PDA

View Full Version : Snowy River 2.



Davidflude
25-05-2009, 09:00 PM
Here is the issue for Malcolm Turnbull to shout from the house tops.

Grafton floodwaters would save Murray-Darling—build the Clarence Scheme!

Once again, the Clarence River is in flood at Grafton, NSW, but if the Clarence River Scheme—which has been on the books since at least the early 1920s—had been built, that water would now be on its way down the Darling River, to save the parched towns, farms and lakes of South Australia.

The scheme would divert the waters of the upper Clarence and Nymboida Rivers over the Great Dividing Range into the Dumaresq River, and on into the Macintyre, Barwon, and Darling Rivers, before flowing into the Murray River near Mildura, and on down to South Australia. Additionally, a nearby Macleay River project would divert water into the Gwydir River and on into the Barwon and Darling Rivers.

Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee designed the Clarence Scheme as a pump storage scheme, which can take advantage of surplus off-peak electricity to pump water over the range and into storage dams, which will then produce hydroelectricity from an annual flow of water comparable to that of the Snowy Mountains diversion.

(Professor Endersbee was Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monash University, at the end of a long career which included distinguished work on the Snowy Mountains Scheme, Tasmania’s hydro scheme, and hydroelectric schemes in Southeast Asia.)

He told a Citizens Electoral Council conference in 1997, “There is the catchment of the Clarence River and it is a wonderful little cup in there, and very steep country, high rainfall and one of the highest rainfall areas in Australia, and they get the summer rains down from the monsoons coming down and they get the winter rains as well.

“So there is a lot of rainfall there and it all flows out into the sea, and if you have been to Grafton, you know how wide the Clarence River is at Grafton. It’s a big river.

“So I have ... designed a scheme for the diversion of the Clarence into the Darling. Now ... there is a lot of algae in the Darling... This would flush all the algae out of the Darling.”

Most importantly, the Clarence River diversion would go a long way to saving the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’s food bowl, which produces 40 per cent of the national agricultural output, and comprises 75 per cent of Australia’s irrigated land.

In my opinion this is the sort of infrastructure project Australia needs.

Less flooding in new South wales and more water into the Australian Food bowl.

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2009, 09:14 PM
Makes a good deal of sense—far more than the silly $43 billion fibre-to-node boondoggle.

ElevatorEscapee
25-05-2009, 09:17 PM
There was movement at the parliament,
As the blame was passed around,
The three hundred billion debt had got away,
To join the wild John Brumby,
In the southern, swine flue, town...

(Sorry, that's all I can come up with at the moment, I'll leave it to the rest of you to complete. ;) )

William AS
26-05-2009, 12:43 AM
Once again, the Clarence River is in flood at Grafton, NSW, but if the Clarence River Scheme—which has been on the books since at least the early 1920s—had been built, that water would now be on its way down the Darling River, to save the parched towns, farms and lakes of South Australia.
Sorry David, unfortunately you are wrong, not one drop of any extra water that enters the Murray-Darling river system [or even what water enters the system now] will ever reach South Australia.

This fact has been obvious to many people for at least 25 years but not one politician has ever had the guts to admit it.

The money for such a scheme would be much better spent on the many tens [maybe hundreds] of thousands of refugees from the South Australian Riverland, Lower Murray lakes area and the areas served by water piped from the Murray, together with the people from the towns in southwestern NSW and northwestern Victoria [who are being abandoned by their own state politicians] to help them to relocate to other parts of Australia.

South Australia's politicians have very belatedly gone into panic mode to ensure that Adelaide and the mines in the north of the state are supplied with water from enormous desalination plants at Adelaide and Whyalla.

Towns like Waikerie, Barmera, Berri, Loxton, Renmark in SA, Wentworth, Euston, Balranald in NSW, Mildura, Merbien, Redcliffs, and Swan Hill in Victoria cannot be economically supplied with water from the coastal desalination plants but no politician is prepared admit this might be necessary because it is too politically damaging.

Kevin Bonham
26-05-2009, 12:58 AM
I tend to regard the favourable reception of any scheme by the CEC as extremely strong prima facie evidence of its impracticality.

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2009, 12:34 PM
I tend to regard the favourable reception of any scheme by the CEC as extremely strong prima facie evidence of its impracticality.
I wouldn't know about that, but it's surely better than the $43 billion on KRudd's telecommunications scheme.

This should really be under politics.

Capablanca-Fan
29-08-2010, 01:52 AM
Dam ironic (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dam_ironic/)
Andrew Bolt – 29 August 2010

The reason the global warmist Victorian Government gave for building not a $1.3 billion dam but a $5.7 billion desalination plant:


Unfortunately, we cannot rely on this kind of rainfall (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_water_everywhere_so_wheres_the_dam/) like we used to.

The reason the desalination plant is behind schedule:


VICTORIA’S $5.7 billion desalination plant is as much as three months behind schedule and will struggle to meet a December 2011 deadline as heavy rain (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/brumbys-giant-money-pit-20100827-13w2n.html?from=age_sb) and unforeseen environmental problems dog the project.