Stem the Tide of Desalination. The decision by Federal Environment minister, Peter
Garrett, to block the unpopular Traveston Dam was
widely acclaimed. But sadly, Queenslanders have been
left with a rather unpleasant and salty aftertaste.
The Queensland Water Commission has had to revise the SEQ water strategy since the decision was made to stop the dam at Traveston.
An opportunity exists (until 12th February) for people and communities to have their say with respect to this strategy.
The original strategy was written a time when SEQ was experiencing the effects of what is referred to as the Millennium drought the worst on record, which is only comparable with the Federation drought more than 100 years before.
The revised strategy incorporates our current reliance on the water grid which links our existing dams, a water recycle facility on the western corridor and the desalination plant at Tugun.
However to guarantee our supply given anticipated population increases, the QWC wants to add another bulk water supply in lieu of the Traveston dam ie one or more desalination plants.
Communities Against Desalination is looking carefully at the details offered by the QWC on their web site www.qwc.qld.gov.au
This web site offers the Draft SEQ Water Strategy and also the studies undertaken to date on the proposed Desalination Plants.
The specific concerns that we have with the implementation of Desalination Plants are:
Power supply of this magnitude needs to be planned for and brought it, surplus energy of this proportion does not exist in any of our communities.
For comparison Tarong Power Station which is one of Queensland’s biggest power plants has a total generating capacity of 1400MW.
Swanbank Power Station‘s total generating capacity is 865MW.
These costs are based on a tunnelled 100Ml/d plant at Marcoola which is very similar size to that installed at Tugun (125Ml/d).
We have been paying $1.10 per 1000 litres on the Sunshine Coast and we can only assume that the QWC will be adding a mark up to their cost of $3.60 before it is available to Queenslanders as consumers. As energy prices rise so too with the cost to deliver desalinated water.
The QWC has factored in price rises for energy however power is set to rise this year by 13-14% and only 11% was factored so these estimates are already light on.
(costs vary according the choice of plant size and method of delivery- these costs relate to the studies that the QWC have undertaken for a plant at Marcoola)
This cost to Queensland is effectively for an insurance policy because the cost of the water through desalination is too high to rely upon.
Desalinated water is only used when the dams are depleted because of the costs associated.
We would therefore have these plants being maintained and operated at a minimal level until or unless they are required if dam levels fall to unacceptable levels.
The high cost of this infrastructure will be covered by all Queensland communities not just those in Marcoola, Tugun, Bribie or the like.
It is important to understand that circumstances have changed since the Millennium drought of 2006-2007, we now have a combined dam capacity of 71% or 6 years water supply available.
There is time to plan for more sustainable cost effective solutions to guaranteeing SEQ water supply.
One example being-
The Queensland government has legislated to ensure that all new homes from 1st January 2007 are fitted with a minimum 5000 litre rain water tank, which must be plumbed into the home for toilet flushing and water saving plumbing fixtures are also required.
Should the Queensland have $3Billion available then why not retrofit $1 million existing Queensland homes with a 5000 litre rain water tank (allowing an installed cost $3000.00 per home).
Rain doesn’t always fall in the dam catchment areas, but if we all had some on site water storage ie a rain water tank or two, then our rainfall could be caught.
This decentralising of water supply will substantially reduce the level of demand on our bulk supplies.
In closing, we ask if you agree with our sentiments please sign our prepared submission attached to this email and forward this email to as many other people that you might know for their support as well.
We do appreciate and respect that not everyone will agree with us on this matter, however from the number of submissions to date we believe that the majority do.
Warm regards Debbie Johnson.
Comments
Posted On
Jan 13, 2010Posted By
AnthonyI am one of the few that do support the desal plant, only because there are not many alternatives that do not rely on rain. With global warming, the "once in 100yrs" predictions are based on historical levels when global warming was not as great an issue. While desalination is a highly intensive energy user that will add to the global warming problem, I believe that nuclear or thermal energy options be explored outside urban areas (unlike Lucas Heights in Sydney)to help lower the carbon footprint. Other alternatives have been knocked back such as recycled water, and Traveston Dam. Cloud seeding unfortunately relies on weather events, but may be an option as backup. Unfortunately, without water, many businesses can not survive, as well as residents.
Posted On
Jan 13, 2010Posted By
Debbie JohnsonAnthony thank you for your comments we do appreciate everyones ideas and feedback.
In recent weeks I personally have read and considered reports on water management strategies including several prepared by Dr Peter Coombes.
I have been amazed at what Peter has revealed in these reports. Similarly many other people who are qualified scientists, climatologists and hydrologists have contacted us in recent weeks. There really is a wealth of qualified opinions to consider. I would be very happy to send you Peter's reports if you wish to email me through info
Regards Debbie.
Posted On
Jan 20, 2010Posted By
AnthonyDebbie,
Thanks, if you could email those, it would be interesting.
RSS feed for comments to this post.