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

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2938
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 115 times

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

#1 Post by rhino » Thu May 10, 2007 3:46 pm

Marty has just been over to Perth and checked out their De-Sal plant. Without too much background research (obviously) he states "...Because the Premier and his ministers failed to move on desalination when they should have, costs have almost certainly risen and a desalination plant for Adelaide will now be more expensive."

Here's a clipping from today's 'Tiser:

Desal plant delay 'will cost millions"
MICHAEL OWEN, POLITICAL REPORTER
May 09, 2007 01:20pm

OPPOSITION Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith is convinced desalination is the "water technology of the future" after returning from a tour of Perth's new desalination plant.

Mr Hamilton-Smith flew back to Adelaide last night after spending most of yesterday inspecting the plant at Kwinana in WA, which produces 17 per cent of Perth's water supply.

He said further delays in building a desalination plant in South Australian would cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

"To its credit the Western Australian Government bit the bullet, moved early and accepted that it needed additional water and just got on with a major desalination project,' Mr Hamilton-Smith said.

"We now need a commitment from Premier Mike Rann and Water Security Minister Karlene Maywald that after five years in office they will acknowledge that Adelaide also needs more water and a modern desalination plant.

"Because the Premier and his ministers failed to move on desalination when they should have, costs have almost certainly risen and a desalination plant for Adelaide will now be more expensive."

In March, Ms Maywald revealed a desalination working group had been formed by the Government to build on work SA Water had started in late 2005.

Earlier this year, then Liberal Party leader Iain Evans proposed a $400 million desalination plant for Adelaide to provide more than 20 per cent of the city's water supply.

Last week, an Advertiser poll found 69 per cent – including 73 per cent of Labor voters – supported SA spending at least $400 million to build a desalination plant in the metropolitan area to help provide more fresh water for the city.



What effect will a De-Sal plant in our gulfs have to the quality (saltiness) of the gulf's water, and the flow-on effect on the fishery, considering that these 2 gulfs do not flush themselves out as regularly as the Indian Ocean (where Kwinana is) does? Our gulfs and The Solent in England are the only places in the world that experience dodge tides - ie no tidal movement. Of course, dodge tides are not happening every day, but there is no doubt that tidal movement does not flush clean water through these gulfs on a regular basis.

Comments?
cheers,
Rhino

alfer7_3
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:19 pm
Location: Adelaide

#2 Post by alfer7_3 » Thu May 10, 2007 4:28 pm

Adelaide does not need a de-sal plant,

Martin Hamilton Smith's comment that Perth acted quickly is false as Perth's rainfall has been reducing for the past 30 years which has had a huge impact on water supply for the last 30 years. De-sal plant has only been recent addition to boost their water supply. It is not needed in Adelaide we can have other water supply alternatives like water recycling and aquifers. De sal plants will also have a massive environmental impact from the CO2 emissions and from the salt returning into the gulf. Definately not the solution for Adelaide

User avatar
Mants
Legendary Member!
Posts: 990
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:40 am
Location: City of Burnside
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 10 times

#3 Post by Mants » Thu May 10, 2007 5:11 pm

edit
Last edited by Mants on Thu May 10, 2007 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mants
Legendary Member!
Posts: 990
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:40 am
Location: City of Burnside
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 10 times

#4 Post by Mants » Thu May 10, 2007 5:12 pm

alfer7_3 wrote:De sal plants will also have a massive environmental impact from ... the salt returning into the gulf. Definately not the solution for Adelaide
that's just a myth.

most new desal plants ensure that salinity levels in surrounding waters are not dramatically affected .

the perth desal plant itself ensures that the salinity levels in the area rise by less that 1%

User avatar
shuza
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:13 pm

#5 Post by shuza » Thu May 10, 2007 7:45 pm

Well, seems everyone has forgotten that Victor Harbor/Goolwa faces the southern ocean. Build a desalation plant therewhere the dodge currents flush regulary or whatever terminology was used in that context. The pipings close enough to Adelaide, so shouldnt be too much trouble.

User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2302
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head
Has thanked: 872 times
Been thanked: 108 times

#6 Post by Ho Really » Thu May 10, 2007 9:11 pm

shuza wrote:Well, seems everyone has forgotten that Victor Harbor/Goolwa faces the southern ocean. Build a desalation plant therewhere the dodge currents flush regulary or whatever terminology was used in that context. The pipings close enough to Adelaide, so shouldnt be too much trouble.
Correct. If a desalination plant is needed, build it where there will be less environmental impact on the ocean and where it can serve growth areas (Victor Harbor, Goolwa and Murray Bridge). Then pipe it to existing reservoirs: Myponga, Mount Bold, Happy Valley, etc.

Cheers

User avatar
jimmy_2486
Legendary Member!
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Glenelg-Marion Area

#7 Post by jimmy_2486 » Thu May 10, 2007 10:03 pm

Problem Solved!!

User avatar
Mants
Legendary Member!
Posts: 990
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:40 am
Location: City of Burnside
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 10 times

#8 Post by Mants » Fri May 11, 2007 9:51 pm

i disagree

the strip from Victor to Goolwa is a beautiful untouched landscape mostly made up of tourist beaches and surf beaches. personally, i wouldnt wanna be swimming right next to a huge water plant.

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

#9 Post by AtD » Fri May 11, 2007 10:20 pm

Mants, then don't go swimming at Glenelg.

User avatar
Mants
Legendary Member!
Posts: 990
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:40 am
Location: City of Burnside
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 10 times

#10 Post by Mants » Sat May 12, 2007 10:35 am

i swim at henley :)

but that's not my point. glenelg is already quite developed as opposed to anywhere really on the southern coast.

i would rather see it built at pt stanvac, which wouldnt affect the landscape so much because the old refinery is still there.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2938
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 115 times

#11 Post by rhino » Mon May 14, 2007 8:03 am

Mants wrote:i would rather see it built at pt stanvac, which wouldnt affect the landscape so much because the old refinery is still there.
It wouldn't affect the landscape, but it would still affect the gulf, and, in turn, the fishery. The problem doesn't go away because you can't see it.

My recommendation (and I'm not really qualified to make one, this just comes from reading and observation) would be somewhere near Backstairs Passage where the current is huge, and an under-sea pipeline to Adelaide, maybe coming ashore at Port Stanvac where it might be able to utilize existing infrastructure, and then heading toward Happy Valley Reservoir where the filtration plant is located.
cheers,
Rhino

sidler
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:27 pm

#12 Post by sidler » Mon May 14, 2007 3:29 pm

I dont know who to believe but at uni our lecturer said that the salinity issue from a desal plant is a myth. Apparently the reason fishstocks have fallen (among other things) is actually due to salinity levels in the gulf being too low.

He was telling us how before european settlement hardly any of Adelaides water runoff reached the gulf and was trapped in massive wetlands on the plains and since we have started pumping fresh stormwater into the gulf he reckons salinty levels have dropped significantly so maybe a bit of extra salinty might be a good thing.

User avatar
Mants
Legendary Member!
Posts: 990
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:40 am
Location: City of Burnside
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 10 times

#13 Post by Mants » Mon May 14, 2007 5:00 pm

rhino wrote:
Mants wrote:i would rather see it built at pt stanvac, which wouldnt affect the landscape so much because the old refinery is still there.
It wouldn't affect the landscape, but it would still affect the gulf, and, in turn, the fishery. The problem doesn't go away because you can't see it.

My recommendation (and I'm not really qualified to make one, this just comes from reading and observation) would be somewhere near Backstairs Passage where the current is huge, and an under-sea pipeline to Adelaide, maybe coming ashore at Port Stanvac where it might be able to utilize existing infrastructure, and then heading toward Happy Valley Reservoir where the filtration plant is located.
but as i said, the perth plant ensures there is a less than 1% salinity rise in the seawater.

in adelaide's case, would a less than 1% salinity rise affect the fisheries etc? assuming that they build the plant with state of the art technology as perth has

User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2302
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head
Has thanked: 872 times
Been thanked: 108 times

#14 Post by Ho Really » Thu May 17, 2007 12:43 am

Mants wrote:i disagree...the strip from Victor to Goolwa is a beautiful untouched landscape mostly made up of tourist beaches and surf beaches. personally, i wouldnt wanna be swimming right next to a huge water plant.
Mants, I said to serve the region between Victor Harbor and Murray Bridge, I didn't say to build it on the beaches. rhino gave us a clue. Maybe Cape Jervis is a good spot.

Cheers

User avatar
jimmy_2486
Legendary Member!
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Glenelg-Marion Area

#15 Post by jimmy_2486 » Thu May 17, 2007 2:26 am

If we had de-sal plants that serviced our metro area would our water restrictions (for metro only) be removed?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests