Jump to content
SAU Community

The Answer To Melbournes Water Problems?

~R33AzzA~

By ~R33AzzA~,
in Victoria

 Share

Recommended Posts

Cowboy1600 Grand Master

Cowboy1600

Posted
Posted

If it was anything other than pie in the sky, someone would have done it.

It's a rubbish idea that fails to take into account a realistic financial cost and the political ramifications of putting our water security into the hands of another.

JEPPE Mentor

JEPPE

Posted
Posted

Is there really any practical solution here in Victoria? It's not as if Tasmania's a different country (even if some might like to think so). Political ramifications will be insignificant once we're out of water.

marky Apprentice

marky

Posted
Posted
If it was anything other than pie in the sky, someone would have done it.

It's a rubbish idea that fails to take into account a realistic financial cost and the political ramifications of putting our water security into the hands of another.

Hell why not. The perth/kalgoorlie pipeline was completed in 1903 and that is close to 500km with about 10 pumping stations. Without pumps another 100 year of technological advancement, it should be childs play. Especially because of all the electricity lines etc already.

But hey the pollies only do what they want.

~R33AzzA~ Proficient

~R33AzzA~

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Hell why not. The perth/kalgoorlie pipeline was completed in 1903 and that is close to 500km with about 10 pumping stations. Without pumps another 100 year of technological advancement, it should be childs play. Especially because of all the electricity lines etc already.

But hey the pollies only do what they want.

Agreed, not to mention the north-south pipline is being done. So why not this one..

As much as I would love for this to happen I just dont think it will, there is to great an argument that there will be many future jobs lost now the desal plant is under construction.

Lets just hope it gets around and a pollie makes this one of there election promisses.

Cowboy1600 Grand Master

Cowboy1600

Posted
Posted
Agreed, not to mention the north-south pipline is being done. So why not this one..

As much as I would love for this to happen I just dont think it will, there is to great an argument that there will be many future jobs lost now the desal plant is under construction.

Lets just hope it gets around and a pollie makes this one of there election promisses.

The north south pipeline cost $700mil and was 70 ks overland. How is a 690k pipe under water going to cost half that?

Pie in the sky.

I used to be a believer in silver bullets. However, having worked in government I have now learnt that rarely, of ever, do sliver bullets exist. Things things are way more complicated than the young liberal dude in the vid would have you believe.

dezz Grand Master

dezz

Posted
Posted
The north south pipeline cost $700mil and was 70 ks overland. How is a 690k pipe under water going to cost half that?

Pie in the sky.

I used to be a believer in silver bullets. However, having worked in government I have now learnt that rarely, of ever, do sliver bullets exist. Things things are way more complicated than the young liberal dude in the vid would have you believe.

Thought it was 360km, and didn't he say 2.3billion dollars..

Cowboy1600 Grand Master

Cowboy1600

Posted
Posted

What on earth are talking about? The state government doesn't tax water. In fact the state government had very little opportunity to raise tax. That generally falls into the domain of the feds.

And I know the state government has looked at piping water from Tas but it not a 100% reliable or a cost effective way of securing water.

Desal is one of our best options as it's reliable and cost effective. Environmental impact will be minimal as they have committee to buying green power for it which will guarantee 500 million a year for the power industry which will be invested in renewable sources. Already a 186 turbine wind farm is underway purely thanks to the Desal plant.

Desal, combined with small scale local harvesting and improvements in residential and industrial water consumption is what will secure our water supply.

The Tas pipe is a half baked idea concocted by some young libs. It's pie in the sky.

FrangaR33 Mentor

FrangaR33

Posted
Posted

I think its a brilliant idea but its also flawed in one large fashion, you cant rely on something like this for the majority of Melbourne's water because if it breaks it will take time to fix, I still think we should build it though it is a bargain to supplement Melbourne's current and future water usage but should be used in conjuction with more catchment areas and dams, no point having all this extra water from Tassie and no damns to store it in because the state government is too short sighted to build more.

VB- Veteran

VB-

Posted
Posted

you know youtube is actually paying people that get mass views of their videos (i'd assume its like a divend of what they get through advertising). video man is also pretty pushy at the end of the video to show as many people as possible.

good idea or not, old mate's trying to make a quid himsef out of this

Omurru Veteran

Omurru

Posted
Posted
Desal is one of our best options as it's reliable and cost effective. Environmental impact will be minimal as they have committee to buying green power for it which will guarantee 500 million a year for the power industry which will be invested in renewable sources. Already a 186 turbine wind farm is underway purely thanks to the Desal plant.

Desal, combined with small scale local harvesting and improvements in residential and industrial water consumption is what will secure our water supply.

The Tas pipe is a half baked idea concocted by some young libs. It's pie in the sky.

I though he comapred the costs of a tassie pipeline to the desal plant which was more? There was never any comparison between the N-S Pipe and the tassie pipe? What makes the tassie pipeline unreliable and non-cost effective? Fair enough they have commited to buying green power for desal but from where, we have both government and company owned suppliers some of which are internationally owned also? Maybe the money they could have saved on a tassie pipeline could have been spent on renewable energy projects?

So you want to restrict water useage more to failitate a more expensive less productive option when there seems to be another fairly vaible option that as yet no real downfalls/issues have been mentioned? If other places can viabily do it between countries I don't see there being too much of an issue with us doing it between states.

There may be reasons why a tassie pipeline wouldn't work, I'm just interested to know what they are as opposed to someone telling me it's pie in the sky.....

scotty nm35 Grand Master

scotty nm35

Posted
Posted

Its a great idea and cheap to build because it is so simple. Laying a pipe on the sand, how hard can it be?

Pollies only push what they are told to push unfortunately.

A reliable source of existing clean water with no ongoing energy costs is exactly what we need. None of the other options come close.

blind_elk Grand Master

blind_elk

Posted
Posted

The state government does tax water - through all the authorities that send you a bill each quarter for supply of water to homes, and a sewerage and stormwater discharge cost.

Where is the "green power" going to come from? I doubt there is enough available to power all the current domestic consumers who have been sucked in to paying a premium for "green power". So how is there going to be an excess for the desal plant to run? And how can they guarantee that every little electron supplied has actually come from a "green" source?

I figure you could give every house in Melbourne a 2 or 3 thousand litre tank. Might cost the same as the desal plant, but that's where it ends - no ongoing running costs, no ongoing maintenance costs, no ongoing carbon footprint. The average Melbourne house could harvest more than 100k litres each year. Water your garden to your heart's content. Flush the toilet to your heart's content with water harvested from the rain falling on the roof.

Why can't they build a pipeline from N Qld, or even the Ord River in WA? (They built the Snowy Mtns scheme). Did you know that more water than is in Sydney Harbour flows out of the Ord River dam EVERY DAY. Fresh water going to waste! Politicians are forever saying what CAN'T be done, but have very little to say about what CAN be done.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • sunsetR33
      Anyone know this frontpipe?

      By sunsetR33 · Posted

      Because all parts that are put into your papers usually are assigned a badging if they did not come with one. So other people can just check that badging to tell if it is the parts your papes outline. But my pipe has NOTHING on it whatsoever. No idea why this even passed as a Mines pipe to begin with. I see this going two ways: -nobody cares and it's a non-issue, but that is unlikely -the pipe will just have to be assigned a bagding, for sake of argument, a Mines logo, and the papers corrected accordingly If it interests you I will post what the actual solution ended up being. All I care about is that it has to sound equal length and nobody can screw me later on because of a pipe being illegal.
    • sunsetR33
      Anyone know this frontpipe?

      By sunsetR33 · Posted

      The fasteners to the pipe are not subject to TÜV I guess, if we really start putting nuts and bolts through technical tests I'm going to hang the people responsible and then myself. Usually on a modern-ish EU normed car, you would just replace the pipe. Because if you start hacking away at it and welding new pieces on the cops will definitely find a reason to tow your car. That is just how it is sadly. On old cars and imports with no clear "standard" stuff like that won't matter too much. Most cops or inspectors probably won't even really know what they are looking at. But there is experts for this stuff even among cops, and some of them know the rules to a T and even have extensive knowledge about many vehicles. For "just a pipe" to be legal it usually is included in a set of parts, like a complete intake kit or a full exhaust. For example my exhaust needs to pass a noise test, meaning they have a standardized test track with a set of instructions and they run the car through there 3x for an average noise value that is 75dB(a) at point x of the test track. If it's above that, fail. For a turbo setup to be put in your papers you have to do dyno runs, emissions testing etc. So quite costly
    • Murray_Calavera
      Anyone know this frontpipe?

      By Murray_Calavera · Posted

      Would this not be the same for the exhaust you've posted up?  If your exhaust volume and emissions are fine, why does the brand of pipe matter? 
    • sunsetR33
      Anyone know this frontpipe?

      By sunsetR33 · Posted

      The issue is more the fact that there is inspectors that deal with japanese cars a lot and they might know what a real Mines pipe looks like. And then they're gonna get antsy and not pass your car. But I'd have to talk to one of them about this, because you know as well as me that it's just a damn pipe and it effectively doesn't do anything. As I need to have my GT2860s and my exhaust setup (and the increase in HP) TÜV'd anyways maybe they can just correct the entry in the papers or assign a badge to the front pipe. I'm no expert either though, will inquire about this.     Thanks for the insight. Not sure if having a custom made pipe is good or not. Will find out in due time I suppose. Would be kind of funny if this was made in Germany though.
    • sunsetR33
      Anyone know this frontpipe?

      By sunsetR33 · Posted

      See this is a really tricky topic as technically the same rules apply to all cars but for cars but there is a difference. If you want to modify a car like the Skyline which never existed here you have a bit more freedom as they do not adhere to EU specs anyway. Any modification you do has to be in dividually checked anyway so as long as one of the inspectors think it's ok and within the TÜV ruleset you can get stuff like a top secret rear diffuser put in your papers. Which frankly would need a shitload of tests and certificates for EU spec cars, like a 2010 BMW M3 for example. But if you DO run these tests and all tests come out ok (safety stuff for the most part) there is no problem running such a part legally. It's just way too expensive to do for a single person on one car. The most touchy parts are emissions related mods, like an exhaust, turbos, air intakes. If it makes noise or alters the carbon emissions it's essentially illegal until you prove it's not. Meaning it doesn't exceed noise limits or have worse carbon emissions. I'd say for hoses if you replace them same same it doesn't matter what material they are or what brand you use. Same for nuts and bolts usually, they won't go and specifically check that your water hoses and some bolts are 100% OEM parts, that is nonsense.
×
×
  • Create New...