Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Water from Tassie

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    myf360f1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,481
    Thanks
    519
    Thanked 581 Times in 265 Posts
    Rep Power
    291
    Reputation
    3592

    Default Water from Tassie

    Got this sent to me and at first I thought it was a joke, but actually this guy rocks.

    Its about the Victorian governments stupid idea about water conservation and how to get fresh water.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzXrmioDk9U]YouTube - Unpopular View #3 Part 1 - The Magic Solution[/ame]

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADVB3DqEYK0&NR=1]YouTube - Unpopular View #3 Part 2 - The Magic Solution[/ame]

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to myf360f1 For This Useful Post:

    BillyGoat (05-03-10),bss904 (05-03-10),crazy (05-03-10),Godzilla (02-03-10),Keith (05-03-10),pieces (02-03-10),Seymour Butts (05-03-10)



Look Here ->
  • #2
    Premium Member
    Skepticist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,080
    Thanks
    550
    Thanked 625 Times in 494 Posts
    Rep Power
    395
    Reputation
    11880

    Default

    This proposal has had a lot of mention here in Tas and there's a number of complications needing to be worked out, one of which is to do with compensating the Hydro for lost energy that could be exported to Vic in times of high market prices. The maximum market price is $10000/MWh (capped) and this scheme would reduce local generating capacity by about 20MW so, on a big market day (extremely rare), there's potentially a loss of $200k. On typical average market prices the Hydro would expect something like $300k-$400k per year to cover that lost revenue.

    Another complication is that from summer through to late autumn and even into mid-winter in a dry year, the water diverted into that pipeline would frequently exceed the total pickup into the affected catchments potentially taking several power stations out of action altogether at a critical time (almost 200MW peaking capacity lost). Covering that lost capacity would place heavier demands on other storages in Tas at times of low inflows. Tas would end up importing more energy on average from Vic, increasing the pollution generated by mainland thermal power stations and, of course, paying Vic for it.

    There would be a lot of other things to consider as well like domestic, environmental and inland fisheries concerns even though it sounds very simple on the surface of the proposal.

    I do agree that the desal proposal looks crazy in comparison from a financial point of view as well as energy required to run it.

    It'll take a while to nut out the agreements to ensure everyone affected is adequately compensated.

  • #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Greater Hoebart
    Posts
    289
    Thanks
    158
    Thanked 38 Times in 29 Posts
    Rep Power
    150
    Reputation
    188

    Default

    I'm sure that a few municipals here in tassie have plenty of *cough* *cough* "surplus", cheap water


    Dirty water hits Midlands


    Water fails the test DRINKING water in Tasmania's two major population centres
    has failed to meet minimum health targets.


    Drinking water given all clear SORELL residents no longer have to boil their
    water but the cause of the E coli outbreak may never be known.


    Boil-water alerts soaring THE number of new boiled-water alerts has doubled
    since the state's new water and sewerage corporations started.

  • #4
    Senior Member
    BillyGoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,039
    Thanks
    831
    Thanked 445 Times in 240 Posts
    Rep Power
    270
    Reputation
    3254

    Default

    Seems simple enough.

  • #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    72
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 19 Times in 14 Posts
    Rep Power
    115
    Reputation
    92

    Default

    It's just another half cocked idea that will never happen.

    The desal makes water right where it is needed.

    No matter what these experts say it always takes some energy to move a mountain of water.

    The fact is the plant is there now....so let's get over it...

    Efforts should now be directed to lobbying for carbon neutral ways of powering it.

    If they had specified a 10 acre solar farm with wind turbines on the south side then that would cease all criticisms of it me thinks.
    We would have been on the global map for innovation and environmental responsibility.

    At the end of the day it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Tassie could also have severely reduced rainfall as a consequence of climate change in an uncertain future.

  • #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Age
    58
    Posts
    76
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
    Rep Power
    126
    Reputation
    30

    Default

    We should be looking for ways to reduce usage. Not finding another million year old aquifer to drain so our kids will have to find somewhere even further away to get their share from.

  • #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    72
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 19 Times in 14 Posts
    Rep Power
    115
    Reputation
    92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dogknees View Post
    We should be looking for ways to reduce usage. Not finding another million year old aquifer to drain so our kids will have to find somewhere even further away to get their share from.
    Actually.."reduce usage" and "our kids" are mutually exclusive.

    Reduce usage as much as you like, keep having more and more kids and you will never have enough water...or any other resource for that matter.

  • #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Age
    58
    Posts
    76
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
    Rep Power
    126
    Reputation
    30

    Default

    We could have a static population. Just don't have more than enough kids to replace their parents. Not easy, but certainly a possibility.

    There is another way. Stop "using" resources we can't or won't replace. It's obviously a major change in the way we do things, but seems to me if we want our kids to have a future as good as ours we don't have an option.

    If we're not going to pass it on, perhaps we should be honest with our kids and tell them we're ripping up the world for our own comfort and there won't be anything left for them. That would be an honest reflection of our actions after all. And we should be honest with our children.

  • #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Age
    58
    Posts
    76
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
    Rep Power
    126
    Reputation
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScooterRat View Post
    Actually.."reduce usage" and "our kids" are mutually exclusive.

    Reduce usage as much as you like, keep having more and more kids and you will never have enough water...or any other resource for that matter.
    Another response. They are not mutually exclusive. We could reduce our standard of living. That would reduce usage. There are so many assumptions like this tied up in your response. I try always not to start with none.

    For example, I would not assume that everyone (or every country) deserves the standard of living they currently have. Or, that we have a right to continue doing things a particular way simple because we've done them that way up to now. Perhaps the only ethical position to to give up our western style of living and go back to subsistence. Where's the problem?

    Just because you might build your life around using a car doesn't mean you have to have a car. You could always change the way you live so you don't need one.

    It's a choice and as such, it has consequences. You make the choice, you deserve the consequences.

    Lose your assumptions! Take responsiblilty for your choice to conform. Just because others do is no a recommendation. The majority are often in the wrong.

  • #10
    Banned BlackDuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Where I live
    Posts
    1,719
    Thanks
    504
    Thanked 367 Times in 237 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    1146

    Default

    Like a lot of rural people I depend on rain for my water, I accept this and adjust my usage to match supply.

    I pay rates to a council and in return they service the road once a year.

    The nearest town is 48km away and with no public transport I need a car.

    I don't "need" electricity, but I want electricity available from the grid. I have the capacity to generate sufficient to cover my needs but fuel costs are prohibitive.

    I'm no more uptight about generating electricity by burning fossil fuels than I am by generating power using Nuclear reactors.

    My standard of living is what I've created within my environment, and that I can afford to maintain.

    I take full responsibility for the lifestyle I live, I'm fully responsible for the good and the bad things that my lifestyle engenders.

    The only reason that I'd change my lifestyle is if circumstances beyond my control force me to.

    Do I feel guilty because my lifestyle is better than say a Nigerian or a Tamil or an Eskimo, not in the least.

    I worked long and hard to get this lifestyle and I don't plan to downgrade, Living in a cave, picking nits out of my hair by candle light and eating grass is not for me.

  • Similar Threads

    1. Warm water freezes faster than cold water?
      By bambbbam in forum General Science
      Replies: 19
      Last Post: 12-11-09, 02:42 PM
    2. Hello from Tassie :)
      By blanket in forum Introduce Yourself
      Replies: 7
      Last Post: 04-05-09, 08:40 PM
    3. POI Tassie sought
      By dogsbreath in forum GPS
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: 06-04-09, 07:43 PM

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •