It was also based on inaccurate flow figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Printable View
It was also based on inaccurate flow figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
WQuote:
Originally Posted by V8Ian
Would that be a disadvantage? [bigrolf]
Figures can be played with to get the result one wants, I mean the Treasury do it every Budget.[biggrin]
Apart from everything else, they couldn't justify the cost.
A major point of criticism regarding the Bradfield Scheme has been the estimated cost of implementing it.
Bradfield had put the cost of his revised scheme in 1941 at “up to £40 million”, which translates to approximately $3.2 billion in 2018 prices.
A 1947 critical review showed that the plan had overestimated the “water capability supply” — the amount of water available for diversion — by 250%, while underestimating the cost.
At the same time, the final price for the irrigators was reportedly calculated at 25 to 30 times the cost of water supplied to Victorian and NSW farms via the Snowy Mountains Scheme.
Professor Kingsford told Fact Check that 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 deliver; wouldn’t repay the cost,” he said bluntly.
Dr Daniel Connell, a research fellow at the Australian National University, agreed that the scheme would only be possible with “massive government subsidies, which [would] far exceed the value of what would be produced”.
“It’s much cheaper to desalinate water, the cost of which now makes that option feasible for a wealthy city, but still far above what is needed to make agriculture financially viable,” he said.
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.
May be so however not all seem to understand this one. Neighbour had a bathroom renovation and found that the last plumber some 20 plus years ago run the waste water pipe from the bath down hill until it reached the outside wall. The pipe then turned 90 degree to go up hill until it reached the hole in the wall where the pipe was outside. Then another 90 degree turn. Now this vertical travel was only about 4 inches and and the drip was sufficient to contain the water it is an interesting engineering solutionQuote:
Originally Posted by Bigbjorn
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3toes
Water finds it's own level. It just means he has an inbuilt water trap.
If he placed a long spirit level on top of or underneath the downhill pipe at the point where the top of the pipe enter the hole & found a level & the pipe was transparent he would find water backed up to a point further back to the sink/bath/ floor waste commensurate with the height of the hole in the wall, or close.
The pipe overflows when the level reaches the the lower edge of the wall pipe.
Shouldn't present a problem unless paper or similar is in the drain but much better to fit an accessible trap.
A lazy plumber IMHO & or difficult access to the underfloor penetration.
Or at least that is how I understand what is going on in deepest darkest North Yorks, 3T.