Sensational-Adelaide.com

Can the title of this post please be changed to #U/C | Port Stanvac Desalination Plant | $2 Billion and rising, it would be nice for it to reflect reality.

I know some guys working on this site and the stories they are telling me are depressing, some very bad management and waste of money, so many guys on this job are from interstate doing simple jobs that south aussies could do.One guy from gold coast is a storeman doing 10 to 14 hour days doing f#$@ all, he says he is loving the easy money, no wonder this state is going broke. Rann should of never doubled the size of this plant!

Do we have an ETA on the forum title change to #U/C | Port Stanvac Desalination Plant | $2 Billion and rising?

Builtit wrote:no wonder this state is going broke. Rann should of never doubled the size of this plant!

Two things:
1) this state is not going broke. AAA+ credit rating still intact
2) We live in the driest state of the driest country in the world and we are coming out of a drought.

Perhaps you should comment on Adelaidenow.

muzzamo wrote:

Builtit wrote:no wonder this state is going broke. Rann should of never doubled the size of this plant!

Two things:
1) this state is not going broke. AAA+ credit rating still intact
2) We live in the driest state of the driest country in the world and we are coming out of a drought.

Perhaps you should comment on Adelaidenow.

We're not going broke, but Builtit's right about its size. A smaller plant would've been cheaper, would be better suited to our needs, and crucially the time spent waiting before expansion would've made it much easier to take advantage of new technology to cut the energy consumption of desalination.

"Better suited to our needs", Aidan?

You have figures to back that up?

Or perhaps you might like to tell us where SA Water got their numbers wrong?

rubberman wrote:"Better suited to our needs", Aidan?

You have figures to back that up?

Or perhaps you might like to tell us where SA Water got their numbers wrong?

I'm not sure it was actually SA Water who got the numbers wrong - ISTR it was an unexpected political decision to build the whole thing at once.

There was the incorrect assumption that the drought would continue, but that alone doesn't make it a bad decision as we didn't have the benefit of hindsight. What makes it a bad decision is that we did have other options, most significantly increased use of groundwater.

This is one situation where the government cannot win.

If they had built half a desalination plant like some are advocating, the cries of "SA never plans for the future", or this is "another Southern Expressway", would have been deafening.

The whingers cannot have it both ways.

Will wrote:This is one situation where the government cannot win.

A more sensible government could've won.

If they had built half a desalination plant like some are advocating, the cries of "SA never plans for the future", or this is "another Southern Expressway", would have been deafening.

Not if proper provision had been made to upgrade it later.

After all, a big part of the reason the Southern Expressway's so badly designed is that proper provision for duplication wasn't made.

Aidan wrote:

rubberman wrote:"Better suited to our needs", Aidan?

You have figures to back that up?

Or perhaps you might like to tell us where SA Water got their numbers wrong?

I'm not sure it was actually SA Water who got the numbers wrong - ISTR it was an unexpected political decision to build the whole thing at once.

There was the incorrect assumption that the drought would continue, but that alone doesn't make it a bad decision as we didn't have the benefit of hindsight. What makes it a bad decision is that we did have other options, most significantly increased use of groundwater.

Of course there are generally other options in augmenting water supplies.

Do you have a reference to the analysis (even if it is a summary) of the options.

I guess what I am getting at is that it is quite possible that the groundwater option may have been either almost as expensive as the desal option (depending on the level of treatment required) and maybe not as much water was actually able to be withdrawn from the aquifers (ie quantity limited). For example, Adelaide used to have water supply bores dotted round the western suburbs, but this was abandoned for quality reasons during the times when Adelaide's surface water was pretty bad, so it does not say much for the quality of the ground water if it was considered riskier than the stuff coming from the taps in the sixties.

So, while it is important for the decisions for water supply augmentation to be transparently made, it would be good to be able to see any options papers that you might have based your opinion on. You might be right for all I know, but it would be nice to have the figgers.

I've seen the actual figures for myself about the cost of securing Adelaide's water supply through various means; groundwater vs. desalination vs. increased River Murray intake v.s Mount Bold reservoir expansion and I can tell you that desalination was by far the most expensive option...

It's no wonder water bills are going up by $900 a year.

Check, I read you on the dollars. Thanks.

Now, quantities. At the time the decision was made, we were in drought. Therefore, if one built an extension to Mt Bold, that would not have done any good if the drought had continued. We would just have had a higher wall with no water in it - problem not solvered and still lots of $$ spent. Similarly, with the Murray and the groundwater - could we have extracted enough water from them under drought conditions to solve the problem? That is the next logical question. (And I confess I do not know the answer to this - just asking).

In hindsight, as Aidan has quite correctly pointed out, had we known the drought was going to break, some of the cheaper options would have been preferable. Given the fact that whatever decisions Governments (of all colours) make, they will get a bucketload of SA Water's premium brown product over their head if they get it wrong. What do you think would have been the reaction on this very site had the government gone for a cheaper option such as extending Mt Bold if the drought had continued? I reckon the response would be screams of outrage over building a dam wall where no water was coming in..."how stupid is that?"..."no wonder my water bill is going up $900"...etc...etc.

Aidan wrote:

rubberman wrote:"Better suited to our needs", Aidan?

You have figures to back that up?

Or perhaps you might like to tell us where SA Water got their numbers wrong?

I'm not sure it was actually SA Water who got the numbers wrong - ISTR it was an unexpected political decision to build the whole thing at once.

There was the incorrect assumption that the drought would continue, but that alone doesn't make it a bad decision as we didn't have the benefit of hindsight. What makes it a bad decision is that we did have other options, most significantly increased use of groundwater.

;ust wanted to clarify a few things. Increased use of groundwater is certainly not an option to secure Adelaides water supply. SA Water is currently trying to minimise groundwater extraction as it is not sustainable (for example they have provided recylced water from Bolivar to Virginia farmers to reduce groundwater extraction in that area). Groundwater levels under the Adelaide Plains are already dangerously low.

Also, increasing dam capacities and increasing extraction from the Murray are not drought proof. If it doesn't rain, neither option will provide sufficient water for the city.

We have had a great year of rain, but don't be fooled into thinking the drouight is over or could not get worse. We may have 10 more good years, or next year could be our driest yet. Unfortunately a desalination plant is currently the best solution available to secure our water supply, regardless of rainfall.I don't necessarily like the idea or the cost of the plant but there were no better options.

Thank You Rubberman and Victorious80. I could not have said it any plainer myself. Agree 100%.

agree re:desal plant

my only issue is how the state government provided it - which was poor as usual.

quite frankly, I would like to See Adealide 100% off Murray Water with the water to be used elsewhere as irrigation or back to the enviroment.