Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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

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.....

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.

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


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • @Kapr Haha yeah thats the one. I missed that you had a built up engine, I wouldn't want to run it on there either then. It was good in my situation just to replace the original turbo on a stock engine. @MBS206Yep definitely not a replacement for anything name brand
    • You are selling this? I have never bought something from marketplace...i dont know if i trust that enough. And the price is little bit "too" good...
    • https://www.facebook.com/share/19kSVAc4tc/?mibextid=wwXIfr
    • It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about. Reliability of everything in a 34 drops MASSIVELY above the 300kw mark. Keeping everything going great at beyond that value will cost ten times the $. Clutches become shit, gearboxes (and engines/bottom ends) become consumable, traction becomes crap. The good news is looking legalish/actually being legal is slighly under the 300kw mark. I would make the assumption you want to ditch the stock plenum too and want to go a front facing unit of some description due to the cross flow. Do the bends on a return flow hurt? Not really. A couple of bends do make a difference but not nearly as much in a forced induction situation. Add 1psi of boost to overcome it. Nobody has ever gone and done a track session monitoring IAT then done a different session on a different intercooler and monitored IAT to see the difference here. All of the benefits here are likely in the "My engine is a forged consumable that I drive once a year because it needs a rebuild every year which takes 9 months of the year to complete" territory. It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about with this car.
    • By "reverse flow", do you mean "return flow"? Being the IC having a return pipe back behind the bumper reo, or similar? If so... I am currently making ~250 rwkW on a Neo at ~17-18 psi. With a return flow. There's nothing to indicate that it is costing me a lot of power at this level, and I would be surprised if I could not push it harder. True, I have not measured pressure drop across it or IAT changes, but the car does not seem upset about it in any way. I won't be bothering to look into it unless it starts giving trouble or doesn't respond to boost increases when I next put it on the dyno. FWIW, it was tuned with the boost controller off, so achieving ~15-16 psi on the wastegate spring alone, and it is noticeably quicker with the boost controller on and yielding a couple of extra pounds. Hence why I think it is doing OK. So, no, I would not arbitrarily say that return flows are restrictive. Yes, they are certainly restrictive if you're aiming for higher power levels. But I also think that the happy place for a street car is <300 rwkW anyway, so I'm not going to be aiming for power levels that would require me to change the inlet pipework. My car looks very stock, even though everything is different. The turbo and inlet pipes all look stock and run in the stock locations, The airbox looks stock (apart from the inlet being opened up). The turbo looks stock, because it's in the stock location, is the stock housings and can't really be seen anyway. It makes enough power to be good to drive, but won't raise eyebrows if I ever f**k up enough for the cops to lift the bonnet.
×
×
  • Create New...