Comments on: Water restrictions and idiocy

By: Jean Cannon

Jean Cannon — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:10:01 +0000

I came across some more information about the energy costs of providing water today.
Marc Fabig MD of OSMOFLO said that the Government’s reluctance to move ahead with desalination technology was hard to understand.
“Most countries in arid regions of the world have been using desalination technology for more than 25 years,” Marc says. “It is surprising to me that Australia, and SA in particular, has just woken up to the benefits it provides in securing a long term water supply.”
Marc said it takes more energy to pump water from the Murray to Adelaide than to desalinate seawater from St Vincent’s Gulf and adds desalination plants don’t have to be big to be efficient.
“In Adelaide’s case it is perfectly understandable to have one large plant and we support that. But once water starts being pumped too far from the plant then the energy costs are unsustainable,” he says.

By: admin

admin — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:05:45 +0000

Thanks for the comments Geoff. I appreciate them.
I agree that tanks are totally inefficient but depending on block size they can provide much of the water needed but not in more densely populated areas.
Storm water should be channeled into wetlands which remove 80% of nutrients and bacteria and this can be used for irrigating parks and gardens and for ground water recharge. A desalination type plant is totally unnecessary here - wetlands and reeds are the natural clean up mechanism that have largely been removed as our waterways have been deepend and concreted.
I totally agree that wind and solar power can and should be used to power the desalination plants and if this is the case I totally support them. The question is will it? Logical places for wind powered desalination are Troubridge Point on Southern Yorke Peninsular and Port Lincoln where there is a lack of water and an abundance of wind. I am not sure that is part of the current planning. Pelican Point may be the windiest spot. Will the NIMBYs block a wind farm there?
Could we actually work with the salt pans at Barker Inlet and retain the salt from desalination and make better use of this land and fully incorporate wind and solar power here. The excess land could become one of these much talked about “solar city” developments. This may not work - it is an off the cuff suggestion and I don’t know all the ramifications.
South Australia is the driest state in the driest continent and it is one of the places that will be most affected by climate change and while we will get easing in our current drought eventually we must face the fact that we will continue to be short of fresh water because our rainfall is decreasing and our population is increasing. Water is NOT unlimited and it should not be a low cost commodity. I completely disagree with your point 3. It does not take account of climate change and population growth.
I totally agree that we need to target hydrocarbons!
The latest information I have is that there is widespread agreement that we need to reduce our carbon based energy use by 50% urgently and 80% within our lifetimes and our water use by 50%
I totally support wind and solar power and have for many years.
Thank you for your comments again Geoff
Jean Cannon

By: Geoff Penfold

Geoff Penfold — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:38:53 +0000

I do not agree with many of the concepts above.
1. Water should not be artifically limited, it totally recycles and is essential for a pleasant environment and modern people based cities. Nothing can be delivered as cheaply to each household as water. $1.50kl per tonne compared to gravel at ? per tonn!
2. Water tanks are inefficient and high cost water collection method. The average household uses 280kl in Adelaide. A water tank even with refilling may cover 10-20kl. Water tanks can never provide even basic water for a modern city.
3. The only reason we have major problems with water is government. Virtually all water in Australia is government controlled and governments rarely can match supply and demand succsssfully.
4. SA is one of the windiest places in the world. One wind tower will produce power for 1Gl of desal water. A standard wind farm will produce the 50gl proposed.
5. Recycling road and household runoff is very difficult. It needs to be collected only periodically but in large amounts, stored and run through a desal type plant to clean it. It could often be much more expensive than desal of seawater and still relies on rainfall.
6. Technology can produce clean desalinated water with low emissions for $1.00 kl and should be able to deliver it to households and industry for not much more than the $1.50 + payable per Kl for the first 250kl. It is completely recycled after use. Why target water with limitations and artificial price increases. It should not be effectively taxed. To be ecological, target hydrocarbons for which there is no current substitute that can be produced in significant quantities.