Climate Change

blowfly's picture
blowfly started the topic in Wednesday, 1 Jul 2020 at 9:40am

.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Thursday, 7 Oct 2021 at 5:20pm

Hutchy you are a reverse polymath. You know nothing about everything or is that everything about nothing? Probably both. Maybe spend a bit more time reading and thinking about an issue before posting.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Thursday, 7 Oct 2021 at 5:26pm

I just checked and Bairnsdale to Wonthaggi is 220 km .

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Thursday, 7 Oct 2021 at 6:07pm

Viclocal you say a Dam on the Mitchell River would be " environmentally destructive " .

I asked Bonza to name one plant that would ne negatively affected by a dam there ( not where the water would be of course ) . He said Blue Gum which I pointed out are plentiful in Oz ( In Qld also called the Red Gum ).

How about you ( or anyone else ) have a go at trying to name ONE plant .

While you are at it name ONE animal that is threatened that would be negatively affected .

I will then name 5 species of animals that are threatened and ARE affected by wind mills .

It took Bonza a few weeks to come up with Blue Gum but I would expect you to be a bit quicker .

carpetman's picture
carpetman's picture
carpetman Thursday, 7 Oct 2021 at 6:46pm

Good luck getting it past the Bonacords and other farmers in the region that rely on that water to put vegetables on your table ya numpty.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Thursday, 7 Oct 2021 at 8:59pm

As usual BB it is do as I say not as I do .

Carpet - I am not suggesting that water is stored in the dam when water flow levels are normal . The dam will fill when the river floods as I would expect most dams on rivers do .

It will stop all the damage done during a flood to farmers and other food producers properties . I would bet a lot of money that these people understand this and be massively in favour of a dam . It will be a big help to them having water in droughts to grow their vegetables . I find it hard to believe you don't get this !!!!!

As I have asked how does the type of dam you approve of fill up without being on a water way ? Also please give me ONE dams name in Vic that is NOT on a river or a regular water way .

san Guine's picture
san Guine's picture
san Guine Friday, 8 Oct 2021 at 8:08am

Here's a great idea from the National Party, I guess because it's difficult to turn a profit in big oil these days, they need all the taxpayer help they can get.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/07/liberal-mps-scorn...

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Friday, 8 Oct 2021 at 8:49am

san g - you are exactly right . Almost impossible for any small player to do well . This can be shown by looking at the share price graphs of the major oil/gas companies .

The result is what you would expect from any market . Less investment flowing their way . So the companies invest less into their businesses . Less costly exploration . Business's going broke and leaving the industry . Survival of the fittest . Only the majors will be left but they will do very well when the market eventually corrects itself as it always does so well .

Then the market usually corrects itself . Low oil prices and low exploration eventually lead to oil prices going up . There is an old adage " Nothing fixes low prices better than low prices " . The opposite happens also of course .
It is amazing how so many people don't understand how markets work as it is so simple and logical .

A problem happens when bankers decide to do something they have never done . Blackball an industry and refuse to lend them money . Bankers are not doing this because they thing it is the right thing to do ( never met a banker that thinks this way ) . They are doing it to look good for the ESG investors so they get their share prices up and get their bonuses .Not too much of a long term problem as it will end up causing the price of oil and gas to skyrocket and someone else will find .the money to invest in a very profitable project .

Maybe some idiot from the NP doesn't believe in free markets and wants to try and stop the price of oil and gas skyrocketing .

san Guine's picture
san Guine's picture
san Guine Friday, 8 Oct 2021 at 8:26am

and for some context here's what Australia spends annually on mental health (A$10.6 billion)

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mental-health-services/mental-health-ser...

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus Friday, 8 Oct 2021 at 8:49am
Hutchy 19 wrote:

Ok I was out by 100 miles . Makes no difference to anything I said . I hate the idea we are letting the fresh water from the Mitchell flow into the sea and are sucking in salt water into the de sal plant which is only 100 miles away .

The Mitchell River was low , like every other river , VicLocal . Same with all the other dams and weirs . Someone mentioned to me today that the Thompson Dam ( our most important ) is 80% full .

Sounds you are like all the other thick people who said that there is no point damming the Mitchell because the river is not flowing . Over the last 10-15 years it has probably flooded 3-5 times .

A good idea 10 years ago , especially water related , can STILL be a good idea today .

Carpetman -you say " Dams will be a component of future energy storage but as closed loop systems and not on river. "

It might take a while to fill a dam that's not on a river or some other water carriage way . How long and which dam in Vic is fed this way ?

The Mitchell has flooded approx every three years .

Blowin , couldn't let this one go thru to the keeper., and Climate must be one of your new subjects as what you are proposing is ludicrous in damming the Mitchell.

At present even in a wet La Nina event , Victoria is currently using it's desal plant for water supply for Melbourne , are you reading at the moment this will educate you on the future of water in Vic...and it's all desal and recycled water!

https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/victoria-to-rely-mo...

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Friday, 8 Oct 2021 at 9:29am

Brutus - I can't let this go through to the keeper and let Blowin take a bum rap .

"Blowin , couldn't let this one go thru to the keeper., and Climate must be one of your new subjects as what you are proposing is ludicrous in damming the Mitchell."

It was me .

Very strange that in the we La Nina cycle that the De Sal plant is running when we don't need water .

A mistake in the design that it costs so much to replace the membranes if they dry out that we run the very expensive process that produces so much CO2 .

Much better to turn it off when we have excess water and back on when the cycle changes back to El Nino in the future when we are low on this vital resource . I might be slow but that does seem sensible to me .

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus Friday, 8 Oct 2021 at 10:24am

Hutchy, you can't turn off a desal plant !

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Friday, 8 Oct 2021 at 10:26am

Helpful that after writing the above that I just read this .

"DB's credit strategist Jim Reid also chimed in, writing that "maybe in the fullness of time this surge in mining between 2010-2015 will be the exception rather than the norm and that, in a rapidly changing and ever more ESG sensitive world, it will be harder to get oil out of the ground. Pricing climate-change externalities more generally could make things more expensive over time. Are we on the verge of another change in inflation expectations due to oil and energy, one that is in large part due to ESG."

Now that the direct effects of this catastrophic policy are becoming all too apparent, and nowhere more so than in Europe where gas prices have exploded to staggering levels..."

"... more are starting to lament the rise of the "green" cult, and overnight Bloomberg's John Authers, in seeking to explain the reasons behind Europe's energy hyperinflation - because that's what it is - writes that amid the attempt to “de-carbonize” and move from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, "the problem is to make sure that sufficient carbon-rich energy remains available until renewables are able to pick up the load. That hasn’t happened."

He is right, of course, but what is worse is that while more capital is flowing to renewables, less capital is going to existing fossil fuel sources, which while perhaps on the way out (over the next 4-5 decades) still need hundreds of billions to maintain a baseline production capex, even as the virtue-signaling Blackrocks of the world seek to starve them of all growth capex.

Putting it all together, overnight Moody’s Investors Service published a report which found that oil explorers need to raise drilling budgets by 54% to more than half a trillion dollars to forestall a significant supply deficit in the next few years.

Crude and natural gas drillers - chastened by last year’s unprecedented collapse in demand and prices, as well as the ongoing capital stigma associated with anything that is "not green" - haven’t responded to the recent market rebound as the industry typically does by expanding the search for untapped fields. While international crude and U.S. gas have risen more than 50% and 120% this year, respectively, drilling outlays are only forecast to increase by 8% globally, Moody’s analysts Sajjad Alam wrote.

Needless to say, that's too little to replace what those companies will pump from the ground in 2022, setting the stage for even tighter supply scenarios. Any such squeeze would come atop the current crises afflicting Asian and European economies scrambling to shore up fuel stockpiles as winter approaches and prices seemingly break records on an almost-daily basis. It would also mean sharply higher oil prices.

"The industry will need to spend significantly more, especially if oil and gas demand keeps climbing beyond pre-pandemic levels through 2025," the Moody’s analysts wrote.

Oil and gas companies are expected to spend $352 billion on drilling and related activities this year, Moody’s said, citing estimates from the International Energy Agency. If they raised to to the credit-rating firm’s recommended $542 billion, that would be the highest worldwide since 2015. Alas, with investors terrified of looking like uncouth cavemen to the powerful ESG lobby, there is no chance they will get a number even remotely close. "

Fill up your cars and your tanks .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Friday, 8 Oct 2021 at 10:45am

Yep, we shoud have started the process of ending our reliance on fossil fuels several decades ago, so it just might hurt now we have to do it rapidly. Instead we have had a succession of pig ignorant PMs from Howard through Abbott to Morrison who were simply incapable of the intellectual flexibility necessary to accept that climate change was real and happening. So we had to put up with Morrison waving a piece of coal around the chamber as if it might achieve anything beyond confirming the impression of everyone who ever passed a HSC science subject that the man was, not only a fool, but an irresponsible one.

Now, in a month's time, we have probably the most important international conference since Yalta and what is our PM doing? Can't make up his mind whether to swallow his pride and attend to admit that he has been wrong or send someone else to cop the shit. At the same time, by his own admission, they have been unable to decide what they should say. This is way out beyond poor leadership and into complete diplomatic incompetence. When every other nation will have a well established plan with goals, the strategies to achieve them and the evidence to back up their position, what will we have? Some hotch potch cobbled together at the last minute to appease Barnabubby, and the skinny rump of climate deniers in the National Party. Fuck me! Hey, let's work out a strategy to make Australia look like a nation of smug selfish buffoons! You couldn't do a better job than the current bunch of ideologues and idiots in power in Canberra.

tonys-shirtfront's picture
tonys-shirtfront's picture
tonys-shirtfront Friday, 8 Oct 2021 at 10:47am

Fuck ur an idiot hutchy, no one agrees with your point of view

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Friday, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:02am

Well to be fair Sypkan does sometimes, but otherwise I think you have a point.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Friday, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:25am

I hope and am glad you don't Tony as it would make me REALLY worried .

Thanks for the feedback .

Vic Local's picture
Vic Local's picture
Vic Local Friday, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:46am

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.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Friday, 8 Oct 2021 at 4:29pm

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 !!!!!

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Saturday, 9 Oct 2021 at 11:28am

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 .

bonza's picture
bonza's picture
bonza Saturday, 9 Oct 2021 at 2:30pm

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...

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Saturday, 9 Oct 2021 at 3:38pm

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 .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 9 Oct 2021 at 4:10pm

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

Screen-Shot-2021-10-09-at-4-03-10-pm

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.

bonza's picture
bonza's picture
bonza Saturday, 9 Oct 2021 at 4:15pm

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.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 9 Oct 2021 at 8:55pm

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...

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 8:02am

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 .

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 10:31am

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!

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 12:01pm

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 .

GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 12:32pm

Where do you start with someone who is simultaneously wilfully ignorant and strident on in their views on such complex issues?

bonza's picture
bonza's picture
bonza Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 12:46pm
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.

tonys-shirtfront's picture
tonys-shirtfront's picture
tonys-shirtfront Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 12:46pm

Hey GS dont stress too much about it, 'hutchy' is only here to shit stir. He's a troll looking for fun

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 1:35pm

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 .

bonza's picture
bonza's picture
bonza Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 1:37pm

Already have hutch. The very 1st time you asked. But you already know that dontchya hutch.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 1:58pm

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 .

thermalben's picture
thermalben's picture
thermalben Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 2:05pm
bonza's picture
bonza's picture
bonza Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 2:15pm

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.”

bonza's picture
bonza's picture
bonza Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 2:17pm

Now did you type any of those things in your browser hutch? Of course not

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 2:21pm

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.

https://www.positivenegativeeffects.com/dams

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 2:31pm

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!

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 2:55pm

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.

bonza's picture
bonza's picture
bonza Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 3:02pm

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.

bonza's picture
bonza's picture
bonza Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 3:05pm

.

thermalben's picture
thermalben's picture
thermalben Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 3:04pm
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.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 3:05pm

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 .

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 3:28pm
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

GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 4:39pm

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 .....

Craig's picture
Craig's picture
Craig Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 4:47pm

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!"

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 4:55pm

That is truly terrifying Craig, did you see the link I posted on 4 Sigma events?

Craig's picture
Craig's picture
Craig Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 5:01pm

Oh no, I missed it. Will have a scope.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 5:16pm
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.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Sunday, 10 Oct 2021 at 5:23pm