Science/Environment Water problems... what water problems.

[evo]

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa etc

Not a fan of perpetual motion?

Heretic!

 

[cancat]

How about shipping water around?

http://www.solarsailor.com/images/media/BROCHURES/060501 Shipping water.pdf

 

[Clay Davis]

So you are telling me that a power station that supplies power to the Kunnurra region, including the diamond mine, Kunnunarra township, Wyndam and a handful of other towns and communities couldn't run a few pumps.

It generates 200 GWH of power for you info.... seems you need some.

It's more than a few pumps.

How much water do you plan on pumping? As soon as the volume goes up, so does the energy required. If you're expecting close to the 2500 GL per day you tout then the energy expenditure also goes up. If you're getting closer to that delivered by the desal plant, then the infrastructure cost becomes prohibitive versus the expected outlay for desal plants.

 

[Play by Numbers]

1898 technology Versus 2010 technology is also vastly disproportionate. Probably moreso.

oh FFS....

 

[Clay Davis]

oh FFS....

LOL.

I think people should consider this:

The Goldfields scheme pumps 8 ML per year. Not gigalitres, megalitres. For an aqueduct system to meet what the desal plant is proposed to pump, it would have to use 31,250 times the amount of energy per kilometre pumped than what the Goldfields pipeline uses. Given that the distance is 6 times longer, the amount of energy required to pump the water from the north of WA to Perth is over 180,000 times more.

 

[nut]

It's more than a few pumps.

How much water do you plan on pumping? As soon as the volume goes up, so does the energy required. If you're expecting close to the 2500 GL per day you tout then the energy expenditure also goes up. If you're getting closer to that delivered by the desal plant, then the infrastructure cost becomes prohibitive versus the expected outlay for desal plants.

2500 GL a day... thats ten years worth of water for perth!!!! so no not that much per day.

Yes the out lay would be significantly more, and the out put would be considerably more than what's "currently" required, but I'm looking into the future. When the population grows and we need another Desal plant and then another and another. Thats when the cost of a pipe line would drop dramatically. It's called planning. The running cost of a Desal plant is HUGE and that never stops. Where as a Hydro powered Pipeline line from a lake would have minimal maintenance cost compered to the running costs of a Desal plant.

The water supply would be an over kill to begin with. But there are hundreds of industries that we could develop as a result of this excess water. Like Hydroponics, fish farming, rice production to name a few.

Water is our most important commodity and if we could increase this commodity then we would all benefit.

 

[Wednesday]

The cost would be enormous. Pumping any reasonable level of water that far would require a massive amount of energy overhead that would be far in excess of running a desalination plant.

You wouldn't need to pump the water the whole way. You only need to pump the water to an inlet point at a level a few hundred meters higher than the outlet level. Gravity would then do most of the work for you. For example if you pumped the water from the Burdekin Dam near Townsville, which floods every few years, to a higher point in the nearby GD range say 5-700m above sea level, and used that point as your inlet, as long as your outlet point was lower, say 100m above sea level somewhere near Brisbane, the water would flow on its own. You can control the pressure through the pipe by increasing the diameter of the inlet in proportion to the pipe and outlet point. It works just like a big hose with a wide funnel on one end. Not such a silly idea, and if done properly would be much cheaper than a desal plant.

 

[Clay Davis]

You wouldn't need to pump the water the whole way. You only need to pump the water to an inlet point at a level a few hundred meters higher than the outlet level. Gravity would then do most of the work for you. For example if you pumped the water from the Burdekin Dam near Townsville, which floods every few years, to a higher point in the nearby GD range say 5-700m above sea level, and used that point as your inlet, as long as your outlet point was lower, say 100m above sea level somewhere near Brisbane, the water would flow on its own. You can control the pressure through the pipe by increasing the diameter of the inlet in proportion to the pipe and outlet point. It works just like a big hose with a wide funnel on one end. Not such a silly idea, and if done properly would be much cheaper than a desal plant.

If you're pumping water from the 0m sea level uphill, then using gravity to do the work the rest of the way back to 0m sea level, then it is the same energy expenditure as pumping the water along flat lands the whole way.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Yet the cost for maintaining thousands of km of pipeline, running a hydroelectricity plant and maintaining such an enormous dam or lake would still be very high.

But the initial outlay would be literally astronomical.

If we are to invest substantially in anything it should be water recycling.

 

[evo]

That doesn't sound right, gravy.

It depends on how far.

 

[fairdinkum]

This thread is showing us who took physics (and paid attention) and who did not.

 

[Clay Davis]

That doesn't sound right, gravy.

It depends on how far.

What do you mean? It doesn't matter how far you pump it up hill (whether it's a short or long distance). The effect is the same.

 

[evo]

No, how far the zero sea level to zero sea level pipe would be you are using in the comparison.

 

[telsor]

1898 technology Versus 2010 technology is also vastly disproportionate. Probably moreso.

Pumps might be more efficient, and pipes more effectively engineeered, but the physics of pushing millions of tonnes of water around hasn't changed much, and that remains the big problem.

I do like the idea, but there is no denying it would be a MASSIVE project, both in the building and maintaining, and the value gained from it would need to be looked at closely.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I'm with you Nut. I've been saying it for years, the whole country should be gridded for water. It's a project that will take decades but it needs to be done.

The current Federal Government has just handed out 10s of billions of dollars for people to spend at Harvey Norman. I'm tipping that money would have made a pretty good start on the project.

One day a Government of either persuasion needs to bite the bullet and look further ahead than getting themselves elected for another 3/4 years.

There was a story a few years ago on 60 Minutes about Lake Argyle and the Ord River Scheme. The volumes of water is absolutely mind boggling. Pity about the harsh climate up there. The followed the fortunes of 3 farming families from the Eastern states. One family who were world leaders in berry farming and in particular strawberries stayed in NSW and ended up broke and in dept for millions for no other reason than there was no water. The other 2 families, one from the Riverina in NSW and the other from Gippsland in Victoria sold up and moved to the Kimberley. It wreaded havoc with their families but at the same time they were absolutely flourishing farming wise.

One figure IIRC that was trotted out is that if all the pumps are running it would fill Sydney harbour in less than 10 minutes.

Simply amazing. To think that when it was first contructed it was considered a white elephant until they figured out the correct crops to grow.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

You don't need pumps at all! Everyone knows that it is all downhill from Kununarra to Perth.
Hey nut! Your surname wouldn't be Bridge by any chance?

 

[Clay Davis]

No, how far the zero sea level to zero sea level pipe would be you are using in the comparison.

I'm not sure what you mean.

If we assume the length of pipe for both methods will be the same, then the resistance to flow due to the surface tension of pipe will be the same for both and the amount of energy expended to to pump the water up the hill will be slightly greater than that released when flowing downhill.

 

[Wednesday]

If you're pumping water from the 0m sea level uphill, then using gravity to do the work the rest of the way back to 0m sea level, then it is the same energy expenditure as pumping the water along flat lands the whole way.

The Burdekin Dam is already in the great dividing range and 400 to 500m above sea level so your not pumping the water all the way from sea level.

A simular proposal has been mooted to use gravity to move water from Tasmania's dams to Victoria's dams.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/tasmania-could-solve-victorias-water-problem-20080302-1wbr.html

 

[Play by Numbers]

LOL.

I think people should consider this:

The Goldfields scheme pumps 8 ML per year. Not gigalitres, megalitres. For an aqueduct system to meet what the desal plant is proposed to pump, it would have to use 31,250 times the amount of energy per kilometre pumped than what the Goldfields pipeline uses. Given that the distance is 6 times longer, the amount of energy required to pump the water from the north of WA to Perth is over 180,000 times more.

He also failed to take into account the comparative increase in material and labour costs.

Not to mention the obstacles/costs we will face in relation to land clearing, navigating or removing geographic obstacles, transportation of materials and construction equipment, housing costs for workers etc. etc.

There are such monumental logistical and possibly engineering/financial considerations to take into account. Not to mention the feasibility of an initial man made dam or catchment area.

But people don't seem to care. Look gee we will have teh infinite water and desalination is expensive.

Even now substantive technological advances are being made in filtration technology. It is also an area where patents related to nanofiltration could potentially make a lot of money, hence the CSIRO, Murcdoch University and the Federal Governments interest.

We also need to be more focused on conserving, better managing and hopefully recycling the water we have.

EDIT: just to be clear if we are discussing hypotheticals or proposals, my posts are in reference to a potential pipeline from northern Western Australia to the Perth metropolitan area.

 

[Clay Davis]

The Burdekin Dam is already in the great dividing range and 400 to 500m above sea level so your not pumping the water all the way from sea level.

A simular proposal has been mooted to use gravity to move water from Tasmania's dams to Victoria's dams.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/tasmania-could-solve-victorias-water-problem-20080302-1wbr.html

Burdekin is 150m above sea level. By gravity alone, it's not going to push water very far.

Unless we invent frictionless pipes then these ideas are just pipe dreams.

 

[evo]

double

 

[evo]

I'm not sure what you mean.

If we assume the length of pipe for both methods will be the same, then the resistance to flow due to the surface tension of pipe will be the same for both and the amount of energy expended to to pump the water up the hill will be slightly greater than that released when flowing downhill.

Yes if the pipes are the same then i agree (obviously).

But Wednesday et al are talking about long systems and and taking advantage of current rivers and topography.

That aside, it is a workable scheme in the long term. Water is going to get ever more expensive. i said something similar to Herme Hill H when Swan was doling out the Harvey Norman checks. That money could been much better spent on a system to put more water in the Darling and let gravity do the rest right through athe greater part of Australia's foodbowl and all the way to Adelaide.

I read a good article on it a few years ago in Time magazine. In that it only required 30 miles of pipe and one major mountain to get over -I cant remember which lake they were referring to. One of the QLD politicians was pushing it. Bob Catter, maybe.

 

[Papa G]

He also failed to take into account the comparative increase in material and labour costs.

Not to mention the obstacles/costs we will face in relation to land clearing, navigating or removing geographic obstacles, transportation of materials and construction equipment, housing costs for workers etc. etc.

Sure labour costs and OHS are much higher which is prohibitive sure, but "obstacles/costs we will face in relation to land clearing, navigating or removing geographic obstacles, transportation of materials and construction equipment, housing costs for workers etc. etc." - are you saying these were not obstacles back in 1898? Are you saying that the massive machinery, equipment, computer design/power and other technology we have at our disposal these days makes it more difficult than when they had men with picks to dig, a couple of hand drawn scetches, horses for transport and oxen to move and clear shit?

I'm glad Australia wasn't discovered in the 21st century because it seems like developing the place would be too hard and all too expensive.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Sure labour costs and OHS are much higher which is prohibitive sure, but "obstacles/costs we will face in relation to land clearing, navigating or removing geographic obstacles, transportation of materials and construction equipment, housing costs for workers etc. etc." - are you saying these were not obstacles back in 1898? Are you saying that the massive machinery, equipment, computer design/power and other technology we have at our disposal these days makes it more difficult than when they had men with picks to dig, a couple of hand drawn scetches, horses for transport and oxen to move and clear shit?

I'm glad Australia wasn't discovered in the 21st century because it seems like developing the place would be too hard and all too expensive.

Don't be silly.

I said comparative labor and materials costs are greater.

The other points mentioned are factors people are not taking into account when comparing the cost effectiveness of building a pipeline, compared to operating a desalination plant.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

He also failed to take into account the comparative increase in material and labour costs.

Not to mention the obstacles/costs we will face in relation to land clearing, navigating or removing geographic obstacles, transportation of materials and construction equipment, housing costs for workers etc. etc.

There are such monumental logistical and possibly engineering/financial considerations to take into account. Not to mention the feasibility of an initial man made dam or catchment area.

But people don't seem to care. Look gee we will have teh infinite water and desalination is expensive.

Even now substantive technological advances are being made in filtration technology. It is also an area where patents related to nanofiltration could potentially make a lot of money, hence the CSIRO, Murcdoch University and the Federal Governments interest.

We also need to be more focused on conserving, better managing and hopefully recycling the water we have.

EDIT: just to be clear if we are discussing hypotheticals or proposals, my posts are in reference to a potential pipeline from northern Western Australia to the Perth metropolitan area.

**** me, the majority of the Great Ocean Road was dug by hand nearly 90 years ago, they built a pipeline from Perth to Kal over 100 years ago and they put 2 men on a revolving rock 250,000miles away and brought them back over 40 years ago.