Climate Change
Fuck ur an idiot hutchy, no one agrees with your point of view
Well to be fair Sypkan does sometimes, but otherwise I think you have a point.
I hope and am glad you don't Tony as it would make me REALLY worried .
Thanks for the feedback .
Hutchy your plan to dam the Mitchell was idiotic a decade ago, and it's even more stupid after the desalination plant was completed.
A big dam next to another big dam does absolutely nothing to diversify the water supply. There's also the problem of the Mitchell being a very long way where any water would be used. Shifting water is expensive and requires a lot of energy. The Mitchell is an important part of Gippsland lakes which is a big tourism attraction in the region.
Even if your dam the Mitchell plan improved water supply, the taxpayers are still on the line for long term contracts the government signed with the desal plant. Your plan makes absolutely no sense from and economic, environmental, or even logical perspective.
There's multiple reasons why nobody except for idiotic right wing cultural warriors are pushing the dam the Mitchell idea.
Viclocal - great that you may be able to help me get my mind around this issue that has bothered me for a long time . You seem smart and are quick with your responses which is far better than the Bozo's I have previously discussed this with .
I will start with some facts that I think we can agree on .
Water is an important resource and our planning on water has been abysmal in Australia . Victoria and Melbourne is growing quickly and we are at least a decade behind what we need now and in planning for what we need for the next 20 years .
There is only one option for large scale storage of water - dams . I don't believe water tanks that need replacing every 10 years are a good option ,
There is only one option to produce large scale water - huge de sal plants .
Dams are a political no , no since the Franklin .
When we debated water during the last mega drought the 2 options were a de sal plant or a dam . So called experts ( think Flannery ) said that there would be no rain to fill the dam . So we built a de sal plant in Wonthaggi .
As we were in desperate need the unions had the upper hand and negotiated a deal that Norm Gallagher would not even believe .
We built the plant and before we got to turn it on it rained ( actually poured and the Mitchell flooded ) .
I love the environment and don't want us to build a dam ( or anything else ) in an area that would harm important indigenous endangered flora or fauna ( ok with Mozzies ) . Or an area that has sacred sites .
De sal plants are expensive to build and run ( also create CO2 ) . The current one can't even be turned off cheaply when not needed . They also look ugly in a natural landscape .
We dammed the Thompson River and now have Melbourne's most important water storage source . I don't think anyone wants us to break the dam and everyone is rightly worried when it gets low .
We should be now planning for another de sal plant ( while we don't need it so we don't get screwed again by the unions ) or more dams .
I think our de sal plant was a mistake . To close it would cause us to loose the money we spent on it . I am never happy about wasting money but if it is long term beneficial I will accept it ( like the sub deal ) . I hated Dan the Man wasting billions cancelling a contract for road infrastructure which we did probably need .
There must be many areas like the Mitchell that could be dammed . They can be small or large dams for water use in the local areas negating pipelines to Melbourne . ( How does Gippsland get water from the de sal plant if not by pipelines ?) We don't dam the whole river so it still will be used for tourism . The dam will also attract tourists for water sports . It will also be used by the native flora and fauna by creating extra shoreline and a constant supply of water .
A dam will stop the damage done due to flooding . To homes ( can now build some on the floodplains and help with insurance ) , farms and businesses .
Everything will benefit by having the river flow normally rather than the boom or bust cycle of weather related events .
As I said dams should only be built in places that cause no long term damage . They last for hundreds of years , are low maintenance and are easy and cheap to build .
I am not the sharpest tool in the shed and am having difficulty understanding why people like the old ones but hate any new ones .
Please explain !!!!!
As my my post is the last one on this thread ( and then on the home page which is not an aspiration ) and links into the post I hope this is of interest .
"Two companies in Poland, KGHM and Synthos, are looking to get small-scale modular SMR nuclear reactors up and running in a bid to stake their claim to the future of Europe’s nuclear power. To date, over 70 companies around the world are involved in SMR nuclear reactor projects, with the popularity of small-scale nuclear business quickly expanding.
Both KGHM and Synthos are planning to work with American companies familiar with the SMR technology to advance their independent projects in Poland, in line with European Union expectations for net-zero carbon emissions within the next few decades.
Critics of the small-scale projects suggest that opponents of nuclear energy will use the same arguments as those of larger nuclear projects, that because of the cost and safety concerns around nuclear power, alternatives such as wind and solar energy projects are far more useful to invest in and will be more technologically advanced in a shorter timeframe. In addition, much of the small-scale technology still requires extensive testing to ensure its safety. However, small nuclear plants may be able to bridge the gap in energy output that wind and solar energy production faces. When there is a lull in renewable energy production, small-scale nuclear power could plug the gap in a way that is not possible for larger nuclear projects to do due to their high cost to energy value.
The next step is for countries developing the technology, such as the U.S., the U.K., and Canada, to work alongside the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and national regulators to continue testing the safety of SMR reactors and agree upon international protocols and safety procedures.
But companies like KGHM and Synthos are simply following the examples of countries like the U.K., the U.S. and France, which have been proponents of nuclear power for years and continue to back nuclear energy despite criticism over safety and potentially life-threatening failures.
Many countries are highlighting nuclear power as a necessity in a zero-carbon future, with the U.K. announcing this week that it is planning for a fossil fuel-free power grid by 2035 through the use of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy will be used by the U.K. as a back-up for renewable energy production during the energy transition period. To drive this transition, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has promised the construction of at least one large-scale nuclear project by 2025.
As some of the world’s energy leaders are showing their support for large-scale nuclear projects, some popular names are also backing the new small-scale technology. Bill Gates’ Terrapower, for example, is planning for a nuclear plant in Wyoming to be made up of small reactors that are better suited for a smaller grid system.
A major appeal of SMR reactors is that they can be factory-built and then shipped, adding more as energy demand rises. These reactors have an output of anything between 50 and 300 megawatts but can be combined to form a powerplant of up to 1,000 megawatts. Furthermore, if one of the modules breaks, it can be repaired without completely stopping operations. This reduces the environmental risk as well as the cost of the project – which is often criticized by energy companies and opponents of nuclear power.
The backing of nuclear energy by several governments, companies, and leading energy names around the world is largely due to the desire to move away from fossil fuels towards renewable alternatives and the lack of scope currently available for renewable energy production. While wind, solar, hydro, and other renewable energies have come a long way, there is still a significant road to track before the scale of these projects can meet the energy demand of 7.9 billion people worldwide.
But it’s important to remember that nuclear energy still has a bad rep. After the monumental failures of Fukushima and Chernobyl, several countries swore off nuclear power completely. Many people around the world oppose nuclear power for fear of safety issues, fighting governments who want to build new nuclear plants. But many now question if the safety concerns, for both people and the environment, are any worse than those we face because of continued oil and gas use. As the energy transition becomes unavoidable, proponents of nuclear power are likely to remind us of this comparison and the need for something beyond renewable energy projects to bridge the gap. "
Source - Zerohedge .
Still keeping you awake at night I see hutch. I wish I could hug you. Did they drop you as a baby?
It’s all good mate. Your irrigator mates are being looked after by the public purse for their private gain.
Dams are continuing to be built across the basin hutch. Just not for the public.
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/dam-shame-the-new-dams-politician...
Thanks for the link Bonza . Interesting . A very quick response as you asked me a question .
It seems the problem with these dams are they are privately owned and paid for by the public .
That's wrong as you said . If there is a good case for a private dam eg employment the money can be LENT by the government at reasonable terms like the Northern Austrian Infrastructure Fund does .Even if paid for with private money they should not be allowed to hold back river flow in time of drought . Dams should be regulated to ENSURE continuous flow at all times .
Then , as the article points out , they help increase food production , provide jobs to regional communities and store water for times when needed . I agree with the article about the need for a Royal Commission .
No flora and fauna damage as I have so often pointed out .
I will ask my mum tomorrow about being dropped . Sleeping well .
This came out a few days ago.
“A 90-fold increase in the frequency of monthly heat extremes in the past ten years compared to 1951-1980 has been found by scientists in observation data. Their analysis reveals that so-called 3-sigma heat events, which deviate strongly from what is normal in a given region, now on average affect about 9 percent of all land area at any time. Record daily rainfall events also increased in a non-linear way -- on average, 1 in 4 rainfall records in the last decade can be attributed to climate change. Already today, extreme events linked to human-caused climate change are at unprecedented levels, the scientists say, and they must be expected to increase further.”
From:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211007122218.htm
Original Paper here
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00202-w
a Percent of the global land area with monthly temperatures above different sigma-thresholds in any calendar month (averaged over the year). b Global annual mean series (1880−2020) of the ratio of observed local monthly temperature records on land compared to those expected in a stationary climate. The thick black line shows the trend with a 10-yr smoothing window, and the magenta line and shading show the median and 90% confidence interval for the statistical model driven by the long-term global warming trend over land and Gaussian noise. c Deviation series (1950−2016) of the observed number of local daily-rainfall records aggregated over the year and global land areas (in percentage with respect to that expected in a stationary climate). The black line shows the long-term trend. Blue shading shows the 90% confidence interval for a stationary climate.
Dams don’t make more water hutch. Rain does. And thanks to climate change which you don’t beieve in, in the southern parts of the basin at least it’s getting drier and hotter and whe it does it rain it’s high intensity cloud bursts coupled usually with those terrifying dry lightening events that have your phone beep like a IC unit. So less rain in winter and more rain in summer when it’s bloody hot and rate of evaporation is huge. Dams don’t make sense unless you are appealing to the corporate irrigator vote.
The Angoose achieves a world first by arguing with business when they want to increase tax.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/this-is-a-carbon-tax-angus-taylo...
Bonza - you have said exactly the same to me before - "Dams don’t make more water hutch. Rain does. And thanks to climate change which you don’t beieve in," .
I will try and repeat what I replied ( for the last time ) . Der Fred . Everyone knows dams don't make water . You might also be interested that the water on earth didn't originally come from rain . Water came from from icy comets and asteroids . Water also now comes from the ground .
"New research more than doubles the estimated volume of ancient, salty groundwater stored deep within Earth's crust. ... A new study estimates there are around 20 million cubic kilometers of deep groundwater, or enough to fill around 4,800 Grand Canyons." Google
Everyone also knows that the climate has changed since the dawn of time . It still does and always will .
Other points you make show why more dams are just common sense . "getting drier and hotter and when it does it rain it’s high intensity ". We need dams to reduce the damage from floods and to store the water for when its dry .
I don't believe for a second that dams are no good as they evaporate in summer . A stupid thing to use in a no dam policy . It doesn't negate the the vital role of the Thompson dam in Vic . Someone said to me that it stores 60% of Vic's water ( I haven't checked this ) and said Vic dams are currently 85% FULL .
Hutchy , any river , anywhere that gets dammed , has huge negative impacts on the Flaura and Fauna upstream and down stream!
The fact that climate models show Australia is going to be a drier country not wetter , means chances of filling dams very remote......
We already have a desal plant that costs taxpayers a fortune to keep it running 24/7.....the easiest and most practical is to hook up the dams to our desal plant , and just keep them full all the time....practical and the cheapest way for water to be delivered to all our storages.
In the last drought , when the panic set in that Melbourne would the first big city to run out of water....we built a pipeline to bring water from the Murray river to Melbourne for a cost of $750m...it was never used!
Brutus - name one plant or animal that has been hurt by the Thompson Dam ( our biggest ) and not where the actual dam is . I could name many that would benefit from the huge body of water and its shoreline .
I really hope you can show me why our current dams and any new dams have any negative effect on a river upstream and downstream . The river will change in one small ( or big ) place but if managed correctly will cause steady and healthy flows to happen in both droughts and floods .
You say -"The fact that climate models show Australia is going to be a drier country not wetter , means chances of filling dams very remote......" Exactly the same argument when we decided to build the de sal plant .
All our rivers have flooded since this knee jerk decision was made and any new new dam/s would have filled and be 85% full now . We shouldn't put any new water in a dam until we have excess water . The main aim should be to ensure a rivers health . A permanent water supply and not needing to spend money converting sea water to drinking water is a secondary benefit .
We wouldn't then have to spend a fortune of tax payers money to have the plant running 24/7 , producing CO2 , when we don't need it .
I think Perth and or Adelaide , not Melbourne ,were predicted to be the first cities to run out of water .
Another VERY dud prediction that has cost both the tax payer and environment a fortune .
Where do you start with someone who is simultaneously wilfully ignorant and strident on in their views on such complex issues?
GuySmiley wrote:Where do you start with someone who is simultaneously wilfully ignorant and strident on in their views on such complex issues?
As most of us have I guess. In good faith. All these things have been explained to hutch before but he’s not here for the answers. He’s here to pick a fight. I suppose everybody needs a hobby.
Hey GS dont stress too much about it, 'hutchy' is only here to shit stir. He's a troll looking for fun
You guys are a complete waste of space ! I am extremely happy to change my views if someone , ANYONE , can please show me what damage the current dams and any new dam actually do !!!!!!!!!
Many rivers around the world have natural lakes on them . Aren't they all fantastic ?
I have repeatedly asked for one plant or animal that has been affected by ANY dam in Victoria . The only answer I have received is from Bonza and he said Blue Gum ( WTF ). There are no fish I know of in Victoria that swim from sea to the top of a river to spawn . If there are any then I agree don't dam that river or do something that stops it being a problem . What does the USA do to stop this being an issue ?
You guys are unwilling and I know unable to give me any reason why dams are an ecological problem !
Surely there is someone on SN that will tell my why ,a very well managed , Dam is a problem ????
Come on Viclocal or perhaps Craig , you guys are smart . Anyone , PLEASE !
I may be strange but when someone tells me there is a problem with something I ask why . From experience I just don't automatically believe what someone tells me .
Already have hutch. The very 1st time you asked. But you already know that dontchya hutch.
Bonza - PLEASE let me know the date you sent it and I will have a look . I honestly can not remember reading ANYthing on this thread to help me change my view .
If you want you can repost it . If I don't get it from you I will look back myself and respond .
Here ya go Hutchy, this is for entree.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/endangered-species-conservatio...
https://www.swellnet.com/comment/750122
Thursday 5 august
“Ha! was it hard to understand "every fish" in australian freshwater streams?
Murray Cod, Trout Cod, Golden Perch, Macquarie Perch (Maccas - my fav), Silver Perch, a number of gudgeons, several Galaxis. Murray Spiny Cray and many other crayfish, dragonflies, stoneflies, mayflies, and aquatic worms and the mighty red gum.
now go take your wonderful research skills. and type this in your browser.
artificial flow regimes, cold water pollution, flooding of riparian vegetation, and loss of habitat related to instream barriers e.g. Dams
educated yet? I doubt it. .
sorry to hijack the thread. last breath i'll waste on Hutch.”
Now did you type any of those things in your browser hutch? Of course not
Hutchy, read this and why your call for more dams , is a very damning indication of your climate credentials?
https://www.dw.com/en/five-ways-mega-dams-harm-the-environment/a-53916579
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/dams/
then read this , how dams are stopping sand replenishment Globally....so less beaches , there are negatives and positives for dams.
Hutchy says "You guys are a complete waste of space ! I am extremely happy to change my views if someone , ANYONE , can please show me what damage the current dams and any new dam actually do !!!!!!!!!"
Hutchy , I know I am not very smart or intelligent , but did you try and google the questions about what damage dams do to the environment/economy/lifestyle ?
I have posted above from my googling......actualy just realized , relative to you I actually might have 2 brain cells and not 1 as originally thought, LOL!
Yeah sure you cant put dams or reservoirs anywhere, they need to be located in the correct area and well planned and well managed, but it's pretty clear that Australia could do with more water storage even with desal plants, so much fresh water ends up in the ocean when it could be better used. (and yeah lets not even get into the private water use issue)
This black and white view on the issue is pretty crazy, each proposal needs to be judged individually.
Yeah there can be environmental problems, but there can also be environmental benefits especially when you create a new water catchment area, also benefits to the communities too through things like tourism attracting day trippers to the area, bird life etc
And once again, yes these things need to be planned and done properly so they dont effect other's too much especially when damming a river.
Anyway we are luckily we have the dams and reservoirs we have now and the hydro energy we have too especially in places like Tasmania, if it was up to the greens we wouldn't have any Hydro at all, then there is pumped hydro, wouldn't be surprised if people even opposed some of these in the future too.
This article is an oldie but highly relevant and it explains it well
https://theconversation.com/dams-are-not-the-smart-way-to-secure-water-f...
The furphy about loss of freshwater to the sea is simply that. Not true. The water is not lost. It contains organic material and nutrient that our fisheries are dependent on. Also farmers.
I’ve said that before.
Second. It is considered that habitat loss is the single greatest threat to biodiversity.. made worse now by climate change. building new large scale dams significantly reduce habitat for both in stream and terrestrial animals.
Lastly. As I said earlier. New dams are being built in haste. Funded by the taxpayer to benefit the corporate irrigator.
.
indo-dreaming wrote:(and yeah lets not even get into the private water use issue
Please, let's.
It's a scandal.
Here's a good starting point.
Thanks Brutus , I will read the posts . After I mentioned VLocal as a smart person I really did think I should have mentioned you Brutus . Speaking of smart glad to see you contributing on the thread Ino
Not trying to suck up to either of you mind you . ha ha .
indo-dreaming wrote:Yeah sure you cant put dams or reservoirs anywhere, they need to be located in the correct area and well planned and well managed, but it's pretty clear that Australia could do with more water storage even with desal plants, so much fresh water ends up in the ocean when it could be better used. (and yeah lets not even get into the private water use issue)
This black and white view on the issue is pretty crazy, each proposal needs to be judged individually.
Yeah there can be environmental problems, but there can also be environmental benefits especially when you create a new water catchment area, also benefits to the communities too through things like tourism attracting day trippers to the area, bird life etc
And once again, yes these things need to be planned and done properly so they dont effect other's too much especially when damming a river.
Anyway we are luckily we have the dams and reservoirs we have now and the hydro energy we have too especially in places like Tasmania, if it was up to the greens we wouldn't have any Hydro at all, then there is pumped hydro, wouldn't be surprised if people even opposed some of these in the future too.
Indo , try reading this which has the negatives and positives of dams...then we can have a discussion ?
https://www.positivenegativeeffects.com/dams
Jebus, am I the only one here with a good memory? ...... just another right agenda “discussion point” introduced, today, by hutchy and previously raised several times in the past by info and for what purpose?
Coincidence? Me thunks not, still on the positive side of things the village where these two have come from will be eternally grateful to SN .....
Forgot to post this last week. And after those devastating fires.
"Italy... a new European record. A whopping 740.6mm (29.2 inches) of rain in just 12 hours!"
Italy... a new European record.
— Scott Duncan (@ScottDuncanWX) October 5, 2021
A whopping 740.6mm (29.2 inches) of rain in just 12 hours!
Italy set a new national record for rainfall in 6-hours and then went on to break the European record for 12-hour totals.
This is the satellite loop over the last 36 hours. pic.twitter.com/YJeZ2soEdE
That is truly terrifying Craig, did you see the link I posted on 4 Sigma events?
Oh no, I missed it. Will have a scope.
brutus wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Yeah sure you cant put dams or reservoirs anywhere, they need to be located in the correct area and well planned and well managed, but it's pretty clear that Australia could do with more water storage even with desal plants, so much fresh water ends up in the ocean when it could be better used. (and yeah lets not even get into the private water use issue)
This black and white view on the issue is pretty crazy, each proposal needs to be judged individually.
Yeah there can be environmental problems, but there can also be environmental benefits especially when you create a new water catchment area, also benefits to the communities too through things like tourism attracting day trippers to the area, bird life etc
And once again, yes these things need to be planned and done properly so they dont effect other's too much especially when damming a river.
Anyway we are luckily we have the dams and reservoirs we have now and the hydro energy we have too especially in places like Tasmania, if it was up to the greens we wouldn't have any Hydro at all, then there is pumped hydro, wouldn't be surprised if people even opposed some of these in the future too.
Indo , try reading this which has the negatives and positives of dams...then we can have a discussion ?
https://www.positivenegativeeffects.com/dams
It's started out good the intro was good but i think they should have included much more positive points, because there is many more, some very obvious like the big three.
1. The whole purpose of dams: to catch and store water for when we need it, dams are basically just a bank for water, this is a huge positive.
2. To store energy or provide energy, another huge positive.
3. Economical benefit to communities through attracting people to an area through things like recreation boating, fishing, day trippers etc
Most things in life have a positive and negative, it's about finding that balance, you weigh them up and sometimes the positives outweigh the negatives, sometimes the negatives outweigh the positives.
For instance it wouldn't be a good idea to flood and dam a valley where a certain rare animal or plant only lives or rock art by indigenous people etc, but if it was forrest or farm land that was not overly significant and the region was in need of water and the dam was going to be viable, then it would make sense.
It's all about common sense and balance, rather than a black and white, dams are good or dams are bad type attitude.
GuySmiley wrote:Jebus, am I the only one here with a good memory? ...... just another right agenda “discussion point” introduced, today, by hutchy and previously raised several times in the past by info and for what purpose?
Coincidence? Me thunks not, still on the positive side of things the village where these two have come from will be eternally grateful to SN .....
Im not sure what you are suggesting, but if you are suggesting im Hutchy that at least two others have implied, then sorry you are wrong, i dont have that much spare time and i dont share all his views, if anyone think we are one person and has an idea on how to prove we aren't, im happy to prove that we are seperate individuals and i have no connection to him.
In regard to this discussion, i dont know who brought it up but it wasn't me and although im happy too share my view, its really not a topic i have much interest or passion in.
Anyway back to your trolling.
#there'salwaysacomment
GuySmiley wrote:#there'salwaysacomment
Yeah there is and that pointless off topic troll comment seems to now be you, which is shame like Sypkan mentioned the other day you actually use to have something to add to the conversation, even if it was rarely anything i agreed with, but now you think you are clever trying to be a Facto re-hash with lame one liners dissing people, memes and hash tags (at least Facto post links and others opinions), you know for everyone that has been here for years it's just makes you look really lame because we all know you never use to do it before and only started doing it once facto did like a 12 year old boy in class copying the naughty kid thinking its somehow cool.
Anyway im going to do my best to not get in a back and forth with you cause it's pretty boring but happy to debate or discuss the topic being discussed with you or anyone else.
A great site for assessing the impact of climate change on specific weather events.
@info Your lack of self awareness and odious and all too predictable views on most issues means I have zero interest in engaging you in any meaningful way.
Bonza - thanks for posting your original post !!!!!
I see I was very wrong and you did say Red Gum . Sincere apologies for repeatedly saying the WRONG thing .
The Red Gum ( also known as Blue Gum - I finally have it the right way round ) is in no way endangered and I find it impossible to believe it can't be successfully regrown . If a dam was to drown a major Old growth forest I would have reservations .
I will check on each fish but believe you are sending me on a wild goose chase . Do any of them actually live in the Mitchell River which is were this conversation started . None of them , I think , travel huge distances to spawn either .
Thanks Ben also . High time I did some serious research on this issue .
Thought of something earlier after getting tired of the back and forth.(I don't think new dams are good ideas btw).
Considered checking the wave pool thread when I thought, imagine putting a wave generating device in a dam. Can't remember ever seeing the concept discussed on here. Think of the possibilities. Imagine a beefed up version of kelly's train chugging across a lake. Install floating solar panels on the surface (in deeper water where waves won't be a problem) to ease water loss through evaporation and provide some power. Armour the shoreline with rocks and gravel to create waves and prevent / ease erosion and turbidity. Gov funded, instead of throwing money at the WSL, surfrider, HPC etc, and open for free or a small fee to the public.
That's my dumb idea of the day haha
More big announcements by twiggy , I wonder if Fatboy will get on board and ditch his coal mine dreams . https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/fortescue-unveils-p...
I have read all the links provided and did some research of my own.
Humans have used dams for thousands of years ( Jawa Dam 4C BCE ) and also transported water ( eg Roman aqueducts ) for thousands of years .
As we all know water is humans most important resource and is needed every day .
The positives of dam are obvious . Store water for drinking , growing food and recreation . Provide a habitat for plants and animals . They also greatly reduce the potential damage of flooding and create energy by hydro or turbines .
Existing water infrastructure requires a Royal Commision to ensure improvement and eliminate abuse and bad practices . This is urgently required !
Some negatives of dams are well known . They can displace humans , plants and animals . They also can submerge sacred sites .
Victoria largest ( mega ) dam the Thompson was built over 100 years ago . It stores 70% of Melbourne's water and provides 30% of our daily needs .
Other negatives of dams can be the effect on river flow , sedimentation flow , deforestation and fish movements .
A well managed dam eg Thompson mitigates most negatives . Diversion Tunnels have been built . Victorian Fisheries release fingerlings .
Thomson Reservoir harvests most of the flow from the upper catchment of Carran Carran (Thomson River) and has a significant effect on the flow in all downstream reaches. The natural flow from the Aberfeldy River, which meets Carran Carran (Thomson River) below Thomson Reservoir, is essential for providing natural freshes and high flows in Carran Carran (Thomson River).
Water for the environment is held in the Thomson Reservoir and released into the river as required. Reach 3 of Carran Carran (Thomson River) (from the Aberfeldy River confluence to Cowwarr Weir) is the highest priority for environmental watering due to its heritage river status, high- value native streamside vegetation, high-quality in-stream habitat and low abundance of exotic fish species.
At Cowwarr Weir, Carran Carran (Thomson River) splits into the old Carran Carran (Thomson River) course (reach 4a) and Rainbow Creek (reach 4b) (see system map below). Passing flows throughout the year are split two-thirds down reach 4a and one-third down 4b to avoid impacts to irrigators located on Rainbow Creek. Water for the environment is primarily delivered to the old Carran Carran (Thomson River) course (reach 4a) to support fish migration because Cowwarr Weir impedes fish movement through Rainbow Creek.
Source VEWH.vic .
Looking at an angling site shows that the river system is thriving . No negatives to plants or animals .
This is a mega dam . Victoria probably only needs one of these . Perhaps better to have 5-10 smaller ones built to reduce the need for pipelines and pumping .
The sites I was referred to are all so light weight !!!! Mostly written by authors with a bias . The Metong dam COULD reduce species by 40% being an example . Anything could happen ! One site said dams have a limited life span due to silt building up . Well the Thomson is still going strong and is having money spent on it by the Vic government to ensure this continues .
I guarantee the de sal plant is not working in a 100 years .
A site said evaporation from dams can cause climate change . FFS the Thompson is 85% FULL now so how evaporation is affecting that and causing our climate to change I have no idea .
Another site said dams are bad because they stop logs floating down a river and stopping nice pools from forming . Really amature hours wasted writing this garbage . Who would believe this !
Proper cost / benefit analysis has NEVER been done .
EVERYTHING I have read reinforces my thought the dams are good . ANYONE who would not seriously consider building new ones in the right places have a bias and will not look at the facts .
My initial thoughts after doing limited research .
No worries Hutch. well done for reading into some of the topics and links that were sent to you.
I'm not sure anyone here is arguing the positives that dams have brought historically for energy, economy and storage. The argument is what is the cost benefit to building new dams is in the current times.
Its clear you think the benefits outweigh the costs. Its clear I don't. i guess that's that.
Not sure what link you got re the logs. but in response I can offer the following from an Australia context. Native hardwood in our waterways are a good thing as they act as natural grade control structure to slow water down that limits the damage of flooding. they also create those deeper pools by scouring out the bed, which are really important habitat in freshwater streams that act as areas of refuge, shelter and areas of ambush for many of our instream critters.
lastly - while dams may help prevent damage from those minor 3-5 year flooding events they wont protect you from the big ones 1 in 100 events - unless of course you make them bigger which then becomes incredibly expensive. Further more by stopping those 3-5 year events you actually disconnect the waterways from the flooplains which also increases the drying effect across our landscape as well as the loss of valuable organic material needed for productivity.
you may think that's stupid. its just a bit more added context to a complex issue.
Bonza - I don't think what you have written above is stupid .
I read all the links that were provided and the issue of the logs and pools were in one of them .
Would hope that logs would still fall in the river upstream and downstream of a dam creating the habitats needed . I would also hope dams could mitigate the effects of a mega flood . If we had enough of them we should be able to have them to be empty enough . Also if we followed Craig's predictions on La Nina's and proactively drain them ( creating a mini flood ) when getting too full this should help .
I really think if really well researched (eg old growth forests ) and really well managed ( Thompson Dam management must be giving us a lot of new knowledge ) Dams are a better option than building another couple of mega de sal plants .
We need to do a much better job with our current water ( Royal Commission ) and desperately need to plan for our current and future water needs .
Another Mega drought is coming and we so unprepared .
Hutchy....there are so many more people now than when dams were first built.....dams devastate eco systems, which are super fragile.....and there is probably not enough rain now to fill a dam....there are plans for the future...grey/recycled water...and water from desal plants....already locked in!
Not sure what Mega Floods we are going to have in Vic , we are seriously due for a drought soon , and as we are in a La Nina , this as wet as it gets...and we are still using desal plant water now....
Brutus - All the reading I was given by people like you and the example of the Thompson dam shows that our mega dam does NOT devastate eco systems . In fact the opposite .
You keep saying there is not enough water to fill new dams . You should know that you are wrong . If we built a new dam at the time we built the de sal plant it would be 85% full like all our other dams . If it was on the Mitchell River there has been 3-5 floods in that time . One flood would probably fill it .
We are using water and creating CO2 from the de sal plant NOW because it is too expensive to turn the bloody thing off . Our dams are 85% full , we don't NEED the water from the de sal NOW .
I know no matter what I write ( which you don't read as I have already said all this before ) you will not open your mind . A pity . Why don't you come out and say we need another 2 de sal plants to be ready for the next mega drought . If we don't build any dams we will need them .
We have no floods in Vic that I know of so it isn't as wet as it gets . Rainfall is close to average .
Maybe you are saying we won't have any more floods ? I guarantee you will be wrong .
.