×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

2,000 km pipeline/canal link north Australia to south

2,000 km pipeline/canal link north Australia to south

2,000 km pipeline/canal link north Australia to south

(OP)
Most of the agricultural heartlands of Australia face diminishing water resources. The mighty River Murray, that supplies irrigation water, has essentially dried up in many parts. The Snowy River scheme is also drying up.

Currently Australia is in a decade-long drought, and the predictions are that this is no longer just a drought, but rather a long term shift in climate.

Melbourne, the second largest city in Australia, has only enough water for a few more years with its reservoirs at record lows. It is frightening to think that a major city, with a population similar to Los Angeles, could literally run out of water in a few short years if the drought continues.

The point is, in far North Queensland, near the northern tip, 2,200 km away, there is abundance of water, even regular flooding. We're talking about a distance from New York City to Miami, Florida.

The previous Premier of Queensland, Peter Beattie, once proposed a massive, visionary engineering project to construct a aystem for moving water from the far north, down the parched southern states. It could be a pipeline or canal.

This would be a long-term solution to Australia's southern bread-basket states that face long-term drought conditions. It would guarantee Australia's agricultural viability in the face of uncertainty of water resources from rainfall and rivers.

But the pundits dismissed Peter Beattie's idea as totally unrealistic.

I'd like to hear from civil engineers as to what they think about such a pipeline to link the tropical water sources of far North Queensland to the southern states.
 

RE: 2,000 km pipeline/canal link north Australia to south

large diversion projects have been done in the past, look at the California Aqueduct (440 miles long), All American Canal (80 miles long) and the Central Arizona Project (340 miles). However, these are all a fraction of the size of what Beattie was proposing. And these projects nearly started civil wars during the planning and initial construction phases. The agreements for water use have been negotiated, argued and debated for nearly a 100-years. Read Cadillac Desert for a good history of these projects. I think you may find that de-salinization plants or other technology may actually be cheaper and quicker to implement than a 1,400 mile aquaduct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Water_Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Aqueduct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-American_Canal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Arizona_Project

 

RE: 2,000 km pipeline/canal link north Australia to south

Not familiar with the issue in Australia, but would have to suspect that Peter Beattie was trying to sell the water, not buy the water. Nobody with a rational state of mind would propose to purchase water in such a scheme.

Transporting water is incredibly expensive because of the high mass density.

Moving water with a canal is the cheapest way to move the water. However, the water loss through evaporation would be enough to kill the project.

Desalination would be less expensive than transporting water for that distance.

Maybe you can pursue the project that involved towing an iceberg from Antartica to obtain fresh water?

RE: 2,000 km pipeline/canal link north Australia to south

As a rough estimate, the pumping cost using a 3 meter diameter pipeline would be approximately $0.50 US/ cubic meter of water transported.  To that, you would add the amortized cost of the pipeline. That would add another 1-2/cubic meter in cost. You would also have to add the cost of the water, land aquisition, etc.

That would compare to desalination of seawater that currently costs approximately $0.50 US/ cubic meter.

Municipal consumers typically pay approximately $1.00 US/ cubic meter for water.
 

RE: 2,000 km pipeline/canal link north Australia to south

We have coal and uranium aplenty to for power stations to power desalination plants in Australia.

What we dont have is capital for infrastructure development and an anal retentive socialist government who only spend short term for votes. The state governments have no vision. They build four lane higways that choke in a cuple of years, hold onto power stations because their union mates are afraid of doing a decent days work and stop mines because their greenie mates dont like them.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources