I was interested to read at ABC Online yesterday, that Greenpeace has thrown its support behind ambitious plans for a solar powered water desalination plant in Whyalla, South Australia.
I have previously only heard environmental groups criticise such projects – generally suggesting we should just consume less water. Has there been any support for the wind-powered desal plant that I understand will be build for Perth? How advanced is this project?
According to the ABC Online report Whyalla Local councillor Eddie Hughes says desalination plants usually use huge amounts of power and generate greenhouse gases, but solar power would stop this from happening.
He says the plan already has substantial backing from the private sector and would have many benefits for the local community.
“Those benefits would be enormous. This would be the first plant of its type in Australia and if the pilot plant is successful it will demonstrate an environmentally friendly way of not just generating electricity but also providing desalinated water,” he said.
“Greenpeace has used this, what we’ve proposed for Whyalla, as an example of the sort of approach that we should be taking nationally and internationally.”
Whyalla is the largest provincial city in South Australia and the northern gateway to the Eyre Peninsula. It is known for its heavy industry, particularly the enormous iron and steel works.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Well the technology works OK but two catches – yep uses lots of power – are they saying it will be solar powered ?? What happens at night ?
And as well as producing fresh water you also get lots of very salty water – which can be a local problem. I guess if they flush it out in the Southern Ocean they’d be OK – but if in the Gulf ??
Problems problems Phil, no wonder you spend so much time under the bed.
If it is cost effective just.do.it.
There are plenty of natural salt pans in that area, why not evaporate the waste and sell it of as sodium chloride?
Rog – I am quoting the problem re Greenpeace’s possible perspective not necessarily myself. The very very salty water can be hazard – even right wing types have told me !
I reckon you have to be right up against it to go the deal- big bucks.
And you cannot have enough red under the bed. Stops the rust.
I often criticise Greenpeace when they get it wrong, but in this case its probably not a disaster even if it is a bit costly, because it gets us on a learning curve, and the next generation of solar power may be much more efficient and cheper too. I suppose I should also declare a family interest in that a close relative works on manufacturing of solar cells, but my opinions are mostly divorced from my personal financial interests!
Reverse osmosis based desalination requires electricity, but not all desal does. Solar thermal desalination for example is solar powered and does not require electricity. It uses solar radiation to evaporate water which is then recondensed without the salt. Engineers in Isreal experimented with it but I am not sure how commercially ready it is.
I can’t see anything in the ABC report that specifies what desal technology is being employed. Sounds like you need to dig a bit deeper and find out what exactly is being proposed. After all, you know what they say about assumption….
The plant id described in this article. Not sure when it was written.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/451/451p16b.htm
Sylvia.
Here is info on current state of play with WA desal plant
http://www.watercorporation.com.au/water/water_sources_desalination.cfm
There are concerns with discharge of salty water into Coburn Sound but will have to suck it and see what the long term effects are.
Perth is also pursuing more extraction of ground water so is not putting all eggs in one basket.
While I am reluctant to knock Greenpeace for any seemingly sensible idea, especially in terms of the ‘use’ of natural resources, I cannot help but wonder:
1. In an attempt to reduce carbon emmissions from using fossil fuels to power the desal plant have they factored in the amount of carbon which is involved in manufactoring and installing solar panels on the site?
2. Have Greenpeace looked at the cost benefit analysis of the increased costs of implementing and ungrading solar panels at the expense of much cheaper fuel sources?
3. Have Greenpeace factored in that the apparent ‘savings’ they are making by using solar panels may actually be accruing increased costs further down the transaction chain ie. increased cost of using solar panels means less money spent on other important infrastructure such as larger dams and recycling plants, or the delayed uptake of other water efficient technologies?
4. Why not use cheaper, easily available fuels in the mean time and then transfer to solar once they become costs effective? (This will probably trigger an interesting response but) Or why not at least wait until the science and models for the impacts of human induced carbon emissions upon atmospheric climate change is fully assessed before sqwandering millions of dolars on over priced and inefficient technology?
5. Have Greenpeace also assessed the impacts of increased and unnatural vegetation thickening in the catchments which supply water to urban regions?
6. Could it be that we don’t have a ‘water shortage’ problem but more accurately a ‘water storage problem’ being exaserbated by inefficient environmental compliance and government policy planning?
Tom Marland
Fossil Fuels
Petroleum is not a fossil fuel.
Under the pressures and temperatures in a sedimentary basin, it is thermodynamically impossible to convert plant and buried biota to hydrocarbons.
Reading the ABC and Greenleft articles on this proposal it seems that there is not so much a Whyalla water shortage, just an opportunity to try this technology mix.
As taxpayers we are lucky it is only ~$100Mill and not the $1.5Bill represented by Perth and Sydney desal.
Tom Marland you are spot on in your points 5 and 6. I am well aware how the WA Govt has let catchments clog with regrowth reducing runoff yields to ~3% down from about twice that in mid 1990’s. If you have any specific information re catchment yield changes for Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane I would be very interested to hear Tom. You could email me at perth_water@yahoo.com.au
The WA Govt is numero uno obsessed with retaining Green preferences which is the only rational reason I can see why they prefer to blow $500Mill on desal option (not a small sum) when some win win win bush management could easily recover that 45GL PA of extra water.
One of the more cheerful bits of news out of the Middle East is that the Israelis are going in for desalination in a big way. This will help to avoid future water wars, and they may even, inshallah, be able to help their Arab neighbours out by selling them water. But, ya habibi, the power plant will be coal-fired.
Israeli water desal link;
http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=15943
extract via John Ray
PRIVATE HIGH TECH SOLVES A RESOURCE SHORTAGE
An Israeli-led consortium is completing the worldís largest, most technologically advanced and economical water desalination plant, a project that backers say could influence prospects for Mideast peace and development of arid regions worldwide. The $250 million plant will produce 100 million cubic meters of water a year in two identical, adjacent facilities from water drawn from the Mediterranean Sea, sufficient to provide 5 percent of the water consumed in Israel. One desalination unit here is complete, and a second unit is expected to be finished by the end of the year.
Lance Johnson, manager of large desalination projects at Dow Chemical Co. ó which makes the membranes at the center of the process ó said output will equal ì500 million half-liter size bottles of water a day ó a lot of water.î Israeli officials have quietly begun talks with the Palestinian Authority about the possibility of increasing the plantís production to 120 million cubic meters a year, with 20 million cubic meters to be shipped to Gaza, 5 miles away. ìAfter this plant is in operation, people will realize itís much cheaper to build this kind of plant than fight for water in the Middle East,î said Gustavo Kronenberg, general manager of the VID Desalination Co. and the man in charge of the plantís construction.
The project is being developed by VID, a joint venture made up of IDE Technologies and Elran Infrastructures, both of Israel, and Veolia Water of France. The Israeli government will take ownership of the facility after 25 years. Aiman Jarrar, head of the Palestinian Water Authorityís regulatory directorate, said Gaza residents need affordable water. ìThe Palestinians realize that one of the solutions of water shortage in Gaza strip is desalination,î Jarrar said in an e-mail…..
Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, Israelís infrastructure minister, said the country has embarked on a five-year plan to develop desalination plants capable of creating 300 million cubic meters of water. Israel uses 600 million cubic meters of water annually for human consumption and another 1.3 billion or so for agriculture and industry. The Ashkelon plant is coming on line just as Israel has begun to focus on developing its vast Negev desert region. The bulk of the water produced in Ashkelon will be shipped to the Negev, and some will go to Jerusalem, Kronenberg said.
The plant will be the worldís largest facility producing water through reverse osmosis, a type of filtering process. Currently, only about 20 percent of worldwide desalination involves reverse osmosis, but membranes developed in recent years have made the process more economical. In fact, as the technology improved, the Israelis doubled the Ashkelon plantís planned capacity. In 1999, when planning for the project began, the estimated cost of producing water had fallen from $1 per cubic meter to 70 cents. Kronenberg said the Ashkelon plant will produce water at 53 cents per cubic meter, which he called ìthe lowest price ever seen for desalinated water.î
Three pipes extending more than a half-mile into the sea take in water about 45 feet below the surface, where itís clearest. The incoming water is routed to two desalination units located just north of a huge, coal-fired power plant whose smokestacks loom over Israelís southern Mediterranean coast. Pulled by gravity, the seawater is filtered through layers of sand. Additives and cartridge filters remove suspended particles larger than 10 microns. The seawater then is routed to a pumping chamber, where its pressure is elevated. Half of that water flows through special membranes and becomes potable. The remaining brine, under high pressure, is used to help boost the pressure of incoming seawater ó helping to dramatically reduce the energy needed for the process…..
Regarding the cost of “solar panels” mentioned by rossco:
The plant does not use photovoltaics, only the simple thermal process of heating water. I can’t see how any process could do better than that, and here we are getting 2 for the price of 1: electricity and clean water.
Rodney; Wollongong
Dear Jennifer
Brilliant to see your lead on Greenpeace’s Wyalla solar pant.
Our wind powered unit will make up to 12 litrees an hour of fresh water from salty or dirty water by distillation. > http://www.windwater.com. Profits of $2M pa are forecast in 5 years. Know anyone who might be interested in invseting or a JV?
Best regards – and Happy Christmas
Charlie Madden