Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Victoria's Water Problem

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by DisgruntledDog, May 5, 2010.

  1. #1 DisgruntledDog, May 5, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
    This bloke presents a compelling argument for an alternative solution to Victoria's water problems.


    An election year, I thought I'd spread the word.
  2. Each time I see something like this, I die a little bit inside at the incompetence of the people we have running our country.
  3. +1...idiots
  4. Why would the government want a resource to be cheap and abundant?

    Keeping water scarce will make it more profitable.
  5. Youtube's blocked where I am at the moment, but there's a simple solution if people genuinely want more water:

    1. Build desal plant.

    2. use the high-salinity output product to create sea salt and sell it, thereby using a so-called waste product to make profit.

    3. Power the operation with a nice modern nuclear power plant and recycle the fuel. Most of the hippies don't want you to know this, but so-called nuclear "waste" can be reprocessed and used again with 95% efficiency. Is there still genuine waste? Sure, but there's much less of it and it's not nearly as difficult to deal with if you're willing to put a modicum of thought into it. Furthermore, nuclear power (unlike solar, wind and other "hopes and dreams" power sources) is suitable for base grid power generation, and could help reduce our dependence on stupid dirty crap like oil and coal.

    Oh shit, there I go with rational thought again.
  6. hey, we have the best drinking water in the country. do you think we want desal shit.

    theres no drought, its all a scam organised by the bottled water corporations.
  7. I can't see the clip either, but if he's saying that the drought is bogus, perhaps he should check out this link:


    Out of the last 13 years, the water level at the end of the year was lower than the preceding year 7 times. It stayed about level 3 times and increased only a little the other times. You can get a feel for the size of the rains by the upward slope in the rainy months.
  8. Grue.
    How about you wait till you see the video.
    But exclusive of seeing it, your ideas are pretty crap, but hey. Who cares about the management of vast amounts of radioactive water, and the risks involved right…
  9. interesting graph

    looking at that the last 4 years have been really good (ie finishing about the same level they started) considering the growth in population thats really good.

    i blame 1997 and 2006
  10. Nah rob -he's saying that it would be far more economically viable to construct a pipeline from Tassie and let gravity bring the water here than spend a fortune building a desalination plant.
  11. Using gravity?? :? I look forward to checking out the vid. Thanks Roarin.
  12. i still maintain.

    water does not enter or leave the earths atmosphere. water cannot be created or destroyed (unless large scale chemistry shit is happening), however it can change state and location.

    there is the same ammount of water on earth as there was in 1900. we probably have a little more due to the melting of the poles.

    anyway. same amount of water.... but more people... people are 70% water.

    knock of some indians and chinese and bingo bango i can wash my bike and take long showers again.

    as a side note that will reduce poverty and easy world hunger.

    im a ****ing humanitarian.
  13. Awesome idea......

    But idiots in charge think it's better for a desal plant needing a power station just to run it........ And charge a fortune for it.
    Personally, there are some basic things that should always be cheap.
    Everything should be done to make water, elec and gas as cheap as possible for domestic use.... It's a basic need in a modern society.
    These days, my elec and gas bill is way higher than my monthly mortgage was in 1983.....
  14. How much do you know about nuclear power generation? I'm curious if you're talking about coolant, or something else.
  15. With the desalination plant requiring more power, why didn't they just build a hydro electric plant in front of it, let the ocean water flow through and power the generators to produce electricity required, then using that same water to turn into cleaner water before dumping most of it back into the ocean?
  16. How do you dispose of nuclear waste? Given that anything that we build today will not be around in 500 years let alone 50,000 years do you think we can actually contain the waste? Will our descendent be forced to rebuild these containers? Hell of tax to impose on them.

    How many nuclear reactors have successfully been decommissioned? The answer is none. Many are well beyond their use by dates. We do not have the resources or ability to dismantle these things.
  17. Cost. The desal plant is costing $4.5 billion. Add a tidal/wave hydro plant and you'll double the cost.
  18. Yep, if the facts he presented are correct, then it sounds entirely feasible.

    Even if some pumping was required, and there were maintenance issues for the underwater pipe, I think it would be a better idea than the desalination plant. (Unless of course you have excess electricity generation capability, or very cheap and maybe clean capability, such as Nuclear.) Desalination plants work in the Middle East because there is an excess of energy supplies, in the form of cheap oil.

    But then, harvesting rainwater runoff from stormwater drains, and recycling sewage, combined with dual water supply pipes to every home (drinking water and other usage), also make a lot of sense, if you have the balls to do it.

    The bottom line: Doing a little bit of everything makes the most sense.
  19. Great video.
    Everything was well pointed out and I can't see why this wasn't looked at.

    @disposing of nucular waste - launch it at the sun!!!
  20. Although I like the idea, I can see a few problems: to prevent biological growths, the pipe would need to be made out of copper. As far as I know no one has ever run a long distance subsea copper pipeline - it's quite weak, so the wall thickness of the line would need to be thicker to prevent collapse during laying, which although technically feasible would push up the capital cost.

    Also, fluids like water have a tendancy to scale; this is potentially a huge problem for a subsea line that can only be cleaned by pigging. The velocities would need to be pretty low to minimise pressure drop (the quoted figure quite low at under 2 m/s), and that accelerates scale formation. Water isn't my field, so I don't know exactly how scale is dealt with for municipal water, but using higher velocities definitely helps.