Remember when i stated that they should pump water from the Burdekin to the South .
Well now he is going to do this but he states it will take 50 years for this to happen.
Yet he does not mention completing stage two of the dam and without doing that we are all in trouble.
Amazing how pollies of all parties can find money for overseas aid yet when it comes to our own back yard it takes 50 years to solve.
Troy
Troy..they will have to build some more power stations first...to run the pumps.
It will not happen in our lifetime.
Remember when we voted in a government and they actually provided infrastructure without ads in the paper or on tv.
Just build the pipeline.
The story bridge was built 40 years before we needed six lanes. That is why we pay taxes.
Queensand is one of the wettest areas per capita in the western world, why do we have a 'water shortage', we don't. It just falls in a different area to our population base.
Roughly 30000 people move to queensland every year, and that has been so for at least the last 10 years. How much $$$$$ in taxes does that equate to against major infrastucture built. Sweet FA.
flick...as I said in the previous post..to build that pipeline..the power stations we currently have cannot supply the power required for the pumps..absolutely huge amount of power required to pump that far..then see how much water would cost us
I'm a bit confused (nothing abnormal I know)
I have a guy that's just ordered a $20K welder setup for next week and I'm sure he said it was to work on the Burdekin pipeline project. ???
cheers,
Owen
Cheers,
Owen
The whole world's mad save thee & me (but I'm not too sure about thee)
The Great Pyramid of Giza took about twenty years to build.
You need to get some of those Egyptian slaves and you're all set.
Either that, or start hitting your politicians with whips every so often.
"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.-- Mark Twain"
Pinhead
Are you against the idea of a pipeline because of what it would cost to pump the water down South.
Townsville pumps from the Burkekin when they have to and it does cost millions.
A lot of people up here are against the idea but i am not as you once stated to me we are all one State.
If they build stage two of the dam then why not send the water south.
I was listering to some Professor on the radio and he said our wetlands and the reef would be damaged and i do not know if he right or wrong but what i do know is everyone must be entitled to water.
Troy
Troy...yes I am against spending the billions to pipe water over 1000 k's...the power usuage and the ongoing maintenance of the pumping system would be mammoth. Do you realise the size and quantity of pumps required for a project like this? Plus the power usage to run them??
Dams in the south east are the most financially viable option but the real cure is to have heaps of bloody rain..top the dams up and all is solved..at no cost.
Do you have any idea of the volume of water that is available in the north? If the Bradfield idea was correctly implemented it would make the snowy scheme look like a kids dam in comparison. The construction of the dams on the Burdekin, Herbert and Tully would provide enough water and clean renewable hydro electricity for the entire Eastern seaboard while making an insignificant dint in the water flow of these rivers. As an example, have you ever seen the Burdekin in flood? At the bridge the river goes from a trickle in the sand to a deluge of water 10 odd metres deep from bank to bank flooding out to sea. I don't have the exact figures, but examination of the flood flows from studies at AIMS http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/researc...ver/index.html will indicate that a couple of percent of the flow from the Burdekin alone during flood, would satisfy our needs for years. And the rivers further north have similar flows every year during the wet. We could solve our water problems, generate clean renewable energy and provide the same sort of leap in Australian technological advancement we experienced when the Snowy scheme took Australia to the top of the world in engineering abilities. Beatie could solve half our problems and make us the "smart state” with an ounce of political back bone, nah I must be dreaming. It won't happen.
I was working on a local council pump station this past week...one of the pumps they use will pump 800l/s of water a distance of about 5km...that equates to 69,120,000 per day..that is a meagre 69 megalitres per day, this would then be 25,200ML/annum if the pump ran continuously.Bear in mind that to pump that amount of water to Brisbane is approximately 1000k's...so to get 69 megalitres that distance we need 200 pumps. Brisbane Water currently filters 170,000 ML/year. We would then need 7 of these pumps running continuously. Multiply the 7 pumps by the 200 pump stations that gives a total of 1400 pumps. The pump alone costs $150,000 without motors...that little set up will cost $210,000,000 just for the pumps without motors, switchgear, pump stations, interconnecting pipework and ongoing maintenance costs etc.... it is not in the realms of financial reality to contemplate the project.
Of course if you look at it the way you are talking it makes it very difficult, but what Bradfield proposed was something more akin to the Snowy project. That is, turning the flow into the inland rivers, an idea that can be modified to bring water to southern and eastern Queensland via various river systems and shorter pumping tunnels or pipes. If you examine the snowy scheme you will note that the pumping there is generally short to holding dams and then by gravity feed over much longer distances, they don't pump it every foot of the way on the flat. Your arguement is based in an oversimplification of the idea and reflects the smoke and mirrors approach of the greens and of the media tart. If you wanted to use pipes it would be by similar methods, short up hill pumping to holding reseviors and then long gravity feed runs through pipes and tunnels to holding dams before being pumped up hill again. Why not build the dams where there is a gurantee of large quantities water and where the flow over the spillways can also be used to provide endless clean energy instead of building them in populated areas and building coal fired power stations and unlike the snowy where they originally turned the greater part of the flow inland there would only be the requirement to turn a small percentage of these rivers inland. Yes there is a cost, but the benefits of water, energy and technological advancement for all of Queensland more then compensate for this. The pipeline idea is a red herring throwing up prohibitive costs to kill a viable lasting alternative.
If you are talking about buildiong holding dams then forget about the pipe from the Burdekin and just build the dams in the Mary and the other one near beausdesert. Do not forget what evaporation will do..could require more pumps to make up for this thus increasing the ostss.
Some people believe in nuclear power stations to provide electricity for desalination plants.
What is everyones' opinion on this?
Louis
The water flooding from the Burdekin is essential for Bowling Green Bay and the Reef. Sediment and nutrients flooding out to sea are a key part of the eco system. This is not wasted water. As any fisherman in the area and will tell you when it floods the crabs and fishing for the years after the flood is exceptional.
The underground aquifer in the Burdekin is another subject
[ftp] http://www.npsi.gov.au/knowledge.asp?Ref=229[/ftp]
“The Burdekin delta is a major irrigation area in north Queensland with approximately 38,000 ha of sugarcane and other crops irrigated from shallow groundwater supplies. Since the mid-1960's, water levels in the Burdekin Delta aquifer have been successfully managed by the North and South Burdekin Water Boards. Aquifer management methods developed locally include artificial recharge (diverting river water directly into the aquifer, mainly through recharge pits), water spreading (water too turbid for artificial recharge is made available for surface irrigation), and recycling (irrigation water that is not used by the crop drains through the soil back to the groundwater).”
I do believe they dammed a river down south, “Murray”. They proclaimed it was a waste, all that water going to the sea. How many dollars are they spending on the Murray River now to combat this mistake. I quick search of Google will answer that one.
Using water once seems wasteful to me. I am not keen on drinking toilet water, but I have an open mind. If we can walk on the moon surely we work out how to be smarter with our water
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
