Aussie politics thread (2)

 
  billybaxter Chief Commissioner

Location: Bosnia Park, Fairfield
All bow down to the colossus of Don's intellect! Tremble and weep as he cuts to your inner self with impunity!

Sponsored advertisement

  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
There are a few issues in just building more dams and I'm not referring to Env issues.

1) If the dams are not close, the cost of pumping the water rises and at around 150 - 250 km depending on what you read, location and terrain, can be less than running a desal plant which is basically built in the city and can discharge into any near by mains of suitable size.

2) Dam's built to provide a "buffer" against drought are themselves in the same drought and loosing water due to evaporation (typically 1.5 - 1.8m pa depending on location plus seepage so a prolonged drought period puts you back to square one.

3) The dam's are very high capital cost that will take many decades to achieve any cost recovery, meanwhile valuable farming and/or residential land is lost for a once in a 50 year drought, basically very inefficient use of land. As an insurance policy for water supply, these drought busting dams can be a very expensive insurance policy.  

Where as a desal plant has a very small foot print, can be built in an existing industrial area and low upfront capital cost, limiting much of the energy and operating cost per litre to when the actual litre is needed and the water can be pumped directly into the local reticulation network eliminating long distance pumping costs.

Desal plants can be incrementally upgraded in small steps as needed thus preventing wasted capital.

Desal plants, like Sydney's which can supply 10% of the city's demand means that even in a absolute worst possible drought scenario where the main dams are empty, people will still have water to survive.  

Actual cost of water from desal plants has dropped significantly in the last two decades, now down to about USD$1 /m3, about 40% of the cost of water in Sydney ($2.35/m3). In comparison, Dubai's water costs, 100% desal using MEF (boiling using water under a vacuum using waste heat from gas turbines) is around $3.10/m3 (there is no subsidy).


EDIT: its difficult to find actual long distance water pumping costs, but from the famous 500km long 100 year old pipeline in WA. I'll say a ball park figure for pumping water is around $1.44 / 100km.
Note: the Kalgoolie pipeline has about +400m of head from start to finish and another 400m of friction losses to over come. Potentially pumping water that has an overall flat terrain or downhill would be cheaper.

While it costs the Water Corporation $14.38 for every kilolitre of water supplied to Kalgoorlie-Boulder, the majority of residential customers in Kalgoorlie-Boulder receive water for around $10 less per kilolitre than the cost of supply.
RTT_Rules

Yes. I could have written all that as well, except the Arab bit to reinforce my argument against the I'm right because I'm the ultra-conservative from SA, climate change is BS because my pinup guy Rupert told me so... except I have no difficulties with losing as opposed to your 'loosing' which it seems you cannot get your head around after all these years. Smile

Mike.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
More dams vs desalination is very simple. Dams need rainfall, catchments and run off which cannot be guaranteed. The desal plant doesn't; it has a copious amount of water on its doorstep. QED.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
Yes, it makes all the difference. The fact that you are now admitting that in your mind, 'could' means 'will' shows just how deficient your thought processes are.
No its weasel words from Al Gore - at least Flannery has stood by his failed prediction regarding Perth saying it needed more time to come true.
Predictions? Grass yurts for one. Actually, how about you re-present your 2020 predictions thread and score yourself? Go on, it'll be fun!
Nothing with you is ever 'fun'.
Earlier insult, well, if you call it that then bully for you. I didn't swear, unlike you I didn't call you names, unlike you I didn't suggest that you were incapable of basic tasks, but you get upset at banter. Now go and change!
No but you resorted to the very lowest common sexual denominator to get the attention you so desperately crave. I'm astonished nobody has asked for this thread to be shut down because of it - it's what usually happens.

And in fact you do appear incapable of basic research on the internet, you're constantly asking for links and you seem to never actually look into things off your own bat (unlike people like Wobert or RTT_Rules who indeed seem to have mastered the art of Googling contradictory evidence).
don_dunstan
Which proves that you don't take on board what others say. I've provided plenty of links over the journey, but you largely ignore them because they disagree with your preconceived biases. On the other hand I often ask them of you because your posts are mostly based on emotion.

This thread hasn't been shut down because the mods don't have an issue with it. Try harder.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
Which proves that you don't take on board what others say. I've provided plenty of links over the journey, but you largely ignore them because they disagree with your preconceived biases. On the other hand I often ask them of you because your posts are mostly based on emotion.
DirtyBallast
You're patronising and rude is the answer. And you don't present evidence - what evidence? When have you ever linked anything?

You were so smug about Gore until I showed you he'd repeated those ridiculous claims. "Might" and "possibly" don't cut it, they're weasel words. We're supposed to allocate billions (if not trillions) on the basis of the alarmist predictions of these experts and then later on they're qualifying it with "I didn't say definitely". What a load of cobblers - it''s NOT a predictive science, nobody should be taking these people seriously because they can't get anything right.
This thread hasn't been shut down because the mods don't have an issue with it. Try harder.
DirtyBallast
Someone has to report it for it to get shut down.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
More dams vs desalination is very simple. Dams need rainfall, catchments and run off which cannot be guaranteed. The desal plant doesn't; it has a copious amount of water on its doorstep. QED.
Valvegear
It's the very opposite of what these greenies have been telling us is good for the planet. Incredibly energy intensive, very expensive to make. And mostly runs off good old fashioned brown coal because the windmills simply aren't reliable enough to power it.

It's dirty and puts thousands of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere - and here we have people like you saying what a great thing it is.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
Which proves that you don't take on board what others say. I've provided plenty of links over the journey, but you largely ignore them because they disagree with your preconceived biases. On the other hand I often ask them of you because your posts are mostly based on emotion.
You're patronising and rude is the answer. And you don't present evidence - what evidence? When have you ever linked anything?
don_dunstan
Stop feigning ignorance. There's been plenty over the journey. Take a leaf out of your own book and go find them yourself.
  Graham4405 The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dalby Qld
You're patronising and rude is the answer.
The Spokesman from SA
Pot, kettle...
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

You're patronising and rude is the answer.
The Uninvited Victorian Immigrant
Pot, kettle...
Graham4405
As a South Australian, I have taken the liberty of correcting the quote attribution here.

You're welcome.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
So do you think they'll need to switch on the desal plant in Sydney any time soon? If they'd had the capacity to store the extra water being spilled into the Nepean River they might possibly have never need to switch it on ever again. Wouldn't that be wonderful? Sydney need never consume electricity from coal fired power plants again (where 80% of their power comes from) in order to turn on a tap.

How am I supposed to predict when they'll actually turn on their desal plants? They didn't need to switch on Wonthaggi for the last few summers but they did it anyway, probably because the terms of their 'take or pay' contract with Aquasure means they're already bought it regardless of how full the reservoirs are.
don_dunstan
Agree, a 2nd dam on the Nepean would have been great to capture this extra water today, but a few issues
1) Where can you build it?

2) Is it the most economical solution as its use would only be employed about every 15 - 25 years. Currently the drought water restrictions are employed not because the dam is low, but because of fear of running out as they don't know when it will rain. If however there is a backup system that will ensure the city survives, industry can continue, albeit with dead grass, then restrictions would be used less frequently.

The dams we have are effective at what they do, however our cities have in most cases out grown them with few practical and economic choices within close proximity to increase supply.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

Yes. I could have written all that as well, except the Arab bit to reinforce my argument against the I'm right because I'm the ultra-conservative from SA, climate change is BS because my pinup guy Rupert told me so... except I have no difficulties with losing as opposed to your 'loosing' which it seems you cannot get your head around after all these years. Smile

Mike.
The Vinelander
Loose, Loss, Lose.......

People need to accept the age of dam building along the coastal fringe is over. They are simply not needed for cost effective supply of water which is mostly only required in drought conditions. What ever the cost of keeping a desal plant on stand-by, its cheaper and more reliable than a dam on stand-by.

In addition, the increasing reuse of waste water will continue to solve high demand customers where drinking water quality is not required, Building a dam to supply drinking water standard to irrigate a golf course or parkland is just stupid and the bulk of the water supplied doesn't go near a human body. I think Sydney uses about 5-10% of its water just to keep the sewers flowing. But yes the cost providing that recycled water in pipe infrastructure is not free either. I note in Qld, new acreage style developments and some more traditional stand alone housing style developments now have approval clauses that often prevent the waste water from being connected to the sewer network, i.e. forcing in community disposal via irrigation (also what happens where we live in Dubai, only brown water is taken away), coupled with compulsory rain water tanks for toilet and yard use is reducing demand considerably in newer communities.

For inland, such a Murry Darling, I think the govt will have to get serious and consider boosting and improving reliability of inland water supplies by pumping treated waste water over the Great Divide, Sydney and Brisbane's waste water have ample quantities of waste water that could provide a reliable base line water supply to assist irrigation, town water supply and improve river flows, especially into the Darling. Building more dams will only be to the determent of long-term river water quality and down stream water consumers.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
It's the very opposite of what these greenies have been telling us is good for the planet. Incredibly energy intensive, very expensive to make. And mostly runs off good old fashioned brown coal because the windmills simply aren't reliable enough to power it.

It's dirty and puts thousands of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere - and here we have people like you saying what a great thing it is.
"don_dunstan"
If you were capable of reading clearly, and understanding clear, concise, colloquial English, and if you would quit mind reading, you would understand that my comment about desal vs dams was concerned with one thing only, to wit; the ready availability of water.
You go right ahead with your theorising about more dams; I'll cover the practical aspects.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
All bow down to the colossus of Don's intellect! Tremble and weep as he cuts to your inner self with impunity!
billybaxter
Zing!
Stop feigning ignorance. There's been plenty over the journey. Take a leaf out of your own book and go find them yourself.
DirtyBallast
Fair comment. I'll remember that for the future.
Pot, kettle...
Graham4405
I give back as good as I get. If you're civil you'll get that in return.
As a South Australian, I have taken the liberty of correcting the quote attribution here. You're welcome.
justapassenger
Are you saying I'm less South Australian than you are? For your information we're not a whole set of different little colonies any longer - I can live in whatever part of the Commonwealth that I choose and I happen to love South Australia, we have a lifestyle that most other states should envy.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud

Yes. I could have written all that as well, except the Arab bit to reinforce my argument against the I'm right because I'm the ultra-conservative from SA, climate change is BS because my pinup guy Rupert told me so... except I have no difficulties with losing as opposed to your 'loosing' which it seems you cannot get your head around after all these years. Smile

Mike.Loose, Loss, Lose.......

People need to accept the age of dam building along the coastal fringe is over. They are simply not needed for cost effective supply of water which is mostly only required in drought conditions. What ever the cost of keeping a desal plant on stand-by, its cheaper and more reliable than a dam on stand-by.
RTT_Rules
Once you've done the sunk costs a reservoir would always have to be cheaper to operate than a desalination plant.

The only reason the era of building new dams is 'over' is because the political will to build them isn't there any longer - the Greens keep going crook.
If you were capable of reading clearly, and understanding clear, concise, colloquial English, and if you would quit mind reading, you would understand that my comment about desal vs dams was concerned with one thing only, to wit; the ready availability of water. You go right ahead with your theorising about more dams; I'll cover the practical aspects.
Valvegear
Well on the one hand isn't it true that you want 'green-house gas emissions' yet the other side of the equation is that desalination plants are incredibly energy intensive and produce by necessity lots of carbon. They rely on things like good old fashion coal fired power because they need a steady industrial supply the same as any industrial enterprise.

Desalination is an expensive luxury. If Melbourne was still around the 2 million mark then they wouldn't need it. Why is mass migration and endless growth a good thing for Victoria if they have to buy really expensive industrially processed water exclusively for Melbourne to keep growing on?
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
Desalination is an expensive luxury. If Melbourne was still around the 2 million mark then they wouldn't need it.
"don_dunstan"
Yes, and if my aunty was built differently, she'd be my uncle.
Let's stick to facts.
Melbourne is much bigger than 2 million.
Melbourne needs enough water for its population.
New dams won't do it.
Desalination will.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
Agree, a 2nd dam on the Nepean would have been great to capture this extra water today, but a few issues
1) Where can you build it?
RTT_Rules
One could technically argue that a higher Warragamba dam wall would, in effect, increase storage capacity and retain the latest overflow, for example.

Slightly off topic but there has been plenty of media coverage over here lately about the proposal to increase the height of the dam for flood mitigation purposes only, not storage, but the arguments of the proponents, whether they be developers, politicians, or developers with politicians in their pocket, are unconvincing when considering that the extra 130,000 people that would be allowed to build on the floodplain would still be at risk due to flooding on the downstream tributaries:

Warragamba Dam wall extension could pave way for more development: David Elliott (smh.com.au)

NSW’s vision for the future dependent on flood modelling (smh.com.au)
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
^ I hasten to add, imagine the mayhem that an extra 130,000 people would face if  the modified Warragamba dam still overflowed at some point in the future!
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

One could technically argue that a higher Warragamba dam wall would, in effect, increase storage capacity and retain the latest overflow, for example.

............................................................................
DirtyBallast
It can't do both. The raising the wall height proposal was for flood mitigation, ie so they could approve more development on floodplain.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Agree, a 2nd dam on the Nepean would have been great to capture this extra water today, but a few issues
1) Where can you build it?
One could technically argue that a higher Warragamba dam wall would, in effect, increase storage capacity and retain the latest overflow, for example.

Slightly off topic but there has been plenty of media coverage over here lately about the proposal to increase the height of the dam for flood mitigation purposes only, not storage, but the arguments of the proponents, whether they be developers, politicians, or developers with politicians in their pocket, are unconvincing when considering that the extra 130,000 people that would be allowed to build on the floodplain would still be at risk due to flooding on the downstream tributaries:

Warragamba Dam wall extension could pave way for more development: David Elliott (smh.com.au)

NSW’s vision for the future dependent on flood modelling (smh.com.au)
DirtyBallast
Raising a dam wall is nearly always the cheapest as it doesn't require any extra infrastructure and doesn't increase the evaporation exposed surface area or seepage by the same level as a new dam, juts depends on how much land you have to buy back.

Yeah, raise the wall height so more people can live in the flood zone, yeah pathway to stupidity and they will wonder why no insurance company will touch them.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
One could technically argue that a higher Warragamba dam wall would, in effect, increase storage capacity and retain the latest overflow, for example.

............................................................................
It can't do both. The raising the wall height proposal was for flood mitigation, ie so they could approve more development on floodplain.
kitchgp
Basically what they did in Brisbane, but as they found out in Brisbane

1) Govts got greedy and started to use the flood zone as normal catchment

2) No matter what historical data they have, mother nature will always find a way to break a new record that will end in tears.

3) The flood proofing may require multiple things to be implemented and like Brisbane, the govt never got around to them all.

My basic rule of thumb, if there are photos of that area under water at any stage in history, don't move there and you have a much better chance of having flood waters in your house.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Once you've done the sunk costs a reservoir would always have to be cheaper to operate than a desalination plant.

The only reason the era of building new dams is 'over' is because the political will to build them isn't there any longer - the Greens keep going crook.
Well on the one hand isn't it true that you want 'green-house gas emissions' yet the other side of the equation is that desalination plants are incredibly energy intensive and produce by necessity lots of carbon. They rely on things like good old fashion coal fired power because they need a steady industrial supply the same as any industrial enterprise.

Desalination is an expensive luxury. If Melbourne was still around the 2 million mark then they wouldn't need it. Why is mass migration and endless growth a good thing for Victoria if they have to buy really expensive industrially processed water exclusively for Melbourne to keep growing on?
don_dunstan
A large dam cost well over $1B, so $1B sitting there for years barely being used just in case in might stop raining.

Desal plant, $100m tops, moth balling costs are not dissimilar to cost of maintaining a dam. Cheap insurance policy for when you need it.

The reason dam projects are mostly over is because the number of practically dam-able locations left within 150km of our major capitals is SFA. Hence new projects are at some distance, still face massive local opposition because if the valley is worth damming it has significant natural value or high quality farming land. As they found in the Mary River dam, the cost of buying out existing farmers was close to $500m and land prices have not gone backwards since. If the valley has significant eco value, forget it.

Brisbane built a few pi$$ ant dams in the SW of Brisbane over the last 15 years, others were proposed and like the Mary River faced tough local opposition and subsequently becomes an election issue and then cancelled. What has been built was basically small, need high cost water treatment and more suited to local use than a major contributor to Brisbane's water supply.

So faced with lack of naturally suited locations, rising land prices, rising conservatism for the environment, high cost pumping and declining technology costs for desal water, desal is proving to be alot easier for teh govt to manage and in some cases cheaper and costs of desal will continue to go down while cost of dams will only continue to rise. I showed you before, the cost of water in Dubai is only marginally more expensive than Sydney's existing water supply that doesn't have to incur the costs of long distance pumping apart from small amounts from the Shoalhaven.

They are certainly not an expensive luxury, they are a cost effective necessity. Any other day of the week you wouldn't care about the CO2 emissions and Perth built a wind farm to off-set their desal farm CO2 emissions.

You have have to look at Melbourne's water supply infrastructure to understand why water is more expensive than Sydney.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
With a weakened economy over the next few years, this could get very painful

https://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/australia-s-carbon-price-is-coming-one-way-or-another-20210331-p57fl9.html#comments


And if the ALP win the next election, you can bet the LNP and it's fellow travellers will be whinging and moaning about how it's all Labors fault.
What a wasted decade.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
And the Yanks aren't standing around gazing at their navels

https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/joe-biden-unveils-2-6-trillion-infrastructure-boost-to-beat-china-move-to-green-energy-20210401-p57frk.html
  michaelgm Chief Commissioner

With a weakened economy over the next few years, this could get very painful

https://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/australia-s-carbon-price-is-coming-one-way-or-another-20210331-p57fl9.html#comments


And if the ALP win the next election, you can bet the LNP and it's fellow travellers will be whinging and moaning about how it's all Labors fault.
What a wasted decade.
wobert
As much as I hope the LNP get punted at the next election but, should they secure another term, the delicious irony of them having to implement a carbon pricing mechanism.
And agree Wobert, a wasted decade.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
Once you've done the sunk costs a reservoir would always have to be cheaper to operate than a desalination plant.

The only reason the era of building new dams is 'over' is because the political will to build them isn't there any longer - the Greens keep going crook.
Well on the one hand isn't it true that you want 'green-house gas emissions' yet the other side of the equation is that desalination plants are incredibly energy intensive and produce by necessity lots of carbon. They rely on things like good old fashion coal fired power because they need a steady industrial supply the same as any industrial enterprise.

Desalination is an expensive luxury. If Melbourne was still around the 2 million mark then they wouldn't need it. Why is mass migration and endless growth a good thing for Victoria if they have to buy really expensive industrially processed water exclusively for Melbourne to keep growing on?
A large dam cost well over $1B, so $1B sitting there for years barely being used just in case in might stop raining.

Desal plant, $100m tops, moth balling costs are not dissimilar to cost of maintaining a dam. Cheap insurance policy for when you need it.
RTT_Rules
Where did you get the idea that a desal plant costs that little? The total cost of building the Wonthaggi plant was $5,700,000,000. The total cost of the Aquasure contract to Victorian water users is around $25 billion to $30 billion over the lifetime of the deal because of the 'take or pay' provisions of the agreement.

You're so far out of the ball-park its really hard to take anything that you say seriously.
They are certainly not an expensive luxury, they are a cost effective necessity. Any other day of the week you wouldn't care about the CO2 emissions and Perth built a wind farm to off-set their desal farm CO2 emissions.
RTT_Rules
Where did I say that I cared about the Co2 emissions coming from desalination plants? I'm in awe of the fact that the people on this board normally upset about the spewing of carbon into the atmosphere apparently don't seem concerned when its firing a desalination plant - why?

As I said before, you can carbon offset all you want with windmills - the fact is that a desalination plant can't operate using renewables alone - it needs a really steady supply of electricity like a coal plant provides.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: