Floods and droughts?
Discussion
otolith said:
There are degrees of contamination, though. We have significant sewage discharges to watercourses during flood events.
Really, though, I think dealing with those brief, temporary high flows by capturing them and pumping them to storage is a pipe dream.
It may well be, but as pointed out handling 350 tons of water per second is just chicken feed in some countries. We already have the technology to turn raw sewage into drinking water,, so dealing with it when taken from a reservoir of it will absolutely not be a problem (perhaps, wouldn't recommend swimming in it though), Even the reservoirs we have now contain contaminants from just about every source you could think off, and we still manage to deal with those, Really, though, I think dealing with those brief, temporary high flows by capturing them and pumping them to storage is a pipe dream.
Not sure those that have to cope with their homes and businesses, including farms being flooded on a regular basis would feel about it, not to mention those who cannot grow crops, or raise live stock owing to drought conditions, especially when a few months earlier their homes and businesses were under water.
But as I said it would need someone cleverer, than just us keyboard warriors here, to actually work out what would be the most cost effective way forward for the long term.
The costs of dealing with repeated floods and droughts over the long term, could in time, dwarf the cost of delivering a one off solution now, a solution that provides an answer for BOTH flooding and drought conditions at the same time.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Water is indeed very expensive to move, but the question is, Is it more, or less expensive to not move it, and suffer flooding in some areas on a repeating basis, and just pay for the damage caused by flooding each time flooding occurs?
Also, if we are predicted to suffer increasing episodes of drought in the summers, will we then have to pay huge sums to pump up, and process sea water into potable water for times when there is not enough?
For some water schemes around the world, handling 350 tons of water per second is just chicken feed.
All water is contaminated, which is why we use reservoirs to store it, and water processing plants to clean it ready for human consumption.
For centuries the more enlightened cultures are those who store a commodity when there is an abundance of it, for use later when there is not enough.
It is just a question of whether we want to pay for water handling, (and damage caused) every time flooding, and droughts occur, or whether we take a (massive and expensive) one off step to store water, when there is too much of it, and in the process, help to reduce, if not eradicate flooding in the winters, and then have it available for use when there is not enough of it.?
It needs someone very clever to do the sums, and work out which approach is best in the long term.
This of course would just be a numbers game, since it would not take into account the suffering caused by those who suffer the effects of flooding, and droughts on their lives and their businesses on a continually repeating basis.
Alternatively we stop building on flood plains and slowly remove buildings from flood areas rather than trying to fight nature (as with some sea defences)Also, if we are predicted to suffer increasing episodes of drought in the summers, will we then have to pay huge sums to pump up, and process sea water into potable water for times when there is not enough?
For some water schemes around the world, handling 350 tons of water per second is just chicken feed.
All water is contaminated, which is why we use reservoirs to store it, and water processing plants to clean it ready for human consumption.
For centuries the more enlightened cultures are those who store a commodity when there is an abundance of it, for use later when there is not enough.
It is just a question of whether we want to pay for water handling, (and damage caused) every time flooding, and droughts occur, or whether we take a (massive and expensive) one off step to store water, when there is too much of it, and in the process, help to reduce, if not eradicate flooding in the winters, and then have it available for use when there is not enough of it.?
It needs someone very clever to do the sums, and work out which approach is best in the long term.
This of course would just be a numbers game, since it would not take into account the suffering caused by those who suffer the effects of flooding, and droughts on their lives and their businesses on a continually repeating basis.
vaud said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Water is indeed very expensive to move, but the question is, Is it more, or less expensive to not move it, and suffer flooding in some areas on a repeating basis, and just pay for the damage caused by flooding each time flooding occurs?
Also, if we are predicted to suffer increasing episodes of drought in the summers, will we then have to pay huge sums to pump up, and process sea water into potable water for times when there is not enough?
For some water schemes around the world, handling 350 tons of water per second is just chicken feed.
All water is contaminated, which is why we use reservoirs to store it, and water processing plants to clean it ready for human consumption.
For centuries the more enlightened cultures are those who store a commodity when there is an abundance of it, for use later when there is not enough.
It is just a question of whether we want to pay for water handling, (and damage caused) every time flooding, and droughts occur, or whether we take a (massive and expensive) one off step to store water, when there is too much of it, and in the process, help to reduce, if not eradicate flooding in the winters, and then have it available for use when there is not enough of it.?
It needs someone very clever to do the sums, and work out which approach is best in the long term.
This of course would just be a numbers game, since it would not take into account the suffering caused by those who suffer the effects of flooding, and droughts on their lives and their businesses on a continually repeating basis.
Alternatively we stop building on flood plains and slowly remove buildings from flood areas rather than trying to fight nature (as with some sea defences)Also, if we are predicted to suffer increasing episodes of drought in the summers, will we then have to pay huge sums to pump up, and process sea water into potable water for times when there is not enough?
For some water schemes around the world, handling 350 tons of water per second is just chicken feed.
All water is contaminated, which is why we use reservoirs to store it, and water processing plants to clean it ready for human consumption.
For centuries the more enlightened cultures are those who store a commodity when there is an abundance of it, for use later when there is not enough.
It is just a question of whether we want to pay for water handling, (and damage caused) every time flooding, and droughts occur, or whether we take a (massive and expensive) one off step to store water, when there is too much of it, and in the process, help to reduce, if not eradicate flooding in the winters, and then have it available for use when there is not enough of it.?
It needs someone very clever to do the sums, and work out which approach is best in the long term.
This of course would just be a numbers game, since it would not take into account the suffering caused by those who suffer the effects of flooding, and droughts on their lives and their businesses on a continually repeating basis.
If we don't build on flood plains (and it is something which I think is daft anyway) where are we going to put the hundreds of thousands of new homes we are being told the UK now needs every year? If we will insist on rapidly increasing the UK population, then we will have to pay the prices involved in doing that. Will we now start building on farmland / green belt areas?
vaud said:
Evoluzione said:
Do we have droughts in this country anyhow? Maybe I didn't get to hear about them or forgot, but certainly we haven't had one up North since the 70s.
We have plenty of reservoirs and water in the North and they are all linked together already so water is pumped around wherever and whenever needed.
Some are linked but not all.We have plenty of reservoirs and water in the North and they are all linked together already so water is pumped around wherever and whenever needed.
We had a massive water shortage in 1995, which is what lead to many new links. Bradford nearly ran out of water, which lead to emergency tankers bringing water in from Cumbria and water bowsers on some streets.
So in more than 50yrs two close calls which were easily dealt with. Now the infrastructure has been improved accordingly so as far as I can see it's a non issue here.
Evoluzione said:
vaud said:
Evoluzione said:
Do we have droughts in this country anyhow? Maybe I didn't get to hear about them or forgot, but certainly we haven't had one up North since the 70s.
We have plenty of reservoirs and water in the North and they are all linked together already so water is pumped around wherever and whenever needed.
Some are linked but not all.We have plenty of reservoirs and water in the North and they are all linked together already so water is pumped around wherever and whenever needed.
We had a massive water shortage in 1995, which is what lead to many new links. Bradford nearly ran out of water, which lead to emergency tankers bringing water in from Cumbria and water bowsers on some streets.
So in more than 50yrs two close calls which were easily dealt with. Now the infrastructure has been improved accordingly so as far as I can see it's a non issue here.
We cannot control the Earths climate, and we as a small country cannot control what other countries do in relation to it, but we can take the steps to protect the country from the likely / possible effects of it.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Evoluzione said:
vaud said:
Evoluzione said:
Do we have droughts in this country anyhow? Maybe I didn't get to hear about them or forgot, but certainly we haven't had one up North since the 70s.
We have plenty of reservoirs and water in the North and they are all linked together already so water is pumped around wherever and whenever needed.
Some are linked but not all.We have plenty of reservoirs and water in the North and they are all linked together already so water is pumped around wherever and whenever needed.
We had a massive water shortage in 1995, which is what lead to many new links. Bradford nearly ran out of water, which lead to emergency tankers bringing water in from Cumbria and water bowsers on some streets.
So in more than 50yrs two close calls which were easily dealt with. Now the infrastructure has been improved accordingly so as far as I can see it's a non issue here.
We cannot control the Earths climate, and we as a small country cannot control what other countries do in relation to it, but we can take the steps to protect the country from the likely / possible effects of it.
Evoluzione said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Evoluzione said:
vaud said:
Evoluzione said:
Do we have droughts in this country anyhow? Maybe I didn't get to hear about them or forgot, but certainly we haven't had one up North since the 70s.
We have plenty of reservoirs and water in the North and they are all linked together already so water is pumped around wherever and whenever needed.
Some are linked but not all.We have plenty of reservoirs and water in the North and they are all linked together already so water is pumped around wherever and whenever needed.
We had a massive water shortage in 1995, which is what lead to many new links. Bradford nearly ran out of water, which lead to emergency tankers bringing water in from Cumbria and water bowsers on some streets.
So in more than 50yrs two close calls which were easily dealt with. Now the infrastructure has been improved accordingly so as far as I can see it's a non issue here.
We cannot control the Earths climate, and we as a small country cannot control what other countries do in relation to it, but we can take the steps to protect the country from the likely / possible effects of it.
Getragdogleg said:
Local flooding here is caused by the unmaintained drains and gutters filling up with mud and leaves and then simply not working to actually drain water when we do get rain.
Its maintenance that is required.
Water shortages in summer are from too much demand and not enough maintenance on leaky pipes. Infrastructure investment is needed to enlarge or build reservoirs but again the money is not spent.
Not dredging rivers also.Its maintenance that is required.
Water shortages in summer are from too much demand and not enough maintenance on leaky pipes. Infrastructure investment is needed to enlarge or build reservoirs but again the money is not spent.
Agammemnon said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
The question is why are we building on flood plains in the first place? The answer?
An honest answer is "because some fool will buy it", at which time it ceases to be the developer's problem.If people didn't buy them then the construction programme would soon end.
This owing to expensive problems related to sub soil conditions, ground contamination on pre industrial / brown field sites, and of course sites exposed to flooding risk.
The issue being that if they do build on such unsuitable sites, there will always be those who will buy them first, and only worry meaningfully about the problems that might arise after they have moved in.
Pesty said:
Getragdogleg said:
Local flooding here is caused by the unmaintained drains and gutters filling up with mud and leaves and then simply not working to actually drain water when we do get rain.
Its maintenance that is required.
Water shortages in summer are from too much demand and not enough maintenance on leaky pipes. Infrastructure investment is needed to enlarge or build reservoirs but again the money is not spent.
Not dredging rivers also.Its maintenance that is required.
Water shortages in summer are from too much demand and not enough maintenance on leaky pipes. Infrastructure investment is needed to enlarge or build reservoirs but again the money is not spent.
I guess we have all seen the huge storm water drains used in the US to carry flood waters away from in cities (e.g as used in second terminator film and the race scene in Grease, which for most of the time remain dry, with perhaps just a little trickle running in a channel for most of the time. As posted before is suspect infrastructure like this is not cheap, but the question I was asking is, do people believe it would be better / cheaper not to build such infrastructure, and just pay for the consequences of a flooding episode as and when they occur, Or would it be better to pay out a huge sum on a one off basis, to build such facilities to protect against future flooding episodes?
As `some' have predicted that we will be getting wetter winters, and warmer drier summers, it just seemed to me that the logical solution to the possibility of both flooding and droughts, would be to capture the excess water (not just get rid of it) in the winter, so that it is available for distribution when we allegedly get hot dry summers in the future..
As `some' have predicted that we will be getting wetter winters, and warmer drier summers, it just seemed to me that the logical solution to the possibility of both flooding and droughts, would be to capture the excess water (not just get rid of it) in the winter, so that it is available for distribution when we allegedly get hot dry summers in the future..
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff