Liberal Scum
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2005
- Messages
- 173
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Desalination on the scale now planned by the State Government would cost almost double that of a similar sized recycling scheme and consume more than three times as much energy, Sydney Water papers reveal.
A recycling scheme that produced 100 million litres of water a day would cost $285 million to build or $1.15 for every 1000 litres of water, according to a Sydney Water report dated August 17, 2005.
A desalination plant capable of producing the same amount of water would cost $470 million or $1.80 per 1000 litres.
The report, which was forcibly released yesterday by the upper house, had been buried among thousands of documents on desalination. It says the recycling scheme is far less energy intensive, consuming 1.5 megawatts of power for every million litres of water, compared with 5.3 megawatts per million litres for a desalination plant.
The Premier, Morris Iemma, announced this week the Government would commission the smallest desalination plant on its drawing board - one capable of producing 125 million litres a day, or 9 per cent of Sydney's needs. It will cost up to $1.3 billion but that includes the price of infrastructure that will enable the plant to produce 500 million litres a day, or a third of the city's water needs.
The Utilities Minister, Carl Scully, yesterday defended the Government's position, saying the public was "not too fussed about how the Government secures the power or the water".
The Sydney Water report says sending potable recycled water to Prospect reservoir from sewage treatment plants is much cheaper and uses less energy because of the high quality effluent available from the treatment plants and their proximity to Prospect.
A larger scale recycling project would be more expensive than desalination because the treated water would need to be transported to Warragamba Dam.
Another government report says the Government would need to plant a forest more than double the size of the Royal National Park to offset even half of the greenhouse gases associated with a 500 million litre desalination plant. The plantations would cost between $5.6 million and $7.3 million a year for 40 years and need constant maintenance.
Other documents question the figures the Government and Sydney Water have used to support their argument desalination costs less than large-scale recycling.
On its website, Sydney Water says a 500 million litres a day recycling plant would cost $2.8 billion to build and $140 million a year to run. Its estimated cost of building and running a 500 million litre desalination plant is $2 billion to build and $86 million a year, respectively. The Government has since revised this figure to $2.5 billion.
An expert hired by Sydney Water to scrutinise its estimates has complained of discrepancies.
In an email to the sustainability general manager dated September 8, Greg Leslie, an associate professor at the University of NSW, said his figures did not match those on Sydney Water's website or in a report by the parliamentary librarian. "Presumably, Sydney Water has developed more information on the cost of indirect potable reuse schemes and is entitled to adjust their estimates accordingly," he wrote. "However, now that this information is in the public domain, it is being commented on as evidence that indirect reuse is not economically viable."
Other documents show the Government has not explored all possible water strategies. An undated document from the Energy Department recommends sewer mining, where industries tap into the sewer and treat the water for use on site.
What possible logical reason is there for going ahead with desal?
A recycling scheme that produced 100 million litres of water a day would cost $285 million to build or $1.15 for every 1000 litres of water, according to a Sydney Water report dated August 17, 2005.
A desalination plant capable of producing the same amount of water would cost $470 million or $1.80 per 1000 litres.
The report, which was forcibly released yesterday by the upper house, had been buried among thousands of documents on desalination. It says the recycling scheme is far less energy intensive, consuming 1.5 megawatts of power for every million litres of water, compared with 5.3 megawatts per million litres for a desalination plant.
The Premier, Morris Iemma, announced this week the Government would commission the smallest desalination plant on its drawing board - one capable of producing 125 million litres a day, or 9 per cent of Sydney's needs. It will cost up to $1.3 billion but that includes the price of infrastructure that will enable the plant to produce 500 million litres a day, or a third of the city's water needs.
The Utilities Minister, Carl Scully, yesterday defended the Government's position, saying the public was "not too fussed about how the Government secures the power or the water".
The Sydney Water report says sending potable recycled water to Prospect reservoir from sewage treatment plants is much cheaper and uses less energy because of the high quality effluent available from the treatment plants and their proximity to Prospect.
A larger scale recycling project would be more expensive than desalination because the treated water would need to be transported to Warragamba Dam.
Another government report says the Government would need to plant a forest more than double the size of the Royal National Park to offset even half of the greenhouse gases associated with a 500 million litre desalination plant. The plantations would cost between $5.6 million and $7.3 million a year for 40 years and need constant maintenance.
Other documents question the figures the Government and Sydney Water have used to support their argument desalination costs less than large-scale recycling.
On its website, Sydney Water says a 500 million litres a day recycling plant would cost $2.8 billion to build and $140 million a year to run. Its estimated cost of building and running a 500 million litre desalination plant is $2 billion to build and $86 million a year, respectively. The Government has since revised this figure to $2.5 billion.
An expert hired by Sydney Water to scrutinise its estimates has complained of discrepancies.
In an email to the sustainability general manager dated September 8, Greg Leslie, an associate professor at the University of NSW, said his figures did not match those on Sydney Water's website or in a report by the parliamentary librarian. "Presumably, Sydney Water has developed more information on the cost of indirect potable reuse schemes and is entitled to adjust their estimates accordingly," he wrote. "However, now that this information is in the public domain, it is being commented on as evidence that indirect reuse is not economically viable."
Other documents show the Government has not explored all possible water strategies. An undated document from the Energy Department recommends sewer mining, where industries tap into the sewer and treat the water for use on site.
What possible logical reason is there for going ahead with desal?
