Agricultural areas in Thailand face drought threat

[CGW]

You don't have to build a pipeline from South to the North east to improve the situation, there are other alternatives, build canals from rivers to feed some dams for example? Off course it would need capital investment and doubtful anyone in "government" would champion the project! - so probably best to do nothing ????

[Aussie999]

Just now, robblok said:

No you never said 30" inch but that is what is used to transfer the water in Australia.

 

To transport enough water to fill just that one dam for half its volume you need 100 x the volume used in OZ. 

 

So i just calculated how big a pipe would be needed.. and that would be a huge pipe 986 inch. Have you ever heard of pipes that large ? 

 

You used the goldfields as an example..but that example is 100 times too small.. you need to scale it up 100 times... That means you need to scale your pipes up too.. Technology has advanced for sure but no project in this scale has ever been attempted. 

 

Can i ask what kind of education you followed ? I don't want to insult you but i feel you have no clue about calculations or how much water we are talking about. 

 

You keep coming up with replies but none of those replies have any backup by facts or numbers.

You seem to taken everything wrong, you are fixated on 30", get over it. Read what I bloody said, it seems you have a comprehension problem.... stop thinking all pipes are 30". 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Aussie999 said:

You seem to taken everything wrong, you are fixated on 30", get over it. Read what I bloody said, it seems you have a comprehension problem.... stop thinking all pipes are 30". 

Then make your point my research states that the pipes used in oz are 30"

 

so to get an amount 100 times too small you need 30 inch pipes as a minimum.

 

Now calculate what you need pipe wise for something 100x bigger.

 

Or are you saying that the pipers are not 30inch in ozz but smaller. . That would go against the data I found on the internet.

 

Can you give a link to where it states they use a smaller diameter ?

[Aussie999]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Then make your point my research states that the pipes used in oz are 30"

 

so to get an amount 100 times too small you need 30 inch pipes as a minimum.

 

Now calculate what you need pipe wise for something 100x bigger.

 

Or are you saying that the pipers are not 30inch in ozz but smaller. . That would go against the data I found on the internet.

 

Can you give a link to where it states they use a smaller diameter ?

For Christ sake... I used it as an example of what can be done... I NEVER said to use a 30" pipe, just what is wrong with you, your comments are full of crap... move on, you come across as being as thick as 2 short planks.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Aussie999

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, CGW said:

You don't have to build a pipeline from South to the North east to improve the situation, there are other alternatives, build canals from rivers to feed some dams for example? Off course it would need capital investment and doubtful anyone in "government" would champion the project! - so probably best to do nothing ????

They are complaining about water shortage in Isarn.... i would suggest you open a map and look at what rivers there are over there. The only way to get water there is to pump it upstream.  Only river there is Mekong but it does not have enough water. 

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

57 minutes ago, robblok said:

I looked it up and the Australian pipeline is just far to small for this. It only delivers 23.000 m3 per day. 

 

The just one dam the Siridorn dam for instance holds an 1.966.000.000 m3   

 

Do you see the problem here ? Do calculate how long it would take to just fill this dam with water through a pipe.  (85.478 days) That is just 1 dam.. so the pipe would have to be at least 100 x as big 

So even if we just had to fill one dam and even if only have to fill it for 50% then it would still mean a pipe that is many many times larger (100 or more) then that in OZ. 

 

So its not really comparable. 

 

Maybe now you see the problem. 

 

No offence meant.. just showing you the scale of the project. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirindhorn_Dam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfields_Water_Supply_Scheme

The Chinese will fill that little dam in 48 days flat.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South–North_Water_Transfer_Project

[robblok]

Just now, Aussie999 said:

For Christ sake... I used it as an example of what can be done... I NEVER said to use a 30" pipe, just what is wrong with you, your comments are full of crap... move on, your as think as 2 short planks.

Mate, you really have no clue do you. I guess you skipped calculations.

 

 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

The Chinese will fill that little dam in 48 days flat.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South–North_Water_Transfer_Project

Its not even completed and is the most expensive engineering project up to date.  I am also not sure if we are talking about the same height differences. Anyway I never said it could not be done. I said economically it made no sense here. The sheer size of something like this is just crazy.

 

To build something like that to get some water for rice somewhere makes no sense. 

[CGW]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

They are complaining about water shortage in Isarn.... i would suggest you open a map and look at what rivers there are over there. The only way to get water there is to pump it upstream.  Only river there is Mekong but it does not have enough water. 

I would suggest that you give your posts a little more thought before making "suggestions ???? 

Was the Mekong not in flood state very recently, could those flood waters not have been diverted to fill empty reservoirs in the area?

I am very familiar with the area and know it is feasible. ???? 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, CGW said:

I would suggest that you give your posts a little more thought before making "suggestions ???? 

Was the Mekong not in flood state very recently, could those flood waters not have been diverted to fill empty reservoirs in the area?

I am very familiar with the area and know it is feasible. ???? 

As far as i know the Mekong floods but not much because its dammed by China. I doubt much can be taken from the Mekong itself. Could you tell me where the Mekong flooded ? 

 

Water might be diverted a bit but i doubt it is much.

 

If you know its so feasible.. from where to where do you want to draw the water ? You seem to have a concrete plan.. do let me know. I love learning new stuff. 

 

So just from what point to what reservoir.

[CGW]

46 minutes ago, robblok said:

Water might be diverted a bit but i doubt it is much.

First we need to work on getting rid of the negative attitude! this is TVF only positive thoughts are entertained ???? 

 

The Mekong was "flooded" around Nong Khai for a couple of months this year, 40k away in Udon Thani the reservoirs are very low, we could start by building canals to fill these reservoirs of which there is one large and many small ones, some canals already exist, they just need expanding, once these are up and running we could then expand further into other provinces, before long we will have most of the North East connected and sharing precious water resources ???? 

Or better to just sit back and do nothing as has happened for many years?

It is bone dry up here already in many areas, going to be a miserable dry season unless we get lucky and get a decent "storm".

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, CGW said:

First we need to work on getting rid of the negative attitude! this is TVF only positive thoughts are entertained ???? 

 

The Mekong was "flooded" around Nong Khai for a couple of months this year, 40k away in Udon Thani the reservoirs are very low, we could start by building canals to fill these reservoirs of which there is one large and many small ones, some canals already exist, they just need expanding, once these are up and running we could then expand further into other provinces, before long we will have most of the North East connected and sharing precious water resources ???? 

Or better to just sit back and do nothing as has happened for many years?

It is bone dry up here already in many areas, going to be a miserable dry season unless we get lucky and get a decent "storm".

Assuming its downhill from Nong Khai then its is possible, but you do know that the Mekong is controlled by the Chinese ?

 

Anyway anything that helps is good, I just don't see pumping water uphill in sufficient quantities as feasible. Now making canals that go downhill make a lot more sense. I don't know the exact topography over there but it is possible.  

 

Still i doubt it will be as easy was we discuss, but it makes a lot more sense then pumping water uphill. 

Edited October 12, 2018 by robblok

[Lupatria]

Today all blue sky over Bangkok. I wonder what the 'government' has up the sleeves...

[CGW]

13 minutes ago, robblok said:

Assuming its downhill from Nong Khai then its is possible, but you do know that the Mekong is controlled by the Chinese ?

The Chinese are controlling the "Upper" Mekong at this time, doubtless they have plans to control more of it, who knows what impact that will have, most likely a positive one for China and not so positive for every other country that relies on it.

There will never be a solution in reality for places like Isaan, feast or famine - 6 months rain & 6 months dry, not the ideal climate, the farmers up here struggle to make a living year in year out, the Bangkok elites are quite happy with that situation so doubt there will ever be any major investment.

[ExpatOilWorker]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

Its not even completed and is the most expensive engineering project up to date.  I am also not sure if we are talking about the same height differences. Anyway I never said it could not be done. I said economically it made no sense here. The sheer size of something like this is just crazy.

 

To build something like that to get some water for rice somewhere makes no sense. 

It makes a lot more sense to pay someone 15,000 baht for something that is worth 8,000 baht and then repeat the process 20 million times. Common sense is not all that common.

[robblok]

20 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

It makes a lot more sense to pay someone 15,000 baht for something that is worth 8,000 baht and then repeat the process 20 million times. Common sense is not all that common.

That was all about vote buying and fake G2G deals.. don't confuse yourself too much. 

 

My point is your not going to do a project that is on the scale of what you have shown just to make some farmers in Isarn happy. Even first world countries would not do such a thing. 

[rickudon]

Transferring water from the Mekong to Udon Thani area is feasible - not a great difference in elevation. BUT the problem is that most of the reservoirs are south of Udon, more like 100 kilometres away. There has actually been a massive project laying new pipes to/from the water treatment plant in Udon - about one metre in diameter and it has taken 2 years of ripping up roads around the Nong Prajak - Nong Samrong area. I have never been able to find out exactly what they are for, But i guess to uprate the cities raw water supply. Where it comes from not sure but they have built a couple of small reservoirs just North east of Udon city a few years ago.

 

I do not think most of the canals would be much help - they drain north towards the Mekong.

 

Although technically feasible to divert Mekong water (and during wet season easily enough water there) the problems then become that there is very limited irrigation infrastructure in Isaan - most farmers depend on rain. So you would need to build new irrigation works across the area to then get the water to the farmers. And of course,  not every where is in drought - so you wouldn't need it 50% (or more) of the time, and all that infrastructure would be idle.

 

Finally, the typical Isaan farm over a lot of the area is about 10-20 rai  - making sure everyone gets a fair share would be a nightmare! So, i agree with Robblok - technically feasible, but not economically justifiable. 

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, rickudon said:

technically feasible, but not economically justifiable. 

Economic justifiability will depend on cost, time and life cycle. All infrastructure projects are done based on these 3 factors.