Time for Bradfield's scheme?

[Juliar]

The push to start Bradfield is getting stronger now than ever before especially as the ScoMo govt will be there for the next 20 years now and the Lunatic Extremist Greenies are now totally discredited.

Starting the Bradfield Scheme would be a permanent election winner for ScoMo for decades to come.

The Bradfield Scheme has been re-engineered with modern civil engineering methods so it is now a practical scheme.


Read the new thrust here

http://landshape.org/interactive-map-of ... ld-scheme/


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-30/ ... a/10181682

[Serial Brain 9]

Things is getting fair dinkum now as NSW Govt allocates $25 million to study the implementation of some version of the Bradfield Scheme.

Already it is being partially implemented up in Nth Qld.

See video discussing it here with Peta Credlin and NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/ ... 94ab02e98e

Now that the LUNATIC EXTREMIST GREENIES are totally discredited it would be a good time to proceed.

And Brian.

Our leaders have now vision - no plan.

The only one that has a plan, everyone wants to knock her down.

Got a better plan?

Put up or shut up!

Im not sure about drought proofing - but turning flood waters around that would flow out to sea back inland where its dry makes some sense to me and worth investigating.

[brian ross]

So, scientific objections to wasting money to gain little water, overall is "greenie lunacy", now, Juliar? Really? How is the Bradfield scheme going to overcome the scientific facts of evaporation? How is the Bradfield scheme going to overcome the reality of erosion? How is it going to overcome all the other problems identified by scientisits? Mmmm?

You and Hanson can live in your fantasy world if you like. Responsible government however lives in the real world. Good luck with your fantasies. Enjoy them in your own head 'cause they will never see reality.

[IQS.RLOW]

wasting money to gain little

This is a key design feature of progressive-regressive ideology.
Growing a resource cannot be considered because its a key design feature of teh evil capitalists
The only solutions they have are either banning or dividing up the remains.

Regressives thinking is hopelessly cornered by their own ideological closed mindedness.

[Juliar]

One senses the very strong Greeny opposition to this huge development in Australia.

The Greenies want to stop any and all development in Australia.

That's why the ADANI APPROVAL was such a kick in the face for the Greenies and shattered their credibility forever.

[sprintcyclist]

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/intern ... x2004a.pdf

For review and comments

[sprintcyclist]

Well, that is a surprise

............. Conclusions
At first sight, it is an appealing idea that a massive increase in water surfaces in inland Australia would lead to increased rainfall over agricultural areas.
There has been speculation for over a century that schemes to 'water the inland' might enhance agricultural productivity.
The general conclusion of those who have studied such proposals, however, has been that they are unlikely to produce the massive benefits suggested by the proponents of the schemes.
Our conclusion matches those of earlier assessments: although there seem likely to be local climate changes (cooling over the lake and nearby)
none of the approaches we have used suggest that major, widespread rainfall increases are likely.
This conclusion also seems consistent with related international studies.

The inland water expanse considered here has been in the region of Lake Eyre, the filling of which is a common suggestion in many of the schemes. One observation that will modify how a large inland lake will ameliorate the climate is the fact that Lake Eyre is actually rarely dry, and so the current conditions may not be far removed from those produced when its whole extent is constantly wet. ENSO influences will also likely swamp any influence of a full lake on rainfall in eastern Australia. The moisture recycling in the catchment is predominantly in the northeast and is linked to rainfall but has no corelation with the filling of Lake Eyre. The results from imposing an inland water expanse in Australia in global atmospheric models show that given a large enough lake, there will be a precipitation response. But, for water stretches less expansive than the size of South Australia, the precipitation response away from the lake is unclear and variable.
We recognise that each of the approaches we have used has its deficiencies. If we were looking for a subtle change in rainfall these deficiencies might be impofiant. However, we are attempting to determine if an inland water surface leads to a major, widespread increase in rainfall. Only if this were the case could it be economically viable to undertake a scheme to flood the inland. Despite their deficiencies, the approaches we have used should be able to detect such a large effect. Since none of the approaches suggest that such a large, widespread effect is likely, it
seems reasonable to conclude, as did Warren (1945), that any change would be minimal and unpredictable. ...............

[Serial Brain 9]

WHO is John Bradfield?

Dr. John Bradfield proposed & designed the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the “City Circle” railway line, acted as assistant engineer on the Cataract and Burrinjuck dams before designing Brisbane’s Story bridge.

All of these are still in use today. In 1924, he was honored with the first doctorate of science in engineering by the University of Sydney.

He then finished his career as Vice Chancellor of Sydney University

[Juliar]

SC, the only problem with that ref is that it is very old and way out of date now.

Much work has been done since then on modernizing the concept.

[Serial Brain 9]

https://medium.com/@creativeinternation ... KHP78T6t4o

Hybrid Bradfield

Go to the profile of Richard Hopkins
Richard HopkinsFollow
Jun 17

ABC & RMIT: When is ideology-based fact checking just propaganda?
The ABC have been promoting a story on the Bradfield scheme written by their fact-check friends at RMIT. Now it is time to check the checkers. Here are elements of the story, and the errors therein.
“John Bradfield is hardly a household name.”

John Bradfield from wikicommons
Dr. John Bradfield proposed & designed the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the “City Circle” railway line, acted as assistant engineer on the Cataract and Burrinjuck dams before designing Brisbane’s Story bridge. All of these are still in use today. In 1924, he was honored with the first doctorate of science in engineering by the University of Sydney. He then finished his career as Vice Chancellor of Sydney University (1). RMIT needed to throw shade on one of our greatest engineers to then shade his grand vision for feeding Australia.

“This is not the first time that Bradfield’s complex hydraulic plan has been drawn into the political debate”

Hume Dam and Hydro Plant, Albury NSW. Wikimedia.

Hybrid Bradfield is not a hydraulic plan. Any dam or hydro power plant has a hydraulic element to operate sluice gates and to open & close outlet and routing pipes. It is a critical but minor element of any such project, using commonplace engineering. This photo of Hume Dam and Hydro plant near Albury is exactly what is being proposed for Bradfield. Complex hydraulic plan it is not. Why does the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology mischaracterize Bradfield this way?

“A 1947 critical review(4) showed that the plan had overestimated the “water capability supply” — the amount of water available for diversion — by 250 per cent, while underestimating the cost.”

ABC’s own website — Townsville floods 2019
This debunk report was written in 1947. They put the annual rainfall of the catchment area for Bradfield at 30–48" (average 1 metre). That was true in 1947 after a 10 year drought skewed average rainfall figures. In 2019 the average rainfall in that area is back on long term trend at 4 metres. So Bradfield had it right, the 1947 study was wrong. Worse, RMIT could have easily checked the average rainfall of the Bradfield catchment(Tully, Burdekin and Herbert River catchments) in 5 minutes, as I did.

(3)
“Bradfield irrigation is 25 to 30 times the cost of water supplied to Victorian and NSW farms via the Snowy Mountains Scheme”
The source for this is the same 1947 report. The Snowy Irrigation scheme was not started until 2 years AFTER this report came out, so this critical conclusion was based on supposition of projected costs for both schemes. RMIT could have updated that figure using 2019 data but chose to use a guesstimate from 1947 instead. Because it suited them.
Might I also point out that Dr. Bradfield trekked around the mountains behind Townsville for 2 years surveying his scheme. The author of the 1947 debunk never left his office 1000 kms away.

RMIT were wrong in the main scientific element of their “fact check” by using 70 year old data that was demonstrably wrong and/or pure supposition at the time.

“Professor Kingsford said the main consideration was whether the resultant productivity gains would be enough to justify the cost of diverting the water — estimated to be in the billions of dollars… “it wouldn’t repay the cost” he said bluntly”


Prof. Richard Kingsford, UNSW.
Director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science. Teaches units in Conservation of natural resources, Zoology, biodiversity, marine & aquatic ecology.

RMIT asked a conservationist if the numbers on a new irrigation zone added up. There may be data to back his position but this fact check failed to include such data. Which it should have. Because its a fact check. Perhaps asking someone who knew about costing agricultural production would have been more useful.

“Experts told Fact Check that alternative models and schemes could be easier to implement — and cheaper — than Bradfield’s, but the extent of any potential agricultural productivity was likely to be fiercely contested.”

So who are these experts? Where is their data? Exactly what did RMIT fact check here? This is opinion presented as fact.

Good things about Bradfield the “fact check” deliberately ignored

Clean, cheap, renewable hydro power. Hybrid Bradfield will work the same as the Snowy Mountains scheme and use similar but updated engineering. Expect 4GW of power to be generated at a cost of $6 — $8 billion for the power element of the plan. This will have an extended productive life — Snowy is already 50 years old and still providing reliable, cheap, baseload power. The long return provided by hydro makes the initial investment worthwhile.

Prevent coral bleaching. A major source of bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef is the fresh water plumes and sediment coming from these rivers in flood. Bradfield will improve the health of the reef noticeably by holding back then metering the floodwaters so it does not travel across to the reef.

Now back to the report conclusions.

“Diverting flood waters from their natural paths could cause wide movement of invasive species, collapse marine and estuary ecosystems, and even cause economic damage to coastal communities, according to experts.”

More unnamed experts saying exactly what the ABC want them to say. How convenient. This is wrong anyway, Bradfield is only going to divert 10–20% of the water flow inland, so 80–90% will still be available to make sure there is no ecological disruption.
“Professor Kingsford agreed there was no easy fix for drought. We have to essentially be able to live with the droughts that come regularly to our continent. The problem is [droughts] are getting stronger and more intense as a result of climate change.”

And here it is. The Greens’ mantra of sustainability because of climate change. By “adapt” they mean solar & wind power, not cheap, clean & renewable hydro. They mean reduced standards of living, driving farmers off their land to save the land, lower populations, lower calorie vegetarian diets and in general, less for everyone.

This fact check is nothing but ideology vomiting itself onto the page.

It is time to start the planning process for Hybrid Bradfield subject to a final cost/benefit review when the planning phase concludes.

References
https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profile ... d-5390.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia
https://www.stanwell.com/energy-assets/ ... ets/water/
https://qldgov.softlinkhosting.com.au/l ... Item=false
Original ABC “story” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-18/ ... f/11216616