Drought-hit Australian towns prepare for 'unimaginable' water crisis

[simple1]

18 hours ago, cmarshall said:

That's pretty interesting.  Is the Great Artesian Basin fossil water or is it constantly replenished?

it's fossil water, currently estimated to hold 65,000 million megalitres. Seems the major issue in Oz for water supply is it is not federally coordinated regards infrastructure investment. Although it would create angst at State level, IMO, Fed government should enact legislation to take over as a strategic asset.

Edited October 2, 2019 by simple1

[Odysseus123]

22 minutes ago, simple1 said:

it's fossil water, currently estimated to hold 65,000 million megalitres. Seems the major issue in Oz for water supply is it is not federally coordinated regards infrastructure investment. Although it would create angst at State level, IMO, Fed government should enact legislation to take over as a strategic asset.

Very definitely.

 

It's looking awfully bluddy dry even in the upper Hunter..New England is far,far worse.

Most of the stock are gone as the cost of feed and water is quite prohibitive.This will have an enormous impact on the breeding bloodlines in the years ahead.

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by Odysseus123

[cmarshall]

IIRC Jared Diamond in his book, "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed," pointed out that Australia is overpopulated.  Its resources cannot support its population in the long run.  So, the Australian government should take steps to curb population growth along with destructive agricultural and water management practices.  A one child policy could be called for.  Doesn't sound likely though. 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, cmarshall said:

IIRC Jared Diamond in his book, "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed," pointed out that Australia is overpopulated.  Its resources cannot support its population in the long run.  So, the Australian government should take steps to curb population growth along with destructive agricultural and water management practices.  A one child policy could be called for.  Doesn't sound likely though. 

They could always stop bringing immigrants in. However that's not likely either.

I think you will find that the Caucasian Australian reproductive rate is below replacement level already.

[samran]

On 9/28/2019 at 8:15 PM, Number 6 said:

It's just not. Then there is costs of storage and transmission lines. You're just being ridiculous.Single renewable energy isn't the solution anywhere.

 

Coal is cheap. For this town is assume free and the cost of transportation nothing. Presume it prolly already burns coal for energy. You done flogging that horse?

The coal might be cheap, as it is in the La Trobe valley of Victoria, but no one wants to build a new coal fired power plant there. Why? Cause its uneconomical. Coal is becoming marginalised, not because of the greenies, but because renewable technologies are now competitive.

 

You can probably run a desal plant though off a mix of renewables and legacy base load coal or gas supply. Also no need to have the desal running all the time, only during drought times. The big issue however is the 'take or pay' contracts around desal plants to keep the owners banks happy during down times.

[VincentRJ]

15 hours ago, bristolboy said:

There's no such thing as clean coal. Just less filthy coal. Recently in the USA an attempt was made to build a clean coal plant. About 7 billion dollars later they gave up and converted it to a natural gas plant.

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

Another misleading statement which assumes that carbon dioxide is not clean. My understanding is that CO2 is a clean, odorless gas which is essential for all life, and more of it, up to 1500 ppm and even higher, encourages more plant growth which is good for the environment.

 

Here's the relevant quote from your Wikipedia link, which implies what the actual reason was for the project becoming too expensive.

 

"Mississippi Power intended the Kemper Project to produce cleaner energy through the use of integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and carbon capture technologies, eliminating the majority of emissions normally emitted by a traditional coal plant."

 

Because CO2 is by far the greatest emission in quantity when burning coal, it's currently too expensive to remove it with 'carbon capture and storage' technologies. A more sensible and affordable method would be to use the CO2 to our advantage, instead of trying to bury it as though it's a toxic or undesirable product.

 

New regulations could insist that all new coal-fired power plants must be surrounded by large Greenhouses. After the removal of the 'real' toxic emissions and pollutants, the remaining CO2 could be funneled through the Greenhouses to double the crop production.
 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, samran said:

The coal might be cheap, as it is in the La Trobe valley of Victoria, but no one wants to build a new coal fired power plant there. Why? Cause its uneconomical. Coal is becoming marginalised, not because of the greenies, but because renewable technologies are now competitive.

 

Another misleading statement. Renewables are only competitive if you remove the 'reliability' factor. When the additional cost of building and maintaining back-up power generators is taken into consideration, so that people don't die as a result of a heatwave when demand for electricity soars, then renewable energy is still more expensive, especially when you take into consideration the much higher 'real' cost of electricity generated by back-up power plants that are sitting idle most of the time.

[samran]

26 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Another misleading statement. Renewables are only competitive if you remove the 'reliability' factor. When the additional cost of building and maintaining back-up power generators is taken into consideration, so that people don't die as a result of a heatwave when demand for electricity soars, then renewable energy is still more expensive, especially when you take into consideration the much higher 'real' cost of electricity generated by back-up power plants that are sitting idle most of the time.

It isn’t misleading. I was in the La Trobe valley 6 weeks ago. Power plants are being decommissioned. No one is bothering to build new ones, despite the millions of tonnes of lignite sitting a few metres below the surface there.

 

There is a reason why they are not, and it’s pure economics. 

 

If you reckon that you are right, why not go and put a consortium together, you’ll make a killing...

Edited October 3, 2019 by samran

[pikao]

On 10/2/2019 at 7:29 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Anyway, however they are powered, desalination plants are the only sensible way to provide enough fresh water for the future.

Not really. As mentioned in other posts there is an issue with power supply. Hence governments subsidise renewable energy projects together with desalination plants. So, "however they are powered" is only one, minor, part of the problem. The bigger one, more obvious but hardly ever seen by most of the people is...SALT...yes, salt. What you gonna do with it. I´ve heard (and seen one of them) of two systems of desalination plants (there might be more). One was you take the water straight from the sea and put the remaining salt back to the sea. The aerea around the plant (big aerea) will be dead like the "dead sea" in Israel. The other sytsem (I´ve seen) was: you take the prefiltered water from some several hundred meters inland. Very dirty. High effort to filter and the remainig salt is nothing but toxic (for the ground it´s stored on and ground water) waste you can´t do anything with it. Maybe there are some new methods I haven´t heard of (possible), but so far it doesn´t look like desalination is the answer to the problem. Would be too easy....

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, samran said:

If you reckon that you are right, why not go and put a consortium together, you’ll make a killing...

I'm not interested in making a killing. I'm interested in rational and sensible behaviour.

 

The reason why new coal-fired power plants are not being built is related to economics, but it's not 'pure' economics in the sense that renewable energy is more efficient.

 

It's because coal has been demonized, and will probably continue to be demonized into the future. Coal power stations are built to last a minimum of 40 years. If it is thought that the new coal power station might be shut down well before it has served its useful life, because of political nonsense and the irrational scare about CO2 emissions, then that in itself is sufficient reason for any company not to risk their investments by building the latest, cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power plant. 

 

There is also the issue of Banks refusing to fund the construction of new coal-fired power plants for the same reasons, and also because they want to be seen as supporting the move towards renewable energy in order to appeal to more customers, and/or because the board members of the Banks, being scientifically illiterate, actually believe that CO2 is a pollutant.

Edited October 3, 2019 by VincentRJ

[samran]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm not interested in making a killing. I'm interested in rational and sensible behaviour.

 

The reason why new coal-fired power plants are not being built is related to economics, but it's not 'pure' economics in the sense that renewable energy is more efficient.

 

It's because coal has been demonized, and will probably continue to be demonized into the future. Coal power stations are built to last a minimum of 40 years. If it is thought that the new coal power station might be shut down well before it has served its useful life, because of political nonsense and the irrational scare about CO2 emissions, then that in itself is sufficient reason for any company not to risk their investments by building the latest, cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power plant. 

 

There is also the issue of Banks refusing to fund the construction of new coal-fired power plants for the same reasons, and also because they want to be seen as supporting the move towards renewable energy in order to appeal to more customers, and/or because the board members of the Banks, being scientifically illiterate, actually believe that CO2 is a pollutant.

Gawd, you’ve got a state governments in Australia who are addicted to coal royalties, a prime minister who waved a lump of coal around in parliament and state and federal labor members who have key seats in the respective coal belts of Victoria and NSW who won’t say anything against coal. 

 

But despite all of this political support, they still can’t get a coal fired power plant up. 

 

The only people supporting this legacy source of power generation are the culture warriors and the chest beaters.

 

No one else is, not the people with money in their pockets who’d sell their mother (or at least sell her future revenue streams) without blinking. Not even the coal workers themselves in many cases who are wising up to the fact that their industry is cactus. They’d happily take a redundancy and go work on the wind turbines going up all around the shop. 

 

The technology is their now where consumers don’t have to rely on a central utility providing power from far off place. The expensive poles and wires - the stuff that makes power prices really expensive - are becoming redundant at a fast chop. 

 

But nevertheless, there remains the horse and buggy crew, determined that they stick up for the monopoly power suppliers and their owners. Geez, real men of the people you are... 

Edited October 3, 2019 by samran

[VincentRJ]

6 minutes ago, samran said:

Gawd, you’ve got a state government in Australia who are addicted to coal royalties, a prime minister who waved a lump of coal around in parliament and state labor governments who have key seats in the respective coal belts of Victoria and NSW who won’t say anything against coal. 

 

But despite all of this political support, they still can’t get a coal fired power plant up. 

 

For the reason's I've explained, plus another reason I omitted. The current Australian government has agreed to the emission targets discussed at the Paris climate Change conference. That will also influence the decision to build new coal-fired power plants, and unfortunately will also probably continue to force up energy prices, resulting in a slower, or even no increase in prosperity, and a reluctance to spend money on dams and infrastructure to protect the population from the effects of floods, droughts and cyclones.

 

https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/publications/factsheet-australias-2030-climate-change-target

[sunnyboy2018]

On 9/28/2019 at 4:38 AM, Harveyg said:

This reminded me of the Thai solution to a cold room because of low temp air conditioning:  Just open the door!!   Sorry.  Couldnt resist.

Try.

[samran]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

For the reason's I've explained, plus another reason I omitted. The current Australian government has agreed to the emission targets discussed at the Paris climate Change conference. That will also influence the decision to build new coal-fired power plants, and unfortunately will also probably continue to force up energy prices, resulting in a slower, or even no increase in prosperity, and a reluctance to spend money on dams and infrastructure to protect the population from the effects of floods, droughts and cyclones.

 

https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/publications/factsheet-australias-2030-climate-change-target

Um...yeah. Okay.

[VincentRJ]

6 hours ago, samran said:

Um...yeah. Okay.

 As I've already mentioned, the above graph excludes the cost of ensuring a reliable supply of electricity. When the sun shines and the wind blows, the electricity produced from the latest solar and wind technologies is now cheaper than coal, and that is a good thing. I have no shares in coal companies and have no bias in this respect.

 

However, the State of South Australia is an example of what can happen when a country relies too much on renewable power such as wind and solar. The major disruptions to the supply of electricity can have a significant economic impact, which needs to be added to the cost of the renewables before a fair comparison can be made.

 

South Australia is claimed to have the most expensive electricity prices in the world, yet Australia is a country which is very rich in a variety of energy sources, such as coal, gas and uranium. Ridiculous!

 

[samran]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 As I've already mentioned, the above graph excludes the cost of ensuring a reliable supply of electricity. When the sun shines and the wind blows, the electricity produced from the latest solar and wind technologies is now cheaper than coal, and that is a good thing. I have no shares in coal companies and have no bias in this respect.

 

However, the State of South Australia is an example of what can happen when a country relies too much on renewable power such as wind and solar. The major disruptions to the supply of electricity can have a significant economic impact, which needs to be added to the cost of the renewables before a fair comparison can be made.

 

South Australia is claimed to have the most expensive electricity prices in the world, yet Australia is a country which is very rich in a variety of energy sources, such as coal, gas and uranium. Ridiculous!

 

Do you get all your lines from Andrew Bolt and the Liberal Party?

 

The biggest drivers are gas wholesale costs (national wholesale) and network costs which are the poles and wires which would be there in any case.

 

not the most expensive in the world either. 

 

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-south-australia-have-the-highest-energy-prices-in-the-nation-and-the-least-reliable-grid-92928

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, pikao said:

Not really. As mentioned in other posts there is an issue with power supply. Hence governments subsidise renewable energy projects together with desalination plants. So, "however they are powered" is only one, minor, part of the problem. The bigger one, more obvious but hardly ever seen by most of the people is...SALT...yes, salt. What you gonna do with it. I´ve heard (and seen one of them) of two systems of desalination plants (there might be more). One was you take the water straight from the sea and put the remaining salt back to the sea. The aerea around the plant (big aerea) will be dead like the "dead sea" in Israel. The other sytsem (I´ve seen) was: you take the prefiltered water from some several hundred meters inland. Very dirty. High effort to filter and the remainig salt is nothing but toxic (for the ground it´s stored on and ground water) waste you can´t do anything with it. Maybe there are some new methods I haven´t heard of (possible), but so far it doesn´t look like desalination is the answer to the problem. Would be too easy....

Saudi has been desalinating seawater on a major scale for at least 40 years. Do they have a problem with it?

[steven100]

On 10/3/2019 at 6:08 AM, Odysseus123 said:

Very definitely.

 

It's looking awfully bluddy dry even in the upper Hunter..New England is far,far worse.

Most of the stock are gone as the cost of feed and water is quite prohibitive.This will have an enormous impact on the breeding bloodlines in the years ahead.

 

This is east of Glen Innes ,  New England ranges.  No decent rain in a long time 

They just had a fire through their property and 60 head of cattle missing …. 

[pikao]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Saudi has been desalinating seawater on a major scale for at least 40 years. Do they have a problem with it?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjv2sTd64HlAhUHtY8KHciVANAQFjABegQIChAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fpii%2F0011916487900889&usg=AOvVaw3vwWgC6oHenuUnny_90Srl

 

I hope that the links are working. (don´t know why, but I have a copy-paste problem) There are some interesting articles about that. I googled "what does saudi arabia do with the salt from desalination". Apparently they started to extract minerals to sell them. If that helps the environment ? Don´t know.

The other article that showed up in google search (related to the subject) was about the impact on environmental, economical and even social matters (water as a commodity)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=2ahUKEwjv2sTd64HlAhUHtY8KHciVANAQFjAFegQICxAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foodandwaterwatch.org%2Fnews%2Focean-desalination-no-solution-water-shortages&usg=AOvVaw02mo-OmcnpwypjQ1-DtVAF

I also would like to see desalination as a solution but it doesn´t look like. The article from the link above details the problems in short terms.

[bristolboy]

On 10/3/2019 at 3:59 PM, VincentRJ said:

I'm not interested in making a killing. I'm interested in rational and sensible behaviour.

 

The reason why new coal-fired power plants are not being built is related to economics, but it's not 'pure' economics in the sense that renewable energy is more efficient.

 

It's because coal has been demonized, and will probably continue to be demonized into the future. Coal power stations are built to last a minimum of 40 years. If it is thought that the new coal power station might be shut down well before it has served its useful life, because of political nonsense and the irrational scare about CO2 emissions, then that in itself is sufficient reason for any company not to risk their investments by building the latest, cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power plant. 

 

There is also the issue of Banks refusing to fund the construction of new coal-fired power plants for the same reasons, and also because they want to be seen as supporting the move towards renewable energy in order to appeal to more customers, and/or because the board members of the Banks, being scientifically illiterate, actually believe that CO2 is a pollutant.

Falsehood piled upon falsehood. The reason coal is no longer economically competitive has nothing to do with CO2. It's the rapid drop in the cost of renewables. As Lazard Freres in its 2018 report pointed out, the marginal costs of a coal powered plant is greater than the LCOE of renewable plants. In other words, just the costs of running an existing coal power plant is greater than the cost of building and running a renewable plant. Why would any rational power company invest in what already should be counted as stranded assets? Especially as the cost of wind, renewables, and storage keep on plummeting? Why would a responsible CEO even consider investing in a coal-powered plant?  Where do ya think the cost of renewables and storage is going to be 5 years from now? The same? Higher? Lower?

 

It's significant that the countries where coal plants are still being built don't exactly have a reputation for being open honest market economies but rather centers of crony capitalism, crony socialism, or some toxic combination of both. Paging Indonesia, India, and China amongst others.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

12 hours ago, samran said:

Do you get all your lines from Andrew Bolt and the Liberal Party?

 

The biggest drivers are gas wholesale costs (national wholesale) and network costs which are the poles and wires which would be there in any case.

 

not the most expensive in the world either. 

 

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-south-australia-have-the-highest-energy-prices-in-the-nation-and-the-least-reliable-grid-92928

No I don't get all my lines from Andrew Bolt, or from any single source. I check numerous sources.

 

Notice I made the statement that South Australia is claimed to have the most expensive electricity in the world, and this is undeniably true because a Google search will reveal many sites that claim that SA has the most expensive electricity in Australia, and that Australia, on average, has among the most expensive electricity in the world.

 

Even the fact-checking 'theconversation' site has reported that Australia's electricity prices are among the highest in the world.

 

https://theconversation.com/comparing-australias-electricity-charges-to-other-countries-shows-why-competition-isnt-working-75310

To quote:

"Australia’s residential electricity prices are amongst the highest in the world so it’s not hard to see why customers have been up in arms about high prices."

 

However, other sites show that Germany and Portugal have much higher retail electricity prices than Australia. So what's the truth?

[VincentRJ]

37 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's significant that the countries where coal plants are still being built don't exactly have a reputation for being open honest market economies but rather centers of crony capitalism, crony socialism, or some toxic combination of both. Paging Indonesia, India, and China amongst others.

 

There seems to be a contradiction in your above statement. The Chinese rapid economic development, after it combined capitalism with communism, has been absolutely amazing during the past few decades. Such development has taken place because of sound economic decisions. It's the most amazing and rapid economic development in the history of the human race.

 

Do you think the reason they are still building more coal-fired power stations in their own country as well as other countries is because they have lost their economic nous? ????

 

Solar panels are falling in price because China is manufacturing them more efficiently. They are also using renewable energy, but they refuse to stifle their economy by restricting their power sources to only renewables. They are sensible enough to use whatever gives the best economic outcome, and that seems to include coal.

[plachon]

29 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

There seems to be a contradiction in your above statement. The Chinese rapid economic development, after it combined capitalism with communism, has been absolutely amazing during the past few decades. Such development has taken place because of sound economic decisions. It's the most amazing and rapid economic development in the history of the human race.

 

Do you think the reason they are still building more coal-fired power stations in their own country as well as other countries is because they have lost their economic nous? ????

 

Solar panels are falling in price because China is manufacturing them more efficiently. They are also using renewable energy, but they refuse to stifle their economy by restricting their power sources to only renewables. They are sensible enough to use whatever gives the best economic outcome, and that seems to include coal.

"Do you think the reason they are still building more coal-fired power stations in their own country as well as other countries is because they have lost their economic nous?"

 

If you only measure economic success by GDP growth over a relatively short time, then of course you will conclude that China is an amazing country filled with brilliant and rational economic decision-makers, and thus other countries should emulate their model. But, on the other hand, if you realise that China's economic "success story" has occurred only in a snapshot of historical time and has almost entirely avoided ecological economic decision-making in its model, then you will see that their "economic nous", as you put it, may be a very short-lived story, and ecological and social reality will soon catch up with China, due to climate change and accompanying ecological breakdown as large parts of the country will soon become unliveable due to extreme heat, floods, droughts and sea-level rise, as predicted in all IPCC and other climate models. And this is not to mention the extremely high cost that China is paying in the present and will pay even more in the future from the environmental health costs of an over-reliance on coal for energy, via pollution impacts. Sustainability is about a long term model of socially beneficial economic wellbeing and environmental maintenance, not your style of woefully ignorant short termism.

[VincentRJ]

14 hours ago, plachon said:

...ecological and social reality will soon catch up with China, due to climate change and accompanying ecological breakdown as large parts of the country will soon become unliveable due to extreme heat, floods, droughts and sea-level rise, as predicted in all IPCC and other climate models. And this is not to mention the extremely high cost that China is paying in the present and will pay even more in the future from the environmental health costs of an over-reliance on coal for energy, via pollution impacts. Sustainability is about a long term model of socially beneficial economic wellbeing and environmental maintenance, not your style of woefully ignorant short termism.

I doubt it. I predict that economic and social reality will soon catch up with those countries that have rejected the use of fossil fuels, choosing instead to cover huge areas of land with solar panels and windmills, creating an eventual scarcity of rare earth metals and lithium, causing a massive recycling problem in the future as the solar panels need replacing, and wasting huge areas of land that could have been used for agriculture or reforestation.

 

China, on the other hand, will do whatever is required to adapt to any change in climate. If they have evidence that floods are becoming a greater problem, they will build more dams. If rising sea levels become a problem, they will build dykes, as Holland did years ago, or, they will simply relocate further inland.

 

By the way, according to the IPCC, there is no strong evidence that droughts, floods, cyclones and droughts have been increasing in recent decades, on a global scale. It is very difficult to attribute a particular cause to changes in the severity or height of flooding events because of the effects of changes in the landscape, such as deforestation for agriculture and urbanization, and the building of dams which obviously must reduce the effects of flooding to some extent, unless the dam wall collapses.

 

Attached is a chart from the Australia BOM showing the history of flooding in the Brisbane area from around 1832 to the present. During the latter part of the 19th century there were 8 major floods, from 1842 to 1893. During the whole of the 20th century, including the beginning of the 21st century, there have been just 3 major floods. None of them were as bad as those in the 19th century. The 1974 flood was the 6th worst on record, and the 2010-11 was the 7th worst on record, even though both at the time were described in the media as the worst on record. The 1893 flood used to be considered the 'actual' worst on record, but more recent analysis of the data suggested that the 1842 flood was even worse.

 

The message here is that either floods have been decreasing as a result of climate change, or dams are very effective at reducing flood levels, if it is the case that precipitation has been increasing as a result of a very modest degree of global warming.
 

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Falsehood piled upon falsehood. The reason coal is no longer economically competitive has nothing to do with CO2. It's the rapid drop in the cost of renewables. As Lazard Freres in its 2018 report pointed out, the marginal costs of a coal powered plant is greater than the LCOE of renewable plants. In other words, just the costs of running an existing coal power plant is greater than the cost of building and running a renewable plant. Why would any rational power company invest in what already should be counted as stranded assets? Especially as the cost of wind, renewables, and storage keep on plummeting? Why would a responsible CEO even consider investing in a coal-powered plant?  Where do ya think the cost of renewables and storage is going to be 5 years from now? The same? Higher? Lower?

 

It's significant that the countries where coal plants are still being built don't exactly have a reputation for being open honest market economies but rather centers of crony capitalism, crony socialism, or some toxic combination of both. Paging Indonesia, India, and China amongst others.

 

 

Especially as the cost of wind, ...…...………......….. keep on plummeting?

 

So, how many dead birds are acceptable so kids can recharge their phones?

[Harveyg]

On 10/3/2019 at 7:16 AM, sunnyboy2018 said:

Try.

What’s a matter Sunny.  Gettin cloudy are you.  555

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Especially as the cost of wind, ...…...………......….. keep on plummeting?

 

So, how many dead birds are acceptable so kids can recharge their phones?

A study published in 2009 looking at the US and Europe estimated that wind farms were responsible for about 0.3 bird deaths for every 1GWh of electricity generated, compared with 5.2 deaths per 1GWh caused by fossil-fuelled power stations.

It said this would equate to the deaths, every year, in the US, of about 7,000 birds caused by wind turbines, 300,000 by nuclear plants and 14.5 million by power plants using fossil fuels.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48936941