COM: Port Stanvac Desalination Plant | 100gL | $1.8b

[crawf]

The upstream states will have a field day. Our govt is threatening legal action against the MDBA because the lower lakes are important, but this appears like we're preaching but not practising.

Adelaide (suburbia) used an average of 50gl of Murray River water a year for the last several years (source) and the desal plant is designed to produce 100gl a year. In fact the desal plant design was expanded from 50 to 100GL with much fan fare.

sigh.

Well said.

[claybro]

The upstream states will have a field day. Our govt is threatening legal action against the MDBA because the lower lakes are important, but this appears like we're preaching but not practising.

And just as predicted, the Victorians are indeed pointing out our hypocracy. Water bills costs etc aside, i must say I am emabarraced that we do not practice what we preach when it comes to reducing our intake from the Murray ,especially when we have our giant new water making whoseywhatsit sitting idle. Must also make our Riverland residents scratch thier heads in disbelief.

[crawf]

Wayno wrote that not me.

[peas_and_corn]

Wayno wrote that not me.

Wait, what?

[Aidan]

The upstream states will have a field day. Our govt is threatening legal action against the MDBA because the lower lakes are important, but this appears like we're preaching but not practising.

And so they should! Our government have adopted the idiotic position that the objective should be to cut water take in all conditions. But what's really needed are big cuts to water take in dry conditions, and better ability to make use of the water we get. I would say we should preach what we practice, except that mismanagement of the lower lakes is still the biggest problem of all.

Karlene Maywald had a better understanding of the situation, but unfortunately by the time the drought broke she'd been replaced with someone less competent.

Adelaide (suburbia) used an average of 50gl of Murray River water a year for the last several years (source) and the desal plant is designed to produce 100gl a year. In fact the desal plant design was expanded from 50 to 100GL with much fan fare.

sigh.

Now do you agree with my contention that we should've stuck with 50GL/y desal capacity?

BTW we're unlikely to be using much (if any) Murray water any time soon, as the 5 rivers of the hills are doing a pretty good job of filling our reservoirs.

[Wayno]

Now do you agree with my contention that we should've stuck with 50GL/y desal capacity?

i'll let that one go through to the keeper.

BTW we're unlikely to be using much (if any) Murray water any time soon, as the 5 rivers of the hills are doing a pretty good job of filling our reservoirs.

excellent. Anything that helps us demonstrate reduced murray water usage.

[rubberman]

The upstream states will have a field day. Our govt is threatening legal action against the MDBA because the lower lakes are important, but this appears like we're preaching but not practising.

Adelaide (suburbia) used an average of 50gl of Murray River water a year for the last several years (source) and the desal plant is designed to produce 100gl a year. In fact the desal plant design was expanded from 50 to 100GL with much fan fare.

sigh.

They won't get very far if they try to have a field day.

The problem is that water in the Murray is overallocated. ie people have the right to take more water than can be extracted.

Now while it is possible to use a desal plant to substitute for River Murray water, it is also the most expensive way to do it (compared to say buying back water rights from farmers). So, if people want to solve the problem of the River Murray by using desalination, they will have to pay massive amounts more tax than they do at the moment to make a real difference. The pain of the present River Murray problems is bad enough, just imagine if we had to add another order of cost to it as well!

The issue is therefore that if those upstream want to have a field day, they are implying that the desalination plant should be used for substituting River Murray water. That is NOT what it was designed to do. Never ever ever. It was designed to provide drought insurance when the Murray and Hills storages were stressed and serious water restrictions were being imposed.

The original intent of the desal plant was to provide drought insurance, and when there was no drought, it was to be mothballed. So to those who say that the desal plant is a white elephant, I say that it is being managed in EXACTLY the way it was intended. Use it in drought, and mothball it when there is no drought. Those who say otherwise either want to rewrite history, or (like those upstream who might want to misrepresent things) for political purposes.

As to the size of the plant, afaik the reason it went from 50ML/Day to 100ML/Day was because the State Government got Federal funding to do so. From the point of view of the State, it got twice the insurance for the same amount in effect. Whether it was a good idea for the Feds to do this is of course to get into the argument about the stimulus during the Global Financial Crisis - a topic derail if ever there was.

[rhino]

If what you say is accurate Rubberman, then it makes things a lot clearer. Thanks for that.

[Shahkar]

Adelaide desal plant officially opened
AAP
March 26, 2013


Premier Jay Weatherill at the Adelaide Desalination Plant filling up a glass of desalinated water.

A NEW desalination plant means Adelaide has a secure fresh water supply for the first time in its history, Premier Jay Weatherill says.

Mr Weatherill on Tuesday officially opened the state's largest water infrastructure project with the $1.8 billion, 100 gigalitre plant coming in on time and on budget.

He said the plant was SA's insurance policy against future droughts.

"For the first time since 1836 we can say with confidence we have guaranteed Adelaide's water security," he said.

The desalination plan has already produced more than 12 billion litres of drinking water for Adelaide, cutting the state's take from the Murray River.

It now moves into a two-year testing period with a decision yet to be made on what capacity it will operate at in the future.

Federal Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water Amanda Rishworth said securing a sustainable, safe water supply for all Australians was a key government priority.

"This plant uses energy-efficient water treatment processes and gives this project one of the lowest carbon footprints and operating costs of any desalination plant in the world," she said.

Opposition Leader Steven Marshall said the desalination plant was a white elephant and would still cost taxpayers $30 million a year to run while in stand-by mode.

"The decision to mothball the desalination plant is rubbing salt into the wounds of South Australians, who will still be forced to pay for the plant in their water bills," Mr Marshall said.

[monotonehell]

A to Labor for old news.

And a to Liberals for their doublespeak.

[Waewick]

A to Labor for old news.

And a to Liberals for their doublespeak.

both sides of politics are screwing this up.

turn it on and leave it on.

[Aidan]

A to Labor for old news.

And a to Liberals for their doublespeak.

both sides of politics are screwing this up.

Really? I'm no fan of the Liberals, but a slightly exaggerated statement of a valid point does not amount to screwing this up.

turn it on and leave it on.

That would be a waste of electricity. We don't need to resort to desalination when there's plenty of water in our reservoirs.

[Reb-L]

both sides of politics are screwing this up.

turn it on and leave it on.

Yes, who thinks we have too much H2O? Better have expensive water than not enough. Just imagine the situation if there was a seven year drought and we didn't have that plant ready. Nobody likes to pay insurance premiums but I haven't heard anybody complain about them when they put in a claim.

[Waewick]

both sides of politics are screwing this up.

turn it on and leave it on.

Yes, who thinks we have too much H2O? Better have expensive water than not enough. Just imagine the situation if there was a seven year drought and we didn't have that plant ready. Nobody likes to pay insurance premiums but I haven't heard anybody complain about them when they put in a claim.

I just think we have built it, lets learn to live with the higher water prices.

In effect it will drive innovation on how to better manage water and use it efficiently.

Water is too cheap in this country given we live in the driest State in the driest continent we should be leading the way, not pulling water in an unsustainable manner

[Waewick]

A to Labor for old news.

And a to Liberals for their doublespeak.

both sides of politics are screwing this up.

Really? I'm no fan of the Liberals, but a slightly exaggerated statement of a valid point does not amount to screwing this up.

turn it on and leave it on.

That would be a waste of electricity. We don't need to resort to desalination when there's plenty of water in our reservoirs.

it is all about the states opinion on it. right now the Liberals are stigmatising the plant rather than pointing out that it is a required piece of infrastructure.

sure, Labor stuffed everything else up, but now we have it, turn it on and leave it running and stop taking water from the Murray.

In regards to electricity, now we know that wind farms have no health impact - build a few more