For those in SEQld. Rally to protest the proposed Traverston Crossing
Dam. Fwd to your contacts. Information from the attached flyer:
The Qld Labor Party is holding its State Convention at the Gold Coast
Convention Centre on June 21,22. Kevin "I'm here to help" Rudd will be
there.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
* Brisbane and SEQ want (and are entitled to) the cheapest source of
100% reliable water.
* The politicians must provide it in a way that is environmentally
and economically responsible.
* There is an overwhelming body of evidence that, along with present
storages, the demand for water can be met from non-rainfall
dependent methods such as desalination using renewable energy
sources, combined with water saving methods such as storm water
harvesting, recycling of waste water, responsible water usage from
household and industry, and installation of water saving devices.
A dam approved at Traveston Crossing, even with conditions, however
strictly phrased or enforced, fails these requirements. It destroys
productive farmland, unique animal species, fisheries, AND COSTS MORE!
Just one desalination plant can provide the water that the Qld Govt say
they will take from the Mary. It will cost less, it will be 100%
reliable, and it will pose no threat to the Lungfish, Mary River Turtle,
or to the rare and endangered species of the Great Sandy Straits.
This plant can be powered from renewable energy sources. WA currently
has a desal plant powered by a wind farm.
Otherwise Qld converts this beautiful productive working river into the
mess that is the Murray.
This alternative is unthinkable. Why would you do it when it is not even
necessary?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fwd: URGENT - RALLY INFO - SEND TO ALL NETWORKS NOW
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:25:29 +1000
From: MARY RIVER <savethemaryriver@...>
To: MARYRIVER <savethemaryriver@...>
References: <785075.31887.qm@...>
Hello supporters of the beautiful Mary River wherever you are........
THE NEXT MONTH OR SO IS CRITICAL FOR THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE PROPOSED
TC DAM.
Attached is the first piece of information regarding a rally at the
State Labor Conference on June 21. Your contribution at this time is
crucial, because the Federal Government is about to assess the Qld Govt
Environmental Impact Statement EIS.
WE NEED EVERYONE TO HELP IN SOME WAY - HOWEVER SMALL - HERE'S SOME
IDEAS. (Contact numbers on the attached flyer).
* Best of all attend our rally - by our bus or car pool with friends
* Spread the word about the rally - by email, phone, post, get some
flyers from us and letterbox 50 houses in your area. Get others to
use the pyramid selling technique to help the campaign expand.
* Write letters to newspapers and politicians - more details coming
on this one.
* Hand your copy of the newsletter around (out soon).
* Send our postcards to your friends - let us know if you need them.
* Man our stall for an hour or two (we will set it up and train you
- it's easy!)
* Ring talkback radio wih our message (see flyer) - more help coming
on the basic points we need to get across.
* Send us your slogans for the rally.
Join the forum for up to date news.
tell as many people about the website as possible
If you would like to be removed from this mailing list please respond
with subject REMOVE. Thanks
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Recycling of grey water is a far far better option than de-salination -
most Australian cities now operate on a greater or lesser amount of
re-cycled water. The energy costs are far less than de-salination - The
Californian cities of LosAngeles Orange County (Irvine, Santa Anna, Tustin
etc) are now not only purifying the effluent (to a better standard than
drinking water - but they are pumping it back into the aquifers to
re-charge them). If they can do it - so can all Australian cities and
towns. (see - http:/www.discovermagazine.com 'better water' May 2008.
The 'Yuk' factor is a serious 'con' foisted by people who ought to know better.
De-salination requires very significant energy expenditures - which in our
regions are provided by coal burning power stations..global warming anyone??
go figure
Hugh.
>For those in SEQld. Rally to protest the proposed Traverston Crossing
>Dam. Fwd to your contacts. Information from the attached flyer:
>
>The Qld Labor Party is holding its State Convention at the Gold Coast
>Convention Centre on June 21,22. Kevin "I'm here to help" Rudd will be
>there.
>
>BACKGROUND INFORMATION
>
> * Brisbane and SEQ want (and are entitled to) the cheapest source of
> 100% reliable water.
> * The politicians must provide it in a way that is environmentally
> and economically responsible.
> * There is an overwhelming body of evidence that, along with present
> storages, the demand for water can be met from non-rainfall
> dependent methods such as desalination using renewable energy
> sources, combined with water saving methods such as storm water
> harvesting, recycling of waste water, responsible water usage from
> household and industry, and installation of water saving devices.
>
>
>A dam approved at Traveston Crossing, even with conditions, however
>strictly phrased or enforced, fails these requirements. It destroys
>productive farmland, unique animal species, fisheries, AND COSTS MORE!
>
>Just one desalination plant can provide the water that the Qld Govt say
>they will take from the Mary.
??????
It will cost less, it will be 100%
>reliable, and it will pose no threat to the Lungfish, Mary River Turtle,
>or to the rare and endangered species of the Great Sandy Straits.
>This plant can be powered from renewable energy sources. WA currently
>has a desal plant powered by a wind farm.
>
>Otherwise Qld converts this beautiful productive working river into the
>mess that is the Murray.
>This alternative is unthinkable. Why would you do it when it is not even
>necessary?
>
>
I thought this exchange might be of interest. It regards the call for a
desal plant as part of the campaign to save the Mary River. My query was
directed to the savethemaryriver campaign group, and the reply, from Steve
Burgess.
Cheers,
Kamala
*****************************
just a query about the proposed alternative to damming the Mary River. (I'm
not in favour of the dam, just not up on all the issues.)
enviro activists in other states are opposing desalination plants because
(among a range of reasons) of the adverse impact of the brine effluent (ie
the discharge of highly concentrated seawater).
Proponents of the desal plant underway in NSW claim it will be powered by
renewables, but I've heard it may turn out to be a small percentage, bought
from interstate or something and may still result in CO2 emissions from
fossil fuel burning.
My point is: are there really proposals for a desal plant that should be
supported on environmental grounds? Mightn't it be possible to meet needs
for water without recourse to a desal plant?
In solidarity,
Kamala Emanuel
****************************
Kamala
there is no simple answer to providing a sustainable water supply for a
community. Each situation needs to be looked at specifically, looking at
all options, and coming up with a response that honestly tries to provide
the most reliable supply, while doing the least social and environmental
damage.
Obviously, options that actually improve social and environmental outcomes
should come first - like water efficiency measures, recycling, urban
rainwater and stormwater management. Some of these will take some time to
implement, but there are huge opportunity for these to be integrated into
the future urban growth which is being used to justify the Traveston Dam.
These measures are also likely to be comparatively reliable in the face of
future climate change
In the shorter term, the Western Corridor recycling scheme and the Tugan
desal plant look set to provide a water surplus for SEQ under 'normal'
conditions for another decade or so. There is plenty of time to consider
better alternative to damming the upper Mary Catchment and transfering that
water out of the catchment into SEQ. Under continued drought conditions,
Traveston Crossing does not provide any useful water at all to SEQ.
In this particular case - an appropriately located desal plant is actually a
far less environmentally damaging than the current proposals for the Mary
Valley, has far less social impact, costs less, uses a similar amount of
energy, produces less greenhouse emmission, can be completed more quickly
and would be a much more reliable water source. This does not mean that all
desal plants are better than dams, it just means that the Traveston Crossing
proposal is a really really bad option on all counts.
Many people don't think clearly about the salinity impacts. A desal plant
will raise the salinity of the water body it draws its water from, because
it extracts freshwater and leaves the salt behind. However it only extracts
the amount of freshwater that is consumed. Traveston dam is proposed for
inter-basin transfer. That means that none of the water extracted from the
dam ever gets to flow into the Great Sandy Straits and Hervey Bay. On top
of that, the dam is very inefficient and loses a lot of water to evaporation
and seepage. So providing 70 billion lites of water via Traveston Crossing,
removes more than 110 billion litres of freshwater from the Ramsar Wetlands
and World heritage areas of the Great Sandy Strait. The salinity impacts of
the dam on these coastal waters far exceeds the salinity impacts that would
result from a desal plant to provide the same amount of water.
Additionally, Traveston Crossing is a long way from the urban demand, and
every tonne of that water needs to be pumped about 150 km to supply urban
water to Brisbane - the energy and greenhouse implications of this are
similar to that of a desal plant. However, the surface of Traveston is also
expected to make a very significant additional greenhouse contribution from
methane emissions. A desal plant might occupy about 6 ha of non arable land
- Traveston would inundate more than 7000 ha of fertile class A arable land,
close to a major city. Traveston and the associated pipeline will cost more
than 2.5 billion, and involves relocating and reconstructing roads, towns
and communities. A desal plant of similar capacity can be constructed
in less than three years for about 1.5 billion with far less social
dislocation.
I am not a supporter of desal plants as a solution to poor urban planning
and unsustainable growth. In many cases there will be better options.
However, the Traveston Crossing dam is a far far worse option than a well
designed and located desal plant.
Thanks for your interest.
If you want to help save the Mary River - please distribute this reply as
widely as possible among friends and networks. I know many 'green' people
are offended by the suggestion of desal as an alternative to
Traveston. However, as I said before, there is no simple 'blanket' answer
when it comes to water supply options - each case needs to be looked at on
its merits.
Steve Burgess
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 8:52 PM, hugh spencer <Hugh@...> wrote:
>
>
> Recycling of grey water is a far far better option than de-salination -
> most Australian cities now operate on a greater or lesser amount of
> re-cycled water. The energy costs are far less than de-salination - The
> Californian cities of LosAngeles Orange County (Irvine, Santa Anna, Tustin
> etc) are now not only purifying the effluent (to a better standard than
> drinking water - but they are pumping it back into the aquifers to
> re-charge them). If they can do it - so can all Australian cities and
> towns. (see - http:/www.discovermagazine.com 'better water' May 2008.
>
> The 'Yuk' factor is a serious 'con' foisted by people who ought to know
> better.
>
> De-salination requires very significant energy expenditures - which in our
> regions are provided by coal burning power stations..global warming
> anyone??
>
> go figure
>
> Hugh.
>
>
> >For those in SEQld. Rally to protest the proposed Traverston Crossing
> >Dam. Fwd to your contacts. Information from the attached flyer:
> >
> >The Qld Labor Party is holding its State Convention at the Gold Coast
> >Convention Centre on June 21,22. Kevin "I'm here to help" Rudd will be
> >there.
> >
> >BACKGROUND INFORMATION
> >
> > * Brisbane and SEQ want (and are entitled to) the cheapest source of
> > 100% reliable water.
> > * The politicians must provide it in a way that is environmentally
> > and economically responsible.
> > * There is an overwhelming body of evidence that, along with present
> > storages, the demand for water can be met from non-rainfall
> > dependent methods such as desalination using renewable energy
> > sources, combined with water saving methods such as storm water
> > harvesting, recycling of waste water, responsible water usage from
> > household and industry, and installation of water saving devices.
> >
> >
> >A dam approved at Traveston Crossing, even with conditions, however
> >strictly phrased or enforced, fails these requirements. It destroys
> >productive farmland, unique animal species, fisheries, AND COSTS MORE!
> >
> >Just one desalination plant can provide the water that the Qld Govt say
> >they will take from the Mary.
>
> ??????
>
> It will cost less, it will be 100%
> >reliable, and it will pose no threat to the Lungfish, Mary River Turtle,
> >or to the rare and endangered species of the Great Sandy Straits.
> >This plant can be powered from renewable energy sources. WA currently
> >has a desal plant powered by a wind farm.
> >
> >Otherwise Qld converts this beautiful productive working river into the
> >mess that is the Murray.
>
> >This alternative is unthinkable. Why would you do it when it is not even
> >necessary?
> >
> >
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi - after reading Steve's reply - I stick by my original comments (see
about 4 comments down)... having a situation where we are using potable
water to flush loos is insane. If anybody was listening to Radio National
this am (Friday, 20th June) - Bush Telegraph - and the need to conserve
phosphorous (an essential agricultural nutrient - - supplies of which are
getting stressed) - in parts of Sweden - they are mandating separation of
urine and faeces - and the urine is collected and used as an agricultural
fertiliser (it is by and large sterile) - now think how much water is being
used to sweep 200ml of piss down the drain - good potable drinking water -
and wasting the phosphorous as well.
We have to think laterally - we are at peak oil - we can't continue to burn
Coal as if there is no impact - desalination - whether by micro-filtration
or by distillation, requires considerable energy. We should also be
required to pay significantly more for water - bring back those old
'tikker' water meters...
We are at a turning point - and the sooner we realise it the better.
Hugh (where there's too much bloody water!!)
>Hi all,
>
>I thought this exchange might be of interest. It regards the call for a
>desal plant as part of the campaign to save the Mary River. My query was
>directed to the savethemaryriver campaign group, and the reply, from Steve
>Burgess.
>
>Cheers,
>Kamala
>
>*****************************
>
>just a query about the proposed alternative to damming the Mary River. (I'm
>not in favour of the dam, just not up on all the issues.)
>
>enviro activists in other states are opposing desalination plants because
>(among a range of reasons) of the adverse impact of the brine effluent (ie
>the discharge of highly concentrated seawater).
>
>Proponents of the desal plant underway in NSW claim it will be powered by
>renewables, but I've heard it may turn out to be a small percentage, bought
>from interstate or something and may still result in CO2 emissions from
>fossil fuel burning.
>
>My point is: are there really proposals for a desal plant that should be
>supported on environmental grounds? Mightn't it be possible to meet needs
>for water without recourse to a desal plant?
>
>In solidarity,
>Kamala Emanuel
>****************************
>
>
>
>Kamala
>
>there is no simple answer to providing a sustainable water supply for a
>community. Each situation needs to be looked at specifically, looking at
>all options, and coming up with a response that honestly tries to provide
>the most reliable supply, while doing the least social and environmental
>damage.
>
>Obviously, options that actually improve social and environmental outcomes
>should come first - like water efficiency measures, recycling, urban
>rainwater and stormwater management. Some of these will take some time to
>implement, but there are huge opportunity for these to be integrated into
>the future urban growth which is being used to justify the Traveston Dam.
>These measures are also likely to be comparatively reliable in the face of
>future climate change
>
>In the shorter term, the Western Corridor recycling scheme and the Tugan
>desal plant look set to provide a water surplus for SEQ under 'normal'
>conditions for another decade or so. There is plenty of time to consider
>better alternative to damming the upper Mary Catchment and transfering that
>water out of the catchment into SEQ. Under continued drought conditions,
>Traveston Crossing does not provide any useful water at all to SEQ.
>
>In this particular case - an appropriately located desal plant is actually a
>far less environmentally damaging than the current proposals for the Mary
>Valley, has far less social impact, costs less, uses a similar amount of
>energy, produces less greenhouse emmission, can be completed more quickly
>and would be a much more reliable water source. This does not mean that all
>desal plants are better than dams, it just means that the Traveston Crossing
>proposal is a really really bad option on all counts.
>
>Many people don't think clearly about the salinity impacts. A desal plant
>will raise the salinity of the water body it draws its water from, because
>it extracts freshwater and leaves the salt behind. However it only extracts
>the amount of freshwater that is consumed. Traveston dam is proposed for
>inter-basin transfer. That means that none of the water extracted from the
>dam ever gets to flow into the Great Sandy Straits and Hervey Bay. On top
>of that, the dam is very inefficient and loses a lot of water to evaporation
>and seepage. So providing 70 billion lites of water via Traveston Crossing,
>removes more than 110 billion litres of freshwater from the Ramsar Wetlands
>and World heritage areas of the Great Sandy Strait. The salinity impacts of
>the dam on these coastal waters far exceeds the salinity impacts that would
>result from a desal plant to provide the same amount of water.
>Additionally, Traveston Crossing is a long way from the urban demand, and
>every tonne of that water needs to be pumped about 150 km to supply urban
>water to Brisbane - the energy and greenhouse implications of this are
>similar to that of a desal plant. However, the surface of Traveston is also
>expected to make a very significant additional greenhouse contribution from
>methane emissions. A desal plant might occupy about 6 ha of non arable land
>- Traveston would inundate more than 7000 ha of fertile class A arable land,
>close to a major city. Traveston and the associated pipeline will cost more
>than 2.5 billion, and involves relocating and reconstructing roads, towns
>and communities. A desal plant of similar capacity can be constructed
>in less than three years for about 1.5 billion with far less social
>dislocation.
>
>I am not a supporter of desal plants as a solution to poor urban planning
>and unsustainable growth. In many cases there will be better options.
>However, the Traveston Crossing dam is a far far worse option than a well
>designed and located desal plant.
>
>Thanks for your interest.
>
>If you want to help save the Mary River - please distribute this reply as
>widely as possible among friends and networks. I know many 'green' people
>are offended by the suggestion of desal as an alternative to
>Traveston. However, as I said before, there is no simple 'blanket' answer
>when it comes to water supply options - each case needs to be looked at on
>its merits.
>
>Steve Burgess
>
>
>On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 8:52 PM, hugh spencer <Hugh@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Recycling of grey water is a far far better option than de-salination -
>> most Australian cities now operate on a greater or lesser amount of
>> re-cycled water. The energy costs are far less than de-salination - The
>> Californian cities of LosAngeles Orange County (Irvine, Santa Anna, Tustin
>> etc) are now not only purifying the effluent (to a better standard than
>> drinking water - but they are pumping it back into the aquifers to
>> re-charge them). If they can do it - so can all Australian cities and
>> towns. (see - http:/www.discovermagazine.com 'better water' May 2008.
>>
>> The 'Yuk' factor is a serious 'con' foisted by people who ought to know
>> better.
>>
>> De-salination requires very significant energy expenditures - which in our
>> regions are provided by coal burning power stations..global warming
>> anyone??
>>
>> go figure
>>
>> Hugh.
>>
>>
>> >For those in SEQld. Rally to protest the proposed Traverston Crossing
>> >Dam. Fwd to your contacts. Information from the attached flyer:
>> >
>> >The Qld Labor Party is holding its State Convention at the Gold Coast
>> >Convention Centre on June 21,22. Kevin "I'm here to help" Rudd will be
>> >there.
>> >
>> >BACKGROUND INFORMATION
>> >
>> > * Brisbane and SEQ want (and are entitled to) the cheapest source of
>> > 100% reliable water.
>> > * The politicians must provide it in a way that is environmentally
>> > and economically responsible.
>> > * There is an overwhelming body of evidence that, along with present
>> > storages, the demand for water can be met from non-rainfall
>> > dependent methods such as desalination using renewable energy
>> > sources, combined with water saving methods such as storm water
>> > harvesting, recycling of waste water, responsible water usage from
>> > household and industry, and installation of water saving devices.
>> >
>> >
>> >A dam approved at Traveston Crossing, even with conditions, however
>> >strictly phrased or enforced, fails these requirements. It destroys
>> >productive farmland, unique animal species, fisheries, AND COSTS MORE!
>> >
>> >Just one desalination plant can provide the water that the Qld Govt say
>> >they will take from the Mary.
>>
>> ??????
>>
>> It will cost less, it will be 100%
>> >reliable, and it will pose no threat to the Lungfish, Mary River Turtle,
>> >or to the rare and endangered species of the Great Sandy Straits.
>> >This plant can be powered from renewable energy sources. WA currently
>> >has a desal plant powered by a wind farm.
>> >
>> >Otherwise Qld converts this beautiful productive working river into the
>> >mess that is the Murray.
>>
>> >This alternative is unthinkable. Why would you do it when it is not even
>> >necessary?
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo!7 Groups Links
>
>
>
Offline 
Send Email
