An idea to end the water problem (1 Viewer)

[HotShot]

'Expensive' and 'too expensive' do not mean the same thing.

too expensive as compared to a recycling water facility!.

 

[HotShot]

Do people actually think when they say this?

So we should be able to knock down all the dams we currently have and it won't make any difference, right?

So ur theory is build more dams and we automatically have more water? - yeah good thinking!.

Gee - why are thinking about building desalination or recycling plants when we can just build more dams.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

You are so dead set on nuclear power aren't you?
Don't dismiss history, five-mile island, chernobyl, etc. Nuclear power plants are just too dangerous, accidents will happen, do not think we have transcended this. Especially since the nuclear plants would be operated by private companies. How can you trust a company, that is out there to maximise profits and cut corners, with the handling of volatile radioactive materials?
What about the waste products? History tells us that no place stays too politically stable for long, and the waste takes thousands of years or more to become safe. We can't guarantee that any place on earth would be appropriate to use as a dumping ground, we can't guarantee that there won't be leakages. And it is selfish of you to burden posterity with the heavy responsibility of looking after our mess: that's the kind of society we are today isn't it?
I vote they put the nuclear plant in your suburb, keep it away from mine.

If you are against nuclear power you obviously don't know enough about it. You're obviously one of the people who hear nuclear and automatically think Chernobyl. That was 20 years ago in the Soviet Union. Nuclear power plants are a lot safer than you may think and they are constantly improving them. There are more deaths from occupational accidents in coal and hydropower than nuclear.

And I don't know why a bunker deep underground in the middle of nowhere would not be appropriate for storing the waste. We wouldn't just be randomly burying it. It would be a managed facility.

You might also consider the overall environmental benefits from using clean energy. And don't say "well why not wind and solar?"...they are not efficient enough. All other fossil fuels are more limited and more harmful to the environment.

As far as I am concerned nuclear power is not a choice. We are going to need it sooner or later. So you can oppose it for a while but eventually we will be using it whether you like it or not.

I'd have absolutely no problem with a nuclear plant in my suburb. They could build it right next to my house if they wanted.

too expensive as compared to a recycling water facility!.

You can't compare a water recycling facility to a desalination plant. They do different things. A recycling plant can only renew the water we already have, whereas a desalination plant can get us more.

 

[HotShot]

You can't compare a water recycling facility to a desalination plant. They do different things. A recycling plant can only renew the water we already have, whereas a desalination plant can get us more.

Firstly the amount of water on the planet is always the same - or rather the amount of matter is always the same. We cannot create nor destroy it.

Actually both do pretty much the same thing, desalination from the sea - which we already have. Recycling only affects what we use, so if anything we didnt use doesnt need to be recycled through the plant. Which means less waste.

Desalination gets the water from the sea - removes the minerals etc, which means more waste. Then dumps waste I think back into the sea where the process begins.


But as I said before: you should read the water life cycle (whatever they call it). We take water drink etc, it evaporates, then it rains fall into sea or whereve then again we treated (either recycling or desalination) so essentially both processes are the same - just different infrastructure involved, it is after all recycling.

http://resources.ca.gov/ocean/97Agenda/Chap5Desal.html

 

[iamsickofyear12]

essentially both processes are the same - just different infrastructure involved, it is after all recycling.

I know but people don't like the idea of water recycling. Even if everyone was willing to give it a chance they would first only want to use it for some things (e.g not drinking).

We could build a desalination plant tomorrow and no one would have any problems drinking the water from it.

 

[brightsea]

Originally posted by withoutaface
I said based on the amount of water the people in their household would need, meaning a 2 person household would get about twice as much as a one person household. The idea is to stop "yuppies" from filling their pools and watering their gardens with everyone else's drinking water.

I get the idea is to stop the "yuppies" but the fundamental flaw with the plan is, as I said, you would need to profile each household. With the population of Sydney and the current migration patterns into the city (about 780 per week - NSW govt source here) it isn't reasonable to do.

Originally posted by Captain Gh3y
Do people actually think when they say this?

So we should be able to knock down all the dams we currently have and it won't make any difference, right?

Who said anything about knocking down the current dams? I said building new dams will have no impact on the amount of water Sydney has left.

If Warragamba, Neapen, etc were full to the brink then Sydney would be fine (short-term) and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Building what is, essentially, a water storage facility does not mean that there is water available to fill it. It's a "build it and the rain will come if we cross our fingers hard enough" philosophy. Remember, a drought is a lack of rain/water.

Originally posted by iamsickofyear12
I know but people don't like the idea of water recycling. Even if everyone was willing to give it a chance they would first only want to use it for some things (e.g not drinking).

People don't like it because of government propaganda. Everytime someone mentions recycled water, they come out and say, "But you're drinking sewage."

 

[HotShot]

I know but people don't like the idea of water recycling. Even if everyone was willing to give it a chance they would first only want to use it for some things (e.g not drinking).

We could build a desalination plant tomorrow and no one would have any problems drinking the water from it.

Firstly we are already drinking recycled water. And by building a recycling water plant, the quality will be better than the water we are currently drinking (and since this is the case the recycled water goes to back into the dam to mix with the water that hasnt gone through the plant).

Building a desalinisation plant - is expensive, the technology required is expensive, the running costs are expensive and finally there is waste!! that needs to be disposed of.

 

[undalay]

Desalination gets the water from the sea - removes the minerals etc, which means more waste. Then dumps waste I think back into the sea where the process begins.

Because recycling sewage requires no waste to be removed, right?

 

[withoutaface]

I get the idea is to stop the "yuppies" but the fundamental flaw with the plan is, as I said, you would need to profile each household. With the population of Sydney and the current migration patterns into the city (about 780 per week - NSW govt source here) it isn't reasonable to do.

So you introduce something into the current system the government has for monitoring new home purchases, and stuff like rental properties will have water allocated based on their perceived capacity.

 

[HotShot]

Because recycling sewage requires no waste to be removed, right?

Waste disposal of the minerals are much harder to dispose because they are harder to break down.

most sewage can be broken through bacterial processes and UV treatment and oxidation.

whilst desaliations basically we are stuck with it.

 

[brightsea]

So you introduce something into the current system the government has for monitoring new home purchases, and stuff like rental properties will have water allocated based on their perceived capacity.

It's still not a workable. The "something" would have to be the number of people going to live in the house, which can change frequently - births, deaths, children boarding at school/uni, extended trips away, exchange students (yes, I know the examples are getting more far-fetched but they could be factors). You can't even use census data because too much can happen within four years.

And if all properties (or just rentals) were allocated water consumption limits based on their capacity, you'd have almost every man, woman and their dog deceiving the system, especially if Level 3 or 4, maybe even 5, water restrictions become the norm. Therefore, to combat that a representative of Sydney Water would have to check, at the minimum, how many bedrooms to a house. For me to have a complete stranger walk around my house inspecting to see if I'm a liar amounts to an invasion of privacy.

To implement such a scheme would require a completely new government department which would need a large number of employees and time, although perhaps there should be a Department for Water Management. Maybe the state government could outsource "water checking measures" to local governments but that brings about another set of problems - local govts being under-funded, under-resourced, not to mention them having to liasie with the state government and Sydney Water.

PS. For the record I do believe we need some drastic measures to curb water use throughout Australia, I just think that while nice in theory, water allocation won't work.

 

[withoutaface]

Don't dismiss history, five-mile island, chernobyl, etc.

It seems that, just like everything else in your post, you've exaggerated the name of that particular disaster by almost double.

Brightsea: Use the electoral roll, and have both parents entitled to their children's water quota. Then make sure that when someone moves house they change their electoral roll address as well.

 

[HotShot]

---------------------------------------------------------

on the water note, how many of you have lived without water for any extended period of time? Our water got accidentally cut off for a week and it was the most harrowing week of my life. We seriously take water for granted far too much, and when you find that you can't shower or you don't have any drinking water, or you have to get litres of distilled water from kmart and boil them on a kitchen stove just to have a small bath, you'll understand how precious water is.

Desal is the way to go, who cares if it's expensive, it's providing infrastructure for future usage.

You think making warragamba wasn't expensive? Or the snowy mountain hydro scheme?

Are we a nation of toddlers?

Its not too bad , not having tap water for a week. Considering millions of people are in that situation.

I dont think desalinisation plant is for the future. Recycling plant is a lot more resourceful. Uses less energy and with global oil problems in the future energy will be a lot more expensive.

Desalination we will have escalating costs, countries like Saudi Arabia can afford to have desal plants, cos they only need water for residential and some industry rather - farming and heavy industry like in Australia.

 

[brightsea]

Use the electoral roll, and have both parents entitled to their children's water quota. Then make sure that when someone moves house they change their electoral roll address as well.

Couple of problems.

1. Parents getting children's quotas is fine if they are living in a "normal", nuclear family. However, what about divorced parents with shared custody? That custody could be anything from one week with mum, one with dad to weekend visitation or monthly. You couldn't give both parents the child's entire quota because then the child amounts to two people. Also there would need to be special considerations for those in temporary and permanent foster care, other relative's care and children boarding away from home.

2. Children's births and deaths would still need to be recorded with Sydney Water as well as the Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages. Given that there were over 87 000 births in NSW in 2005 (source), its still a massive project.

3. Using the electoral role means the electoral commission would have to work with Sydney Water and above mentioned Registry.

4. What about people not on the electoral role? Such as refugees, migrants, permanent residents who never become citizens etc. etc.

5. By using the electoral role you're assuming that every Australian citizen is actually registered to vote (although getting water quotas might be a useful incentive to ensure people did enroll).

 

[withoutaface]

Couple of problems.

1. Parents getting children's quotas is fine if they are living in a "normal", nuclear family. However, what about divorced parents with shared custody? That custody could be anything from one week with mum, one with dad to weekend visitation or monthly. You couldn't give both parents the child's entire quota because then the child amounts to two people. Also there would need to be special considerations for those in temporary and permanent foster care, other relative's care and children boarding away from home.

Yes but it's better that a couple of them count for two people rather than have the current situation.

2. Children's births and deaths would still need to be recorded with Sydney Water as well as the Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages. Given that there were over 87 000 births in NSW in 2005 (source), its still a massive project.

You add a line of code into the computer system that sends the relevant info to Sydney Water.

3. Using the electoral role means the electoral commission would have to work with Sydney Water and above mentioned Registry.

Not a big deal.

4. What about people not on the electoral role? Such as refugees, migrants, permanent residents who never become citizens etc. etc.

Make them pay the full price for water. Adds incentive to become a citizen.

5. By using the electoral role you're assuming that every Australian citizen is actually registered to vote (although getting water quotas might be a useful incentive to ensure people did enroll).

Exactly. And if you don't register to vote then you have to pay more for water.

 

[HotShot]

lol WAF

while you there - build a SUPERCOMPUTER It will handle all of the worlds problems :rofl: /

 

[brightsea]

Yes but it's better that a couple of them count for two people rather than have the current situation.

Do you really think that this philosophy would actually fly in social circles? While children counting for two people may be a better situation, its by no means a solution. I say this hesitantly, but it's almost an incentive for divorce among those in poorer situations.

And again, you've still got numerous children/people (other than children involved in divorce) in exceptionally circumstances, which would require an individual, case by case analysis - too much work for an already stretched Sydney Water.

You add a line of code into the computer system that sends the relevant info to Sydney Water.

So the information gets sent to Sydney Water. That still means about 87 000 births, 44 000 deaths, 37 000 marriages, 23 000 name changes and however many residental changes, are sent and then have to be cross referenced to ensure minimal screw-ups. The bureacracy would be ridiculous. It would require a mammoth budget.

Also sharing information freely like that causes privacy issues to emerge. Who at Sydney Water has access to the database? What kind of clearance do they have to undergo? Undoubtably, the more people who know and have access to the database the more chance there is of leakage. It's not just a clear cut issue of sending the information to Sydney Water.

Not a big deal.

Now you're assuming that not only one government agency is competent but that all three are, independently as well as collectively

Make them pay the full price for water. Adds incentive to become a citizen.

You shouldn't be forced to pay a more for water because your not a citizen. It's not "incentive", it's coercion.

Becoming a citizen should be personal choice, with reasons for and against, not because the government is making you pay more for a basic resource. Most of Asia and Africa, some European countries (Spain, Germany, Denmark) and South American countries (Peru, Argentina) don't recognise dual citizenship or make you forfeit it when you apply for another. Others have criminal penalties such as Saudi Arabia.

Water quotas, for a city of Sydney's size, are not a workable idea.

 

[nomanda]

I have read this thread, and i dont think people understand the cost of a recyling plant compaired to a desalinisation plant.

I therefor challenge somebody to produce some $figures to compair the two.

----

Seperate to the above imo nuclear power is the way, if it is proven cheap, safe and long termed reliablity then why not?

I'd have it in my suburb

Edit: long time reader, no time poster, woot first post!@

 

[Evergreen]

desalinisation plants wont work because there will be too much salt leftover. where are they gonna dump the salt? in the ocean? no thatll just fuk up the ecosystems. anything other than that is uneconomical. the only solution is to use less water and recycle them.

 

[withoutaface]

Do you really think that this philosophy would actually fly in social circles? While children counting for two people may be a better situation, its by no means a solution. I say this hesitantly, but it's almost an incentive for divorce among those in poorer situations.

And again, you've still got numerous children/people (other than children involved in divorce) in exceptionally circumstances, which would require an individual, case by case analysis - too much work for an already stretched Sydney Water.

So the information gets sent to Sydney Water. That still means about 87 000 births, 44 000 deaths, 37 000 marriages, 23 000 name changes and however many residental changes, are sent and then have to be cross referenced to ensure minimal screw-ups. The bureacracy would be ridiculous. It would require a mammoth budget.

Also sharing information freely like that causes privacy issues to emerge. Who at Sydney Water has access to the database? What kind of clearance do they have to undergo? Undoubtably, the more people who know and have access to the database the more chance there is of leakage. It's not just a clear cut issue of sending the information to Sydney Water.

Now you're assuming that not only one government agency is competent but that all three are, independently as well as collectively

You shouldn't be forced to pay a more for water because your not a citizen. It's not "incentive", it's coercion.

Becoming a citizen should be personal choice, with reasons for and against, not because the government is making you pay more for a basic resource. Most of Asia and Africa, some European countries (Spain, Germany, Denmark) and South American countries (Peru, Argentina) don't recognise dual citizenship or make you forfeit it when you apply for another. Others have criminal penalties such as Saudi Arabia.

Water quotas, for a city of Sydney's size, are not a workable idea.

Your arguments are based on the idea that water sold at the market rate would be ridiculously expensive, when in reality at the moment it's less than $1 per 1000 litres, so it wouldn't be a tremendous burden on anyone regardless.