"Water until 2018, and it didn't cost $9bn" - Are desalination plants a huge waste of money?

[Contra Mundum]

It is the desire of politicians to have big things to cut ribbons over. Nothing more.

 

[Inferno]

It is the desire of politicians to have big things to cut ribbons over. Nothing more.

Topped off with a John Brumby style shot in unnecessary fluro vest and hard hat on the evening news.

 

[evo]

Of course desal plants are a waste of money, but only if the alternatives are politically viable. Wastes a lot of energy and is very expensive compared with the alternatives.

1) Stop using so much water - Clearly not an option given
the reaction to the independent MDBA findings

It seems to me most Australians have made a genuine effort to save water the last 4 or 5 years.

2) Recycled water - Can't see the urban voters going for that, although they most certainly should. We've hooked up recycled water for our toilet & garden, in combination with our rain water tank, we're now total self-sufficient. It is really ridiculous that water is even an issue, even in Adelaide.

They need to work out how to recycle water that just runs off the roads. For example it has been raining constantly the last 12 hours in Melbourne. I went for a walk past our local creek that runs alongside the eastern freeway to pick up my son from school about an hour ago. The 'creek', one of many that feeds into the Yarra is a absolute torrent right now. You could white water raft on it at the moment.

It is pretty clean water . I don't now how they could do it, perhaps a treatment facility in Burnley or something.

*shrug* It seems more sensible than burning fossil fuels to convert sea water 200 KM from where it is actually being used.

 

[KUNG FU]

It seems to me most Australians have made a genuine effort to save water the last 4 or 5 years.

Fair point, in regards to urban restrictions. But that is like moving deck chairs on the Titanic. Agriculture and industrial use is where the big dents can be made, but will require a painful restructure.

They need to work out how to recycle water that just runs off the roads. For example it has been raining constantly the last 12 hours in Melbourne. I went for a walk past our local creek that runs alongside the eastern freeway to pick up my son from school about an hour ago. The 'creek', one of many that feeds into the Yarra is a absolute torrent right now. You could white water raft on it at the moment.

It is pretty clean water . I don't now how they could do it, perhaps a treatment facility in Burnley or something.

*shrug* It seems more sensible than burning fossil fuels to convert sea water 200 KM from where it is actually being used.

Exactly. Treatment is a fairly low-energy low-cost alternative, but recycled water is a dirty word for some politicians and constituencies (pun intended). Worst case scenario, it could be utilized exclusively by agriculture & industry and problem solved.

 

[John]

Exactly. Treatment is a fairly low-energy low-cost alternative, but recycled water is a dirty word for some politicians and constituencies (pun intended). Worst case scenario, it could be utilized exclusively by agriculture & industry and problem solved.

Indeed. Toowoomba voted approximately 60 - 40 in 2006 against recycled water and now the No campaign is claiming vindication for their campaign.

The woman who led a campaign to stop recycled water being added to Toowoomba's dams on southern Queensland's Darling Downs says the recent rain has vindicated her stance.

The pipeline from Wivanhoe to Toowoomba has been a help but ultimalty I still say that the constant population growth in SE Qld and future droughts can still put a serious strain on future water use. This may seem like a win to the people of Toowoomba but in the long term nothing has been guaranteed.

The item posted says "She says the opening of the Toowoomba pipeline, which pumps water from the now-full Wivenhoe Dam, means the recycled water option will never have to be considered again."

I would like to see how she was quoted but on face value I find this such a short sighted attitude. Wivanhoe dam was down to 17 % capacity and the Toowoomba region down to 7 % just 3 short years ago. Toowoomba storage is only up to 30% now. If in the future those low levels are reached again and the drought is not broken in such manner as it has been over the last year where to then for the population of Toowoomba?

 

[Hawkamania!]

And now the bom has been caught adjusting rainfall records.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/10/bom-loses-rainfall

Analysts at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology have some explaining to do. In the last two years some 900 mm of rainfall have been removed from the rainfall record of the Murray-Darling Basin. This startling discovery was made by comparing the annual Murray-Darling Basin rainfall reported on the Bureau of Meteorology website in August 2008 and the same report found yesterday.


The Bureau is already on record adjusting Australian temperature measurements and they now appear to have turned to rainfall, making the last 60 years drier than previously reported.

One can understand that adjustments might be made to a few of the most recent years as records are brought up to date but a delay of forty or fifty years seems a little long.

This raises the question how certain is the data that is used by policy makers?

When we are confronted by apparently definitive forecasts of our future with rising temperatures and less rain, are we living through a period that brings to mind the Polish radio announcement of Soviet times?:

How can we improve our understanding of climatic cycles when organisations paid for by the public purse are allowed to tamper with data for political reasons?

Absolute. Disgrace.

 

[TheBloods]

If we had used the recycled water from Werribee it would have cost very little, but instead we spent billions on an unnecessary desal plant that will cost many millions each year forever! Nice work Brumby you tool!

 

[1jasonoz]

If we had used the recycled water from Werribee it would have cost very little, but instead we spent billions on an unnecessary desal plant that will cost many millions each year forever! Nice work Brumby you tool!

Cost

$2.5 billion to do, and annual running cost of approximately $120 million per year, all Melbourne water would loss its protected treatment status, and require treatment.

Benefits

Would save on required outfall extensions ($60 million),
would produce 320GL per year of recycled water.

 

[TheBloods]

Source?

 

[1jasonoz]

Source?

Sorry i thought i had mentioned it.

My source is a 2003 paper (which i am not sure is still electronically available), called Green Paper Technical Paper #1: Water Recycling Scenarios for Melbourne (September 2003).

Found it.

http://www.land.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/A1F77ABAF231D43BCA25703500088F39/$File/GreenPaperTechReport1.pdf

 

[TheBloods]

Thanks.

I've seen cheaper estimates - certainly cheaper than desal - but I can't recall where I read it.

Here is an example though.

http://www.cleanocean.org/index_general.asp?menuid=040.090.020

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Doesn't Perth already have 1 desal plant?

Adelaide should have 1 and Melbourne's will come online next year.

1 build, 1 UC and 1 being planned.

Need to recycle more water.

 

[Chief]

And now the bom has been caught adjusting rainfall records.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/10/bom-loses-rainfall
How can we improve our understanding of climatic cycles when organisations paid for by the public purse are allowed to tamper with data for political reasons?

Absolute. Disgrace.

Was the data correct in the first place? Were they correcting errors in the published data against actual records? Don't let the answers to these questions get in the way of your outrage.

 

[Chief]

Well they could have relied on the fact that generally the climate follows cyclical patterns instead of the alarmist "It'll never rain again!" climate change tosh. Was the drought from 1880-1886 climate change? 1895 -1903? 1939-45? Surely 1958-68?

Nobody ever said it'll never rain again. That's just a straw-man argument not worth your time posting.

They said that we should build a system to better use and better share water around if this sort of drought happens again. Which you've agreed it will. As it stands Toowoomba is getting a benefit as their dams are apparently still mostly empty. The grid is working.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Was the data correct in the first place? Were they correcting errors in the published data against actual records? Don't let the answers to these questions get in the way of your outrage.

Delays of 40 to 50 years to adjust data towards government policy are now acceptable? This data is supposed to be used to help with policy planning, not the other way around.

Questions are asked of the bom and the bom are found wanting in answering those queries.

And my outrage is just some light mocking of an earlier display of outrage.

 

[Big John]

I think I read womewhere our dam capacity per head is already one of the largest of the world - about 10 times that of the UK (who use recycled water and is a wet country)

Wouldn't surprise me, not the same as having a lot of water though. Australia's rainfall varies much more than Europe's. As a result dams have to be bigger to be able to hold more water when it does rain, for the dry years when it doesn't.

I think it is something like when designing a damn in Europe they look at providing water for 1-2 years low rainfall, in Australia has to be something like 5 or 10. Not sure on those numbers, but i think the scale of difference is about right.

 

[Chief]

Delays of 40 to 50 years to adjust data towards government policy are now acceptable? This data is supposed to be used to help with policy planning, not the other way around.

Questions are asked of the bom and the bom are found wanting in answering those queries.

And my outrage is just some light mocking of an earlier display of outrage.

The data was put on the website 40 or 50 years ago??

We have no idea what the original data is.

I say again: do you know for certain the original data on the web site was correct?

 

[Hawkamania!]

The data was put on the website 40 or 50 years ago??

Strawman fail is an epic fail. The historical data was available on the website and then was changed. Why was it changed? Was the move politically motivated?

We have no idea what the original data is.

And yet the bom had the data available on its website before the current adjustments. If we had no idea what the original data was, how could the bom publish said data?

I say again: do you know for certain the original data on the web site was correct?

And how do you know that the adjusted data is correct?

 

[1jasonoz]

And now the bom has been caught adjusting rainfall records.

[B]http://www.quadrant.org.au[/B]/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/10/bom-loses-rainfall
How can we improve our understanding of climatic cycles when organisations paid for by the public purse are allowed to tamper with data for political reasons?

Absolute. Disgrace.

You need a blog from the IPA, HR Nicklarse Society, Wikipedia, more Keith Windschuttle articles, or another extremist group to back up this Quadrant blog you are passing of as gospel.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Yes, you're right. Perth does have a desalination plant in Kwinana.

Pessimistic, I'd imagine that part of the reason for that would be that Australia are one of the highest consumers of water per capita, being much higher than Britain. Our dr, warm climate coupled with comparatively poor soils must factor in a fair bit towards it. It is good though that these days people, with a fair bit of prodding from the Government, are becoming better with water. Less wastage, ie. hosing concrete drives, and re-implementation of household tanks for gardening, etc.

I'm not sure about re-implementation, at least not in Victoria anyway. In days gone by you weren't allowed to have a tank, it's only a fairly recent phenomonen.

I can't believe the Vic Government has dropped the water restrictions so quickly, not that Melbourne were ever on the full ones with their poxy 3A restriction level. I hope they're now not going to encourage us to use more water so that they can trumpet the foresight they displayed by commissioning the desal plant. Or am I just being cynical?

 

[Chief]

And how do you know that the adjusted data is correct?

I don't you fool, and neither do you know the original data was correct. You're the one getting hysterical about something reported in some blog. As if the BOM is just going to change stuff and hope nobody notices.

 

[Hawkamania!]

You need a blog from the IPA, HR Nicklarse Society, Wikipedia, more Keith Windschuttle articles, or another extremist group to back up this Quadrant blog you are passing of as gospel.

Quoted for prosperity.

Here is the data from 2008: http://web.archive.org/web/20080130...w/cli_chg/timeseries/rain/0112/mdb/latest.txt

Here is the current data: http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/rain/0112/mdb/latest.txt

The adjustments as reported by Quadrant can be verified when comparing the two datasets. Have a look yourself.

 

[Hawkamania!]

You're the one getting hysterical about something reported in some blog

And as I posted earlier, I was mocking an earlier display of outrage quoted below.

I think it is an absolute disgrace that the government has not had the foresight to use its psychic powers to predict this amount of rainfall.

Absolute. Disgrace.

 

[Chief]

You were mocking my mock outrage by posting something you are actually outraged about?

 

[Sydneyfan]

I'm not sure about re-implementation, at least not in Victoria anyway. In days gone by you weren't allowed to have a tank, it's only a fairly recent phenomonen.

Yeah, I meant re-implementation as in long ago, say 50 odd years ago, many people had their own backyard tank. My parents tell me how many, if not most, people did until the Government (fairly stupidly in hindsight, though no doubt had their reasons - perhaps revenue & water quality being the main ones) outlawed it.

Only in the past five or so years have the regulations been removed and turned 180 degrees to where the Government now actively encourages and provides incentives for household tanks.