Main Page | Report Page

 

  Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Greenie Desal Insanity, Just Like All Other Greenie...

Author Message
0O ONBZ...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:05 pm
 
"SPierce" <ecreipt at (no spam) bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:ib0Do.1982$MF5.1368 at (no spam) viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
[quote]
"0O ONBZ" <*** at (no spam) iti.com> wrote in message
news:4cdc7bc3$1 at (no spam) dnews.tpgi.com.au...

"SPierce" <ecreipt at (no spam) bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:4kNCo.1931$MF5.1433 at (no spam) viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...

"0O ONBZ" <*** at (no spam) iti.com> wrote in message
news:4cdb87da$1 at (no spam) dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Greenie Desal Insanity, Just Like All Other Greenie Schemes, Will
Cripple Us
(snipped)

Taxpayers would be content if only governments would provide adequate
water, energy, sewage treatment and roads as their core functions.

# Actually, de-salination is insurance expenditure for when the drought
returns and we need water NOW...not hoping and praying for rain.



That's what dams do and MUCH MORE CHEAPLY!


# True, but they have a bad habit of being dry when we need the rain.
[/quote]

They only run dry if not enough are constructed, as in Sydney, where no new
dams have been built despite the population at least tripling since the last
dam!


The recent Murray Darling run-off since the floods would have provided
enought irrigation water to last at least 15 years.
Instead it has all run out to sea!
Crazy anti-dam greenies!



Warmest Regards

B0nz0

"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics

"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated

Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
Bertrand Russell
 
gordo...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:15 pm
 
On 12 Nov 2010 00:37:35 GMT, kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com wrote:

[quote]In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else <sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
[...]
Having bigger dams only helps if smaller ones overflow. That's clearly
not happening very often.
[...]

Simple simulations show that networks of small dams are actually
more immune to overspill or flood that bigger dams with the same
total capacity. Under some conditions the network is also cheaper
than the big dam.
A series of small dams can also be a big boost for wildlife while a[/quote]
huge dam means the loss of wildlife and habitat.Small dams also mean
more fish and less silt.Small dams mean cleaner water and better flood
control.The downside is that gov'ts can hardly point to their huge
accomplishment if they do a series of small dams.
[quote]The same result holds for other kinds of networks -- e.g. power, gas,
video downloads. Smile[/quote]
 
Oy rool out a carbon tax...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:08 am
 
0O ONBZ wrote:
[quote]"SPierce" <ecreipt at (no spam) bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:ib0Do.1982$MF5.1368 at (no spam) viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
"0O ONBZ" <*** at (no spam) iti.com> wrote in message
news:4cdc7bc3$1 at (no spam) dnews.tpgi.com.au...
"SPierce" <ecreipt at (no spam) bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:4kNCo.1931$MF5.1433 at (no spam) viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
"0O ONBZ" <*** at (no spam) iti.com> wrote in message
news:4cdb87da$1 at (no spam) dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Greenie Desal Insanity, Just Like All Other Greenie Schemes, Will
Cripple Us
(snipped)

Taxpayers would be content if only governments would provide adequate
water, energy, sewage treatment and roads as their core functions.
# Actually, de-salination is insurance expenditure for when the drought
returns and we need water NOW...not hoping and praying for rain.


That's what dams do and MUCH MORE CHEAPLY!

# True, but they have a bad habit of being dry when we need the rain.


They only run dry if not enough are constructed, as in Sydney, where no new
dams have been built despite the population at least tripling since the last
dam!


The recent Murray Darling run-off since the floods would have provided
enought irrigation water to last at least 15 years.
Instead it has all run out to sea!
Crazy anti-dam greenies!
[/quote]
Same story in Victoria. Just two strategically placed dams would have
seen us sail thought the recent drought, as well as saving millions of
dollars in agriculture once the rivers flooded and washed all the
topsoil to the sea. The ideal locations have been known for 3 decades,
but the insanity of the Greens has prevented their construction.

--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention (nearest hundred):

Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000

Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
 
...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:27 am
 
In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else <sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
[quote]On 12/11/2010 12:45 PM, kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com wrote:
In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else<sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 12/11/2010 12:36 PM, kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com wrote:
I'm saying there's a point to making dams smaller. The "ultimate"
is the backyard or building rainwater tank. But, of course, that way
means economic crisis for centralised administrations. Smile
Rainwater tanks are certainly not the solution. They are one of the most
expensive ways of providing water.
That's is essentially circular logic.
I can't see how it's circular.
[...][/quote]

No. Otherwise you would not have probably used it.

Prices have a lot to do with perceptions rather than reality.
Arrow et al received Nobels for showing that prices can't be
"rational" accoding to some obvious definitions of "rational".

But ignoring that prices are irrational in that (or similar senses)
basic supply/demand theory that *should* be familiar to people
making "X is not good because it is too expensive" arguments would have it:

prices are high because supply is low
supply is low because demand is low
demand is low because prices are high

See. Easy to "prove" things if we just assume they are true to start with!

Let us assume what you arguge *is* actually true. Even so,
Price information is typuically only good for a given epoch. E.g.
installing rainwater tanks is "expensive" because it is "expensive".

Of course, not true in other epochs. The Romans used
small-scale rainwater harvesting as well as dams. Australians used
rainwater tanks up intil the 50s -- I certainly grew up where everyone
in my neighbourhood had one.

But the move to get everyone onto the sewer system , and then to
have all properties connected to the main water so a
water flow would ensure the sewers were flushed, saw amazing
laws put into place to ban the practice -- a position only
reversed for many council districts in Mel within the past few years.

--
R Kym Horsell <kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com>

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken
 
...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:31 am
 
In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else <sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
[quote]On 12/11/2010 12:45 PM, kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com wrote:
In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else<sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 12/11/2010 12:36 PM, kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com wrote:
I'm saying there's a point to making dams smaller. The "ultimate"
is the backyard or building rainwater tank. But, of course, that way
means economic crisis for centralised administrations. Smile
Rainwater tanks are certainly not the solution. They are one of the most
expensive ways of providing water.
That's is essentially circular logic.
I can't see how it's circular.
[...][/quote]

No. Otherwise you would not have probably used it.

Prices have a lot to do with perceptions rather than reality.
Arrow et al received Nobels for showing that prices can't be
"rational" accoding to some obvious definitions of "rational".

But ignoring that prices are irrational in that (or similar senses)
basic supply/demand theory that *should* be familiar to people
making "X is not good because it is too expensive" arguments would have it:

prices are high because supply is low
supply is low because demand is low
demand is low because prices are high

See. Easy to "prove" things if we just assume they are true to start with!

Let us assume what you argument *is* actually true. Even so,
Price information is typically only good for a given epoch. E.g.
installing rainwater tanks is "expensive" because it is "expensive".

Of course, not true in other epochs. The Romans used
small-scale rainwater harvesting as well as dams. Australians used
rainwater tanks up intil the 50s -- I certainly grew up where everyone
in my neighbourhood had one.

But the move to get everyone onto the sewer system , and then to
have all properties connected to the main water so a
water flow would ensure the sewers were flushed, saw amazing
laws put into place to ban the practice -- a position only
reversed for many council districts in Mel within the past few years.

Among great futurists that used the "expensive" argument in the past:

dectractors of the automobile c1890. A car was too expensive compared
with a horse. There was nowhere to fill up a car. And there were no roads.
It will never catch on.

Alex G Bell. Telephones were so expensive but then again so useful
he could see a day when every town would have one.

T J Watson. Electronic computers were so expensive he could see
the worldwide demand rising to maybe a dozen per year over the coming decades.

Etc.

--
R Kym Horsell <kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com>

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken
 
Sylvia Else...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:42 am
 
On 12/11/2010 4:31 PM, kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com wrote:
[quote]In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else<sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 12/11/2010 12:45 PM, kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com wrote:
In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else<sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 12/11/2010 12:36 PM, kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com wrote:
I'm saying there's a point to making dams smaller. The "ultimate"
is the backyard or building rainwater tank. But, of course, that way
means economic crisis for centralised administrations. Smile
Rainwater tanks are certainly not the solution. They are one of the most
expensive ways of providing water.
That's is essentially circular logic.
I can't see how it's circular.
[...]

No. Otherwise you would not have probably used it.

Prices have a lot to do with perceptions rather than reality.
Arrow et al received Nobels for showing that prices can't be
"rational" accoding to some obvious definitions of "rational".

But ignoring that prices are irrational in that (or similar senses)
basic supply/demand theory that *should* be familiar to people
making "X is not good because it is too expensive" arguments would have it:

prices are high because supply is low
supply is low because demand is low
demand is low because prices are high
[/quote]
How about "prices are high because the cost of manufacture is high".

You ignored my comment about lead acid batteries.

Lead acid batteries continue to have a high price despite the large
supply and demand because they are inherently expensive to manufacture.

Sylvia.
 
...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:48 am
 
In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else <sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
[quote]How about "prices are high because the cost of manufacture is high".
[/quote]
Same circular argument.

[quote]You ignored my comment about lead acid batteries.
[/quote]
Yes. I look for the first error and ignore the rest, assuming all is
of equal quality. :)

--
R Kym Horsell <kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com>

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken
 
Surfer...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:54 am
 
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:05:46 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:

[quote]
Chlorine, caustic soda, hydrochloric acid and ferric chloride are used
during the process. Some of these chemicals are discharged back into
the sea, where some chemicals form carcinogens. Heavy metals also
contaminate the food chain....."

Which heavy metals would those be?

If you mix caustic soda and hydrochoric acid, they react and produce
salt and water. Hydrochloric acid is found, amongst other places, in
considerable concentration in the stomach, as part of the digestive process.

Which carcinogens are alleged to be formed?

These claims about desalination plants are new to me too.[/quote]

I can imagine that chlorine might produce carcinogens when reacting
with organic matter. But that would happen with normal chlorination of
drinking water too and I would have thought that reverse osmosis of
seawater would produce very clean water that would require less
chlorine than water from reservoirs.

Regarding heavy metals I found this.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6N-48C8NTR-BB&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1977&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1537889959&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=decb10caed54d2341ef876140e72b9a7&searchtype=a


<Abstract>

The brine effluent produced by a flash distillation desalination plant
contains elevated levels of some heavy metals. The effluent produced
from such a plant operating in Jersey during the summer months leads
to increased metal concentrations in limpets and some Fucus species.
This is most evident with copper which remains at elevated levels
during the winter period of plant inactivity, probably due to the
copper coating retained on boulders and pebbles on the upper shore.

<End Abstract>

The higher concentration of heavy metals might be due to the fact that
the desalination process would produce effluent containing a higher
concentrate all minerals already present in sea water and perhaps they
deposit or get taken up by salt tolerant lifeforms near the plant.

Or perhaps heavy metals leech out of metal piping and equipment. (That
might happen less with reverse osmosis plants.)

I don't know if the above risks are worth worrying about or not. The
main point I wished to make is that it was misleading for the original
poster to suggest that The Greens, or green interests supported
desalination plants.


I think I would prefer greater use of recycled waste water for parks
and gardens, so we could reduce our requirement for high quality
water.


But to avoid reticulation costs, recycling of waste water would
ideally need to be done by households. It could take a while to
develope good systems for that.
 
Sylvia Else...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:04 am
 
On 12/11/2010 4:48 PM, kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com wrote:
[quote]In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else<sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
How about "prices are high because the cost of manufacture is high".

Same circular argument.

You ignored my comment about lead acid batteries.

Yes. I look for the first error and ignore the rest, assuming all is
of equal quality. :)

[/quote]
Address the lead acid battery point.

Sylvia.
 
...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 3:01 am
 
In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else <sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
[quote]On 12/11/2010 4:48 PM, kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com wrote:
In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else<sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
How about "prices are high because the cost of manufacture is high".
Same circular argument.
You ignored my comment about lead acid batteries.
Yes. I look for the first error and ignore the rest, assuming all is
of equal quality. Smile
Address the lead acid battery point.
[/quote]
All arguments to do with pricing have been dealt with from several points
of view already.

When someone points out price arguments are circular, putting forward specific
instances of the same argument seems a little dull.

You wouldn't want me to think you're dull, would you? :)

--
R Kym Horsell <kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com>

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken
 
Sylvia Else...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:05 am
 
On 12/11/2010 7:01 PM, kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com wrote:
[quote]In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else<sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
On 12/11/2010 4:48 PM, kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com wrote:
In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else<sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
How about "prices are high because the cost of manufacture is high".
Same circular argument.
You ignored my comment about lead acid batteries.
Yes. I look for the first error and ignore the rest, assuming all is
of equal quality. Smile
Address the lead acid battery point.

All arguments to do with pricing have been dealt with from several points
of view already.

When someone points out price arguments are circular, putting forward specific
instances of the same argument seems a little dull.
[/quote]
It's not a specific instance, it's a counter example of the supposition
that the reason things are expensive is always that there's little
demand for them.

[quote]
You wouldn't want me to think you're dull, would you? :)

[/quote]
I don't care whether you think I'm dull. What difference could it
possibly make?

Sylvia.
 
...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:21 am
 
In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else <sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
[...]
[quote]It's not a specific instance, it's a counter example of the supposition
that the reason things are expensive is always that there's little
demand for them.
[...][/quote]

Let's recap.

A:
"X is bad because it has a high price".

B:
"Price arguments are generally circular. High princes are related to
low supply, low sypply to low demand, low demand to high prices.
Prices are independently known to not reflect rational processes.
This might be guessed by the fact much economics is actually
psychology".

A:
"Ah. But what about the high price of maintenace?".

B:
"That is just a specific instance of my first point".

A:
"But what about the price of lead acid batteries".

B:
"That is just again specific instance of my original point".

A:
"No it isn't".

But we expect things like this from people that insist that
a technological item has "intrinsic value" or that items
can be "expensive" in an absolute rather than "more expensive than"
relative sense.

At least if you gave a lump of gold to Socrates he'd appreciate it had
some value in his society; but a lead-acid battery or cell phone --
I don't think so. :)

--
R Kym Horsell <kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com>

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken
 
...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:21 am
 
In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else <sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
[...]
[quote]It's not a specific instance, it's a counter example of the supposition
that the reason things are expensive is always that there's little
demand for them.
[...][/quote]

Let's recap.

A:
"X is bad because it has a high price".

B:
"Price arguments are generally circular. High prices are related to
low supply, low sypply to low demand, low demand to high prices.
Prices are independently known to not reflect rational processes.
This might be guessed by the fact much economics is actually
psychology".

A:
"Ah. But what about the high price of maintenace?".

B:
"That is just a specific instance of my first point".

A:
"But what about the price of lead acid batteries".

B:
"That is just again specific instance of my original point".

A:
"No it isn't".

But we expect things like this from people that insist that
a technological item has "intrinsic value" or that items
can be "expensive" in an absolute rather than "more expensive than"
relative sense.

At least if you gave a lump of gold to Socrates he'd appreciate it had
some value in his society; but a lead-acid battery or cell phone --
I don't think so. :)

--
R Kym Horsell <kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com>

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken
 
...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:26 am
 
In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else <sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
[...]
[quote]It's not a specific instance, it's a counter example of the supposition
that the reason things are expensive is always that there's little
demand for them.
[...][/quote]

Let's recap.

A:
"X is bad because it has a high price".

B:
"Price arguments are generally circular. High prices are related to
low supply, low sypply to low demand, low demand to high prices.
Prices are independently known to not reflect rational processes.
This might be guessed by the fact much economics is actually
psychology".

A:
"Ah. But what about the high price of maintenace?".

B:
"That is just a specific instance of my first point".

A:
"But what about the price of lead acid batteries".

B:
"That is just again specific instance of my original point".

A:
"No it isn't".

But we expect things like this from an argument that insists that
a technological item has "intrinsic value" or that items
can be "expensive" in an absolute rather than "more expensive than"
relative sense.

At least if you gave a lump of gold to Socrates he'd appreciate it had
some value in his society; but a lead-acid battery or cell phone --
I don't think so. :)

--
R Kym Horsell <kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com>

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken
 
...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 5:14 am
 
In sci.skeptic Sylvia Else <sylvia at (no spam) not.here.invalid> wrote:
[quote]You're conflating cost, price and value. They're distinct concepts.
[/quote]
Obvioustly. Hence my referce to to part they individually play in
standard supply/demand theory. You either accept that theory or do not.

If you do, then your "deductions" from prices are incorrect.

If you do not, then you admit that prices have little to do with
supply or demand. I.e. prices are even more arbitrary than the
simple thory would have it. If so, then your "deductions" from
prices are more incorrect.

[quote][some economics 101 definitions]
[/quote]
You're just lowering the bar.

--
R Kym Horsell <kym at (no spam) kymhorsell.com>

If your ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken
 
 
Page 2 of 3    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:10 am