Midnight Oil

Subject: Re: Water consumption (NMC)
From: david earle
Date: 3/08/2010, 10:25 am
To: powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au, Miron Mizrahi

Hi Miron,

There is plenty that could be done in terms of improved water efficiency. Here in Adelaide, there is considerable disquiet about the desal plant given the amount of storm water which flows out to sea via our drainage system and waterways. In addition, our leaky pipes are an issue, with some streets facing frequent flooding as a result.

The northern rivers idea has been around for about a century - the Bradfield scheme (named after the designer of the Syd harb bridge) which proposed turning the northern rivers back inland is the best known. Sydney radio broadcaster Alan Jones strongly supported trying to get it going earlier this decade. As a result, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists was formed under the  auspices of the WWF, and is still active on sustainable water issues. (http://www.wentworthgroup.org/) They had a number of concerns with the general idea:

-its impracticality- the engineering problems and the economic costs
-the environmental problems of (in a nutshell) doing to the northern eastern water courses what has been done to the south eastern ones
-the idea that if water is managed better in the high population and intensive agriculture areas in the south east, it is unnecessary.

See also these sites:

http://www.wwf.org.au/publications/blueprint_national_water_plan/

http://www.wentworthgroup.org/docs/Chartres_&_Williams.pdf

Cheers,
David


 

desal is definitely an option but we have other choices too. my last quarterly water bill was $270. the breakdown (rounded) is as follows

water usage - $30
sewage disposal - $32
services charge - $96
waterways and drainage charges on behalf of Melbourne water - $40
annual parks charge - $70

my ACTUAL usage is 11% of the bill. if you exclude the annual charge it is 15%.

I don't want higher bills but one has to wonder. Yarra Valley Water is a govt owned retail provider and this is IMO the worst of 2 worlds. the inflated machinery (reflected in the 8x ratio of service to usage cost) and the rigidity in pricing structure. surely there is room to optimize.

the other choice is conservation. the Melbourne target is 155 litres per day per person. my household uses 68. and I am honestly not doing anything special or sacrificing my quality of life. we are just paying attention. I am not suggesting families need to bear the full burden but we can make a difference.

what I am really curious about is how many of those "saying no to desal" are doing their bit. i don't know the answer to that but it sure would be interesting to find out

last but not least - Australia has water. just not where we need it. North Queensland has plenty. Even parts of NSW are not doing badly at all. now ... the problem of moving water from point A to point B has been solved. so what's stopping us?

 
Miron

How could people get so unkind?


From: david earle <canadavros@yahoo. com.au>
To: powderworks@ yahoogroups. com.au
Sent: Mon, August 2, 2010 4:02:55 PM
Subject: Re: [powderworks] Peter Garrett protection of whales Bullshit

 

Thanks RM- on the basis of a quick read of the intro and conclusions, a couple of things are apparent from this article:

desal as a concept is one of the few options the ever increasing population and ever increasing per capita consumption of the world and Aust in particular have to fall back on

it's pretty expensive economically and a thus far unknown quantity environmentally (though my own suspicion is the env cost is likely to be high)

Really, it's just one example of the dilemmas of endless human demand bumping up against ultimately finite capacity of the earth to provide.

Cheers
David

--- On Mon, 2/8/10, RM <rob10@liveonthe. net> wrote:

From: RM <rob10@liveonthe. net>
Subject: Re: [powderworks] Peter Garrett protection of whales Bullshit
To: "Powderworks@ yahoo" <powderworks@ yahoogroups. com.au>
Received: Monday, 2 August, 2010, 1:25 PM

 

This is worth reading - at least it is formed up as a proper research paper.
http://ses.library. usyd.edu. au/bitstream/ 2123/1897/ 1/Desalination% 20Plants. pdf

Many sources of further decent reference material are cited in it if you want to go deeper.

My browse of the conclusions and recommendations infer

  • that the brine plume seems less than likely to incur a major impact on sea life in comparison to the greater natural and unnatural influences in the ocean at present
  • that the full and final scenario had not yet been fully modelled and tested so the outcome is still reasonably indeterminate at a scientific level
  • that it still needed (in 2007) a comprehensive research/model to draw more certain conclusions.

About the author:
http://www.aclca. asn.au/young- achiever- award
http://au.linkedin. com/pub/rashad- danoun/1b/ b09/43

I've sent the author a note that I've cited their material here, for if they want to have a look in.

RM



On 2/08/2010 8:50 AM, david earle wrote:
 

Hi Phil,

More info please - a link to a news article or something.

Cheers
David

--- On Sun, 1/8/10, phil sartorio <oilsrule77@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: phil sartorio <oilsrule77@yahoo. com>
Subject: [powderworks] Peter Garrett protection of whales Bullshit
To: powderworks@ yahoogroups. com.au
Received: Sunday, 1 August, 2010, 5:01 PM

 

Its not news the pappers wont , its been like that since day one trying to stop this thing along this coast , The victorian government have rolled pete on this and this will come back and bite him for years to come , this desal plant will be here for 30 years so look out whales sharks seals sea loins birds and surfers and phillip island penguins