The Forum > Article Comments > Pure water wasted > Comments
Pure water wasted : Comments
By Patrick Troy, published 23/2/2007Households and businesses should harvest and treat much of their own water.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by Perseus, Sunday, 25 February 2007 10:08:00 PM
| |
We have a lot of agreement here Perseus.
Small towns that have declined or are declining in population may not be sustainable. Many of them could do with a bit of a population boost. But only to a limited extent. “The bush needs more people, the bush wants more people and the bush has the capacity for more people.” Generally true. But of course, people just generally don’t want to go to the bush! How would you implement a program that would decentralise people from water-stressed cities to country towns that could do with the extra people, on a scale that would significantly alleviate population pressure in those cities and significantly help rural communities across the country? If things get really ugly in SEQ or Sydney, etc, people will move to smaller growth centres along the coast, not to Hughenden or Longreach. If we were to implement the Bradfield Scheme and open up the western plains of Qld, it would attract a lot of people. But that would only help a small number of existing towns, and would be done at huge environmental cost and indeed at huge and unviable economic expense. A reshuffling of government from the three-tier system to a two-tier system with Federal and regional governments is in itself not going to achieve anything. As much as I like the idea of a two-tiered system, it won’t be the answer. A fundamental shift in policy is needed, and that can happen within the current governmental setup just as easily as it could within some large-scale (and very disruptive and expensive) reshuffling of the system. Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 26 February 2007 5:34:45 PM
| |
Perseus, what do think of my comments on water tanks:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=437#860 Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 26 February 2007 5:42:33 PM
| |
Interesting thread. A tank at about three feet above the toilet could
be filled by the washing machine and the shower as suggested by Persius could be saved and pumpted up. The washing machine would not need an extra pump as its own would do nicely. A rainwater tank could divert into the toilet tank when it was full. The biggest cost would be getting at the underfloor pipes of the shower. I can't understand what the objection to desalination is all about. After all if the rainfall supply gets that low then it has to be a lot cheaper than moving Sydney or Brisbane. Posted by Bazz, Monday, 26 February 2007 5:43:46 PM
| |
Desalination is about three times as costly in terms of power usage as reusing waste water.
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 26 February 2007 6:03:10 PM
| |
Ahh yes VK3AUU but first catch your water to recycle.
The cost difference may not be that great after all like desal recycled water has to be pumpted also. How much would it cost to move Sydney ? That is what would have to be done if we keep on as it is at present. de Bazza Posted by Bazz, Monday, 26 February 2007 6:17:12 PM
|
Yes, population growth is excessive in the metropolitan centres and needs to be stabilised but to apply that policy accross the board to country towns that have too little growth is not "sustainable", it is silly. We have already had a gutfull of "what the city wants, the bush gets too" policies.
The bush needs more people, the bush wants more people and the bush has the capacity to have more people. The cities don't need any more people, the city dwellers don't want more people and the cities don't have the capacity to have more people.
And self governing regions will maintain economic growth for the entire nation while limiting growth in the cities. They are in everyone's interest.