

I'd still like Kerry to drag out his feather duster next time he interviews [?] Rudd and ask him how he reconciles a doubling of population with no more water. Wasn't Rudd on about infrastructure just last week?

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

We're getting well away from footy here, so the mod's will strike soon for sure.

Nah, that's what The Den's for.

The "lesser spotted hyperventilating frog" is a metaphor- but it seems to crop up very regularly, by whatever name [eg, the bum-breathing turtle]

I wouldn't have guessed

Bradfield will never happen, never, just as the Snowy scheme would never happen in this day. Apart from the immense costs, the opportunities for laying down in front of bulldozers to save the ?? River spotted fish would be immense. Tassie has been there, done that.

Sadly, most people I've spoken with agree with you on that. Despite most of them thinking it's a great idea they're resigned to the mechanisms of 3 year political cycles & special interests lobbies getting their way because they make the most noise. I understand the two influences they piss me off, but I think its up to the wider community to make their voices heard when it comes to something like this. The resignation to the status quo & apathy of Joe Q Public is what allows this shit to keep on happening. It's sad that the way the system is rigged up stifles the kind of foresight people had 100 years ago. The worst part is that in central & north QLD the councils, even before being amalgamated were so for the idea that they formed a board to do new studies into old proposals & push the idea. Unfortunately people in SEQ just don't think in those terms until the dams are at 17%, then start bleating & looking for quick fixes.

The Greenies would never allow a major river to be diverted, and we've seen how strong Rudd is- he can't even get cheaper books through. I'd still like Kerry to drag out his feather duster next time he interviews [?] Rudd and ask him how he reconciles a doubling of population with no more water. Wasn't Rudd on about infrastructure just last week?

Like you say though. The Greens are a minority and should be stood up to when something is this important. Especially when science can easilly prove there are significant environmental benefits to be had from this scheme, not the least of which would be saving the murray/darling, which would be on their wish list I would think. Besides, there are already two diversions on the Burdekin River which cause 0 problems.

And you make another good point on doubling the population, hence my reference to the whole 'nation building' catch phrase they love using. The water diverted would irrigate much of central QLD, creating new farmable land to feed that growing population, create jobs in many industries, attract people back to the bush, save massive drought losses in production & compensation to rural families and water the south east corners growing population. It would seem to me a great way of providing some serious economic stimulus that gives the nation something beneficial coming out the other end of the financial crisis.

As for desal or whatever, I have a theory. Why don't we ask all of those who object to everything [dams, shopping centres, etc] to come up with an alternative before they knock whatever on the head.

Spot on. The idea's to solve a problem, not just whinge about it. That's why I think, more than ever, the Bradfield ideas should be given serious consideration, for all of the reasons and more than I've listed above. It's a damned shame noone put it forward at that stupid 2020 summit Rudd had. But I guess the thoughts of athletes & actors are far more important than ideas about securing the nations future.

It kind of reminds me of the mythical Redcliffe rail line. Great idea, gets considered every second election cycle but never materialises.

 

[Crimso]

ROFL. I want to see this lesser-spotted hyperventilating frog you speak of.

On the cost of the Bradfield Scheme, which is the reason that's been given for knocking it back at each review. The Scheme was reviewed in `93 at the request of the North Australian Water Development Council which was a board made up of all the shire councils then potentially involved in the project. It was costed at an estimated $2.49bil to complete. It was also estimated that the direct benefit to the QLD economy alone anually from then on would be around $2.02bil, so after 2 years up & running it pays for itself comfortably. It'd certainly create more employment than any other option.

We built the Snowy hydroelectric scheme back in the day and nowdays we just don't think with any great scope. I can't stand the idea of de-salination. The power consumption alone makes them as bad for the environment as the Traveston proposal. Unless we plan on using nuclear power at some point in the near future. Then we'll really see your mate Bob start hopping around like an adhd baby

In WA wind power is used to run the de-salination plant. In Europe the wind turbines are set offshore, no reason this couldn't happen here too. Well, I can think of a couple of reasons, but they don't stand up to my way of thinking.

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

In WA wind power is used to run the de-salination plant. In Europe the wind turbines are set offshore, no reason this couldn't happen here too. Well, I can think of a couple of reasons, but they don't stand up to my way of thinking.

Apparently Spains wind power sector is now more efficient than coal generation. I was very surprised to read it. I liked the idea of wave farms a WA engineer came up with. Big arm undersea off the coast moves with wave energy which pumps water up the attached pipe at high pressure & spins hydro turbines to create electricity which then drives a de-sal plant attached to the same complex. Create energy & drinking water & the only bi-product is hyper salinated water. I think they've built a 1 or 2km square test plant in NSW as well as the original in WA.

 

[John]

The Country Party supporters have turned green. Pigs fly at last.

FWIW lets thank our lucky stars that we all live in a democracy and that activism can get a result such as this. A million Chinese got told to move or drown. No bitching about Jintao before or after the event or the family will pay for the bullet.

Criticism of Governments of any ilk when making decisions on big projects like this are controversial. NIMBY is rife no matter the project so Opposition's of any ilk will take advantage of that. Why not! Aim for the top and worry about the consequences when you get there. Ask Campbell Newman. Joe Public just has an opinion based on how they are affected or what faction they support.

I just feel that I have seen and heard it all before. Anyway gotta go and BBQ a Lung fish.

 

[Haggis McHaggis]

FWIW lets thank our lucky stars that we all live in a democracy and that activism can get a result such as this. A million Chinese got told to move or drown. No bitching about Jintao before or after the event or the family will pay for the bullet.

LoL I was thinking the same thing yesterday. Some people may think they have no say here, but we have a damned site more than the poor bastards that lived up river of the three gorges.

I just feel that I have seen and heard it all before. Anyway gotta go and BBQ a Lung fish.

Yup. Different day, same shit. The Bradfield scheme was first put forward in 1938 & we're still dealing with the same crap that inspired the then QLD govt to commission the study in the first place. Enjoy your lungfish

 

[3KZ is Football]

Re: Dam Travis Rejected

Did we delist him?

If not, we should have. The bloke is a hack and he should definitely not be getting a senior game in 2010.

Go Lions!

 

[Tassie4ever]

Re: Nation Building etc

When the Germans had a GFC problem in the 30's, they had a nation building program, the benefits of which last to this day- it's called the autobahn system.

What do we do instead of this- we build school halls. Says it all really.

I've for years bored my friends in saying we should have had a sunset-claused surcharge on fuel [say, 10c/litre over 10 years] to build a proper interstate road and rail system. Take this program out of the totally inefficient overhead-laden State Transport departments by establishing a central road construction body with full authority to overrule States in property etc matters.

When built, we should charge trucks the true cost of having them use taxpayer-subsidised roads, so that rail can compete realistically.

Instead of leadership, what do we have. What decision will we get if we put a self-professed greenie nutter in charge of important infrastructure projects- let's guess?

My favourite "green" story is that of when "Whatever it Takes" Graham Richardson, then Minister for the Environment, was walked through a visually pristine section of the Tarkine Forest in Tasmania by Forestry Tasmania officials. When Richardson remarked that this was a very good example of why the forests needed to be preserved, the Forestry people had great pleasure in informing him that the area had been clear-felled 40 years before.

Not that the Libs are any better. Why is it that this country produces such poor politicians who lack any vision, as you say, beyond 3 years.

As for wind farms, these are the biggest scam of all. They have an extremely low efficiency rating which makes then totally uneconomic- reference Terry McCrann's article on the Danish windfarms several months ago. No wind, no power. No sun, no solar. I have had a solar hotwater system for 23 years- when the water isn't hot enough, we switch on the backup power. I don't think my wife would accept "sorry, the wind isn't blowing".

Just like Joe Public won't boot the green nutters in the arse when the water runs out- it'll be the government of the day.

There, you've got me going.

 

[3KZ is Football]

Many of these arguments don't hold water.

Go Lions!

 

[The Flying Belgian]

As an employee of a certain governement entity which may or may not have had a key role in this issue, and as someone who may or may not have worked on the inital stages of the project, I'm not totally surprised.

They certainly could build a giant aqueduct or similar. Problem of course is the money.

 

[POBT]

I don't think the "use less water" argument should be dismissed. We got down to below 140L a day and we still haven't ramped up to the full amount allowable by the Water Commission (or whatever it is or will be called). And yet, there's constant talk about lifting restrictions.

Until we got rain, we were pretty much all resigned to using less water. As it turned out, it wasn't the life altering result that was feared. We not only managed but probably learnt quite a bit about our previously wasteful usage of water.

Water restrictions should never disappear totally. We should always maintain some discipline in terms of our use of water. Driveways don't need to be hosed down. Pools should be waterwise. Tanks should remain a prominent feature in suburban backyards, water-intensive industry like energy generation should be set water use targets.

As I see it, the water crisis of the past few years shouldn't be punctuated by an infrastructure building frenzy. It should be marked by permanent and responsible use of water and a coordinated, cross government approach to water management. Unfortunately, there are no political ribbons to be cut when you tell people to use less water.

 

[Crimso]

As for wind farms, these are the biggest scam of all. They have an extremely low efficiency rating which makes then totally uneconomic- reference Terry McCrann's article on the Danish windfarms several months ago. No wind, no power. No sun, no solar. I have had a solar hotwater system for 23 years- when the water isn't hot enough, we switch on the backup power. I don't think my wife would accept "sorry, the wind isn't blowing".

I have lived with solar power and wind power combined for the past 30 odd years, with solar heated water. I live what I would consider to be a fairly normal and rather pleasant lifestyle. I have all the "mod cons" that I desire and the only difference between myself and someone that chooses to live "mainstream" is that I can't have electric heating appliances.

To say that any alternative to coal or nuclear generated power is a scam, well your a, no, I won't go there. I love these TV "experts". I wonder how we managed the "GFC" without them?

Were you the person that once asked me what I do at night for light when the sun goes down?

 

[Tassie4ever]

I have lived with solar power and wind power combined for the past 30 odd years, with solar heated water.

To say that any alternative to coal or nuclear generated power is a scam, well your a, no, I won't go there. I love these TV "experts". I wonder how we managed the "GFC" without them?

Were you the person that once asked me what I do at night for light when the sun goes down?

I don't think the "use less water" argument should be dismissed. We got down to below 140L a day and we still haven't ramped up to the full amount allowable by the Water Commission (or whatever it is or will be called). And yet, there's constant talk about lifting restrictions.

a) I have never argued that coal or nuclear power are the only alternatives- I argue that wind power on any large scale is extremely costly and inefficient, just as solar-generated electricity is. That's why it neither of these technologies are applied on any large scale. When these industries ask for government support they are asking for taxpayer subsidies because they aren't competitive.

b) I have no interest in what you do at night when the sun goes down

c) let's see- 140l/day by typically 2 people per household = 1960l/week. Let's say a good sized tank of 5000l = 2.5 weeks of water stored. Not realistically a solution- more a feel-good wank. Unless of course it rains every 2 weeks or so- which it doesn't.

Try arguing with your wife she can't have a shower because:
*the tank water has run out
*she has exceeded her 140l
*Peter Garrett prefers the bum-breathing frog
*the water isn't hot because it isn't
windy and/or sunny.

Not really a solution.

I am waiting for the first ratepayer to take his/her local government body to court for breach of contract when they fail to deliver water. I reckon they'd have a fair case, although I'm not a lawyer.

 

[POBT]

c) let's see- 140l/day by typically 2 people per household = 1960l/week. Let's say a good sized tank of 5000l = 2.5 weeks of water stored. Not realistically a solution- more a feel-good wank. Unless of course it rains every 2 weeks or so- which it doesn't.

Did you just read two random sentences in my post and then assume that they were somehow correlated?

Firstly, the standard home water tanks are not the solution to "town water" - but they are a nice substitute for having people drain water supplies to keep their roses looking pretty. It is about reducing the burden on large scale water storage or generation infrastructure. There are studies that suggest that home water storage, even in a minimal capacity, is the most effective water saving measure going around. So the feel good wank is backed up by legitimate statistics.

Secondly, I've recently come from living 12 months on tank water in a house of 5. Didn't go without water at any point in time and didn't scrimp on water usage either - in fact, I was washing cars and using sprinklers when those on town water were not.

Finally, I should put on the record that I had no opinion about the Traveston Crossing Dam. I could see the significant benefits - in terms of water storage, it was an astounding idea. In terms of social and environmental cost, it was pretty significant too. I can see both sides of the argument.

But anyone who thinks we can go back to the "good old days" of unlimited water usage is kidding themselves. We live on a dry continent and chances are that weather will only become more unpredictable. If we get better are living sustainably in terms of water (and I don't mean 'opt out' lifestyles like Crimso!), then we can avoid the economic, social and environmental cost of further water storage or generation.

 

[_Gin]

Re: Nation Building etc


As for wind farms, these are the biggest scam of all. They have an extremely low efficiency rating which makes then totally uneconomic- reference Terry McCrann's article on the Danish windfarms several months ago. No wind, no power. No sun, no solar. I have had a solar hotwater system for 23 years- when the water isn't hot enough, we switch on the backup power. I don't think my wife would accept "sorry, the wind isn't blowing".


There, you've got me going.

The way wind farms work is that they are spread out over a wide area. There is always wind somewhere, so while they rarely reach 100% output they are always out putting. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say they aren't efficient either? What is that based on.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/04/2322930.htm

 

[Tassie4ever]

The way wind farms work is that they are spread out over a wide area. There is always wind somewhere, so while they rarely reach 100% output they are always out putting. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say they aren't efficient either? What is that based on.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/04/2322930.htm

1) can you or anyone else GUARANTEE it will ALWAYS be windy somewhere- and in sufficient strength and volume to ALWAYS deliver a baseload power. Pity for those people in lifts, on ventilators etc if you can't ALWAYS deliver.

2) say it's blowing in Perth but not Brisbane- how do you deliver the power from one side of the continent to the other?

3) and if you could somehow develop this sort of grid for this sort of transfer, how expensive would this grid be? That's before we get into the huge losses involved in transmission delivery

4) my research on windpower inefficiency is based solely on Terry McCrann's analysis of several months ago, and from sticking my head out the window from time to time to determine whether it is in fact windy

Like anything else with a "green" objective, the bottom line is how much is the ordinary punter prepared to pay? For electricity, fuel, water, whatever.

The Capital G Greens have made it clear- they want us all to pay much, much more, so that we reduce our consumption of everything as we clearly depleting the world's scarce resources. As evidence, when Bobby is asked, well how much of Tassie do you want locked away, now that you have 46% in the bag, his response is usually along the lines of, how much can we get?

When people start paying double, triple, quadruple for water, power etc, that's when the penny will drop.

 

[Crimso]

I don't think the "use less water" argument should be dismissed. We got down to below 140L a day and we still haven't ramped up to the full amount allowable by the Water Commission (or whatever it is or will be called). And yet, there's constant talk about lifting restrictions.

a) I have never argued that coal or nuclear power are the only alternatives- I argue that wind power on any large scale is extremely costly and inefficient, just as solar-generated electricity is. That's why it neither of these technologies are applied on any large scale. When these industries ask for government support they are asking for taxpayer subsidies because they aren't competitive.

b) I have no interest in what you do at night when the sun goes down

c) let's see- 140l/day by typically 2 people per household = 1960l/week. Let's say a good sized tank of 5000l = 2.5 weeks of water stored. Not realistically a solution- more a feel-good wank. Unless of course it rains every 2 weeks or so- which it doesn't.

Try arguing with your wife she can't have a shower because:
*the tank water has run out
*she has exceeded her 140l
*Peter Garrett prefers the bum-breathing frog
*the water isn't hot because it isn't
windy and/or sunny.

Not really a solution.

I am waiting for the first ratepayer to take his/her local government body to court for breach of contract when they fail to deliver water. I reckon they'd have a fair case, although I'm not a lawyer.

(a) True, but I was generalising and should have made that clear.

(b) Thank heavens, Mrs Crimso may get a tad upset if you did. The point I was aiming at here was just because the sun goes down or the wind isn't blowing, I still have my house lit up, I still have two refrigerators and a deep freeze, I still have two computers along with all the other gear needed in my office, I still have my stereo, I still have my TV, and I still have all this when the power drops out elsewhere.

On the record I was pro Traveston. I was anti Woolworths building where they did in Maleny, though like most other people (greenies?) here I wasn't anti Woolies actually coming to Maleny, so there are different reasons to protest, just maybe all aren't reported acurately, hence my "love" of "TV experts".

And I do actually agree that wind and solar do have their shortcomings, the alternative to power generation I would like to see developed is the geo-thermal method, though I think the government has too much tied up in coal and soon uranium to push this safe and clean method. I don't think solar or wind farms are scams though, but that's just my opinion.

As for water tanks, it's obvious that I live with rainwater tanks to supply my daily needs (and I have an onsite treatment plant that gets rid of my waste water & shit etc.). Now the problem I see with water tanks mainly comes from a health perspective. Every house gets a hell of a lot of bird crap and other bits and pieces falling into the gutters and hence into the drinking water. I've even found the very partial remains of dead (desiccated) animals in my strainer. Not nice (but don't tell the kids).

Take all the above in a city situation, add in the local pollution from industry etc. the size of the average backyard now (my water storage = two tanks with a 3.8m diameter each) and council / government fear of lack of maintenance (mozzies, dead critters getting in, unpottable water etc.), tanks for any more than watering the garden are not the answer.

In Maleny, each new house has to have 10,000ltrs of water storage if connected to mains supply. This is connected to the WC pans, the washing machine ***** and to at least one external hose ****, which means you have to have a pump installed to pressurise this supply independitently from the mains. When this supply of water reaches a certain low point, the tanks are then filled from the mains supply. It's a complicated way of saving water, and it is illegal for anyone to drink from these tanks.

I honestly think dams are the answer and as far as it costing more and more, why shouldn't it if it makes people use a bit less each day. The alternative is to "opt out" (shit, I must be an old hippie ) ) like me and don't rely on any mainstream supply, except of course for my petrol & diesel.

 

[John]

Renewable energies such as Wind and Solar is very much in their infancy and are not going to be as cheap as oil, coal and gas. They are therefore not going to have the same investment thrown at them as fossil fuels that are easy to produce

I have read a fair bit on this subject from both perspectives due to an interest in the theory of peak oil.

The one thing that has struck in all my readings is that Oil and Gas and Coal are very very cheap sources of energy. The point being that for every 7 barrels of oil spent in Saudi Arabia 93 are produced as clear profit and that it actually costs more in energy spent to produce Hydrogen as an energy resource. In a corporate world keen on profit why bother with Hydrogen when your company can stick a hole in the ground in Mesopotamia and that clear profit comes flowing from the ground.

I was once interested to read about how the world's economies and populations are historically healthier when energy is cheap. Examples being Henry VIII's mass deforestation of England to build a navy and the natural energy of the nation, wood, then being in short supply and the economy falling out of control. Then the reverse with the US in reality booming ever since the discovery of Oil in the mid 1800's. When suddenly they had to import their energy in about 1970 massive shock waves of recession were felt.

When things are good populations boom. A very natural occurrence be that man or animal. Some of us can complain to out hearts content about perceived issues but the reality is that as a nation we are very well off by not only world standards but historical standards. The vast vast majority have all the mod cons, be that Auto-mobiles, the equivalent of 300 slaves so said one tome I read, through to the latest in communications such as this device that I am tapping away at now. Reality is that we have never had it so good. Hence the boom in populations. IMO the reality is that we can chat away all we like about population caps and stopping infrastructure but even in an authoritarian society such as China the attempt to cap the population by coercion has in truth failed.

That brings us back to energy be that water shortages, yes it is an energy, or oil and electricity shortages. In the end we do have to make some form of effort to replace that that may be in short supply in the future. Wind and solar, and even Hydrogen, should not be dismissed with contempt. Peak oilers for example are told that they have got it wrong but in all my readings the powers, be that Oil companies, economists for example, dismiss this theory but then say that we have enough oil to last us another 30 years at best estimates. I will be lucky to be around in 30 years but in the entire scheme of things that seems not that far away and with that in mind I am not going to be dismissive of attempts to find alternatives to possible water and fuel shortages and IMO anyone that does is being very short sighted.

 

[Tassie4ever]

Crimso John etc and I may be on the same wavelength on many issues, apparently.

On peak oil, I have been reading about the coming apocalypse since I started buying car magazines as a kid in the late 60's. Sure, oil will run out one day but we won't be around to worry about it.

On tanks, if we agree that they are a potential health hazard [which is why the BCC banned then in the first place] and can only really act as a garden supplement, then we agree that dams are necessary. And dams are much cheaper. Tanks were not sold to the unthinking public as a garden supplement in the dark days of the 2007 17% [incidentally, as a tank owner, you will know that perhaps not all of the water in your tank may be accessible- I often wondered just how much of our 17% was accessible]

Australia IS well-off, and I think in fact that we are at the very start of a golden age for this country. We may be the richest nation on earth before mid-century. Which is why the boats are coming this way and not the reverse [ok, the reverse applies where holidays are involved].

Geothermal is not a proven technology for baseload power, apart from in one country. As I understand it, the prospecting sites being currently investigated in Oz are many k's away from any main grid. Which means that even if the approach is proven in pilot form, and assuming it is price competitive, to actually get power to the punters would require huge investment in grid construction. Again, if it was easy and cheap to do, it would have been done. Just like wave-power. Anyone who invests in these technologies on the ASX with their own money has rocks in their head [not just in the ground]. Which is why geothermal consistently asks for government subsidies.

We better not venture into the realms of so-called global-warming [actually, the earth has cooled over the past 9 years] and the religious fervour for a move away from coal-power as this will start another whole debate.

 

[_Gin]

1) can you or anyone else GUARANTEE it will ALWAYS be windy somewhere- and in sufficient strength and volume to ALWAYS deliver a baseload power. Pity for those people in lifts, on ventilators etc if you can't ALWAYS deliver.

2) say it's blowing in Perth but not Brisbane- how do you deliver the power from one side of the continent to the other?

3) and if you could somehow develop this sort of grid for this sort of transfer, how expensive would this grid be? That's before we get into the huge losses involved in transmission delivery

4) my research on windpower inefficiency is based solely on Terry McCrann's analysis of several months ago, and from sticking my head out the window from time to time to determine whether it is in fact windy

Like anything else with a "green" objective, the bottom line is how much is the ordinary punter prepared to pay? For electricity, fuel, water, whatever.

The Capital G Greens have made it clear- they want us all to pay much, much more, so that we reduce our consumption of everything as we clearly depleting the world's scarce resources. As evidence, when Bobby is asked, well how much of Tassie do you want locked away, now that you have 46% in the bag, his response is usually along the lines of, how much can we get?

When people start paying double, triple, quadruple for water, power etc, that's when the penny will drop.

Wind farms are built over hundreds of hectares, and don't demand that the land be solely dedicated to them. The entire east coast is connected to the same electricity grid.

You don't seem to understand how the National energy market works.

And I'm pretty sure that wind power would never satisfy the entire continents power needs. But it fills a bit, solar power fills another - and there are ways for solar plants to generate electricity at night. Geothermal is the other big one that can supply a huge amount of power.

I even believe that clean coal should be given a chance. You don't want to kill off the economy of queensland. However if it doesn't work then coal should be slowly phased out over a period of a hundred years.