“The Mayor of Toowoomba, Di Thorley, says the case for water recycling in Australia has been dealt a severe blow as a result of yesterday’s poll in the south-east Queensland city.
Around 60 per cent of residents have voted ‘no’ to a plan to draw 25 per cent of the city’s water from recycled effluent.”
… reports ABC Online.
Luke left the following comment earlier this morning at an earlier blog post on this issue:
“And there you have it – should put the sword through any other politicians trying to run the agenda for some time. A powerful option gone from the toolkit.”
Yet the front page of today’s The Sunday Mail includes the headline:
“Recycled Water Vote No, But Beattie sets date for new southeast referendum”.
Last Friday, before the vote was lost, Graham Young blogging at Ambit Gambit, suggested it was not a bad election issue for the Premier to run on.
It is interesting to ponder why Toowoomba voted against waste water recycling.
The ‘no campaign’ played on the ‘yuk’ factor and it is unclear to what extent the push was supported by local irrigators who have been using the city’s sewage to water their lucerne for about 60 years.
Perhaps the outcome could be seen as one group of resource users out-smarting a city council so they retain access to ‘cheap water’ so they can keep growing lucerne for their cows?
My understanding is that Goulburn will soon be drinking recycled sewage and that there will not be a referendum.
Economics and science would suggest that recycling waste water is the way to go for places like Toowoomba and Brisbane, but now it seems politics is getting in the way?
Interestingly I support the Australian Greens on this issue. Since 2004 it has been their policy to:
“Implement national policies that facilitate a decrease in per capita consumption of fresh water and expand opportunities for its re-use.”
………………………….
Update next day, 31st July
I expanded this blog piece into an article titled ‘Democracy versus leadership in Poowoomba’ published this morning by On Line Opinion which you can read by clicking here http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4742 .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
So what are they going to drink?
I grew up in Toowoomba. Clive Berghofer, described by the ABC as ‘property developer and “no” campaigner”, used to be the mayor. And I learn now, many years later, that he was also the richest man in town, by far: http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2006_07_23/story_1716.asp
Funny how you can spend half your life somewhere and be oblivious to how it really works.
The “no” campaign lacks any alterntaive to replace dwindling fesh water supplies in Toowoomba. They may end up very smelly and very thirsty, but he residents wont be subject to the “yuk” factor.
South-east Queensland mayors have attacked Premier Peter Beattie’s plan to hold a referendum in 2008 on the use of recycled effluent for drinking water in the region.
The Brisbane region’s dams are at 28 per cent capacity, with level four water restrictions expected to come into force at the end of August.
Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman says the water crisis is so critical that Mr Beattie should hold the referendum as soon as possible.
“What we need now is strong leadership,” he said.
“The Premier will get the support of local government to take the necessary decisions, but trying to cloud the issue at a local government election just isn’t on.
“If they need to have a referendum, hold it now, hold it in the next few months, hold it at the state election, but don’t put off such a vital decision for 20 months.”
Mr Newman says leaving the vote so long is a political game.
“Water supply security planning is a State Government responsibility,” he said.
“The Premier and the State Government need to tell the community how serious the water supply situation is right now and they need to make decisions right now.
“Putting off decisions until March 2008 is simply not on – it’s a bit of a political game.”
But Mr Beattie says the region can afford to wait until 2008 to put the issue to referendum.
“I think the water grid strategy, provided we build dams and build pipelines and have desalination, we can get by without using recycled water for drinking,” he said.
More at
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1700706.htm
What the yes voters do not seem to comprehend is that there are numerous recycling alternatives that are cheaper and more prectical than going to all the expense of bringing sewerage to drinking quality.
The 90,000 residents of Toowoomba occupy 33,000 households and require 8,200 megalitres of water each year. The council was planning to spend $60 million of Federal funds for a ‘gee wiz’ water treatment plant that would only treat the portion of existing water use that goes down the drain.
That $60 million, at $1,820/house would cover 89% of the cost of a 13,500 litre water tank for every house in the city. And even with only 500mm of rainfall a year, these tanks would capture 4,125 megalitres, or half the annual requirement at pre-restrictions use levels.
The sewerage recycling option will mix 25% treated water into the normal water and that means it will only deliver 2,100 megalitres while the tank option will deliver almost double (196%) that volume.
Furthermore, the treatment plant will have significant on-going operating costs for the treatment process while the tanks will not.
The no voters of Toowoomba are not stupid. Many have grown up on farms or retain links with the surrounding region where watertanks are the norm.
And for that stupid woman to claim that this recycled water is the same as what is being drunk all along the river is to miss the point that primary and secondary treated sewerage is cleaned up in the river itself by microbes and smaller aquatic species. For free!
And these little dudes with a tummy full of crap then get screened out in just a simple filter. Some of the water also ends up on a farmers crop from where it is returned to the atmosphere in pure form and then recycled as rain or dew.
But in any event, the yes promoters fail to understand that the new plant will be a very expensive under utilised white elephant. This is because there is a sufficiently large group out in the community who’s response to this sort of recycling will be to buy that tank and reduce total demand on the system by at least 50%.
It would take only 15% of the existing users to respond by getting a water tank and the actual need for the new plant will be postponed by at least a decade and more if more than 500mm lands on their roof.
And that idle treatment plant will accumulate an annual interest bill of about $4 million and compound, at 6% interest, to another $52 million.
So when the plant is only just starting to deliver less than 10% of its capacity, the cost will have blown out to $112 million.
But on the basis of the strength of the no vote, the proportion of people who buy tanks will be a lot higher than only 15% and the existing supply will be more than adequate for two or three decades.
And while the council, once they had built such a plant, would certainly operate it at full capacity to hide the extent of their negligence, the unused water in the existing dam would be just as wasted and just as economically unviable.
These turkeys seem to think they have monopoly power and so, can serve up crap at exhorbitant prices. But they are not in a monopoly position on domestic water and it could be a very expensive lesson that will ultimately be borne by the taxpayer.
Ian,
Don’t get me wrong, I think water tanks are fantastic, but lets not pretend that they are somehow ridiculously cheap compared to recycling.
I don’t understand how you got $1820 would cover 89% of a 13,500 L tank cost. that is not true to my knowledge. Its not just the tank, its the concrete slab, plumbing etc as well that needs to be paid for.
To even meet only part of your water requirements, you might need a 5000L tank for garden water and toilet flushing. That would cost maybe $4,000 including everything, and save you about $50 of water a year. That’s one house with a couple of loos.
My data comes from talking to a friend who used to work at Sydney Water. How about your back of envelope?
Rog, what do you reckon? i seem to recall you living off rainwater too.
What I recokon is that our children and their children will curse us for bringing them into this world.
One thing I noticed was the ‘No’ campaign was used by the Nationals as a political tool against the non-National Mayor. Clive Berghofer and Lyle Shelton were the most prominent No campaigners and Ian Macfarlane is a Liberal for a rural seat who pressured the Federal government to make the funding of the treatment plant conditional on the vote. Lyle is a member of the council who originally voted for the recycling of water.
I think that it is sad that the ‘rural’ party of Australia would actively campaign against a solution to some of the rural communities water problems for the short-term policital goal of unseating the Mayor of Toowoomba.
Steve, three of my four houses run on tank water and, frankly, any information provided by anyone in, or from, the public water mafia, is very suss.
And according to Auspoly, their 13,500 litre tank costs $2050. And you don’t need a slab. A base of “cracker dust”, (0.7m3 @ $45/m3) with a metal or simple cement ring border will do just as well for a fraction of the cost.
I prefer them on posts so the base of the tank is at the same level as the kitchen taps and this provides a nice little garden shed underneath for free. And deduct the cost of a garden shed from the cost of the tanks stand, with walls and door, and you are about even.
The basic plumbing is not expensive but all the associated bull$hit from local councils will add another $1,000 to the total but those with an ounce of nouse just put the thing in and ignore the council. The rebates come with so much crap you would need a treatment plant do deal with it all.
There is absolutely no justification for any of this regulation. The owner has very powerful motivation to install a tank properly. And water tanks are not known for jumping over the fence to hump the neighbour’s hot water system. They just sit there for 30 years, quietly doing their job.
And one correction to my numbers above. The treatment plant at Toowoomba above was proposed at $68 million, not $60 million and that works out at $2,060 for each household, the full cost of the 13,500 litre tank.
And this is not “back of the envelope” stuff but derived from a set of 6 linked spreadsheets that can model the cost, volume, margin relationships of water at any given decile of a location’s rainfall data for any given roof size and annual water usage. It also provides the amount of overflow from any given tank size in wet seasons and the amount of shortfall in any range of dry seasons.
And my advice to everyone is to put as much distance between your own interests and the interests of these water boofheads as possible because they have converted this public ‘service’ into a revenue ‘franchise’.
Don’t put up with it.
“The basic plumbing is not expensive”
perhaps this is where we differ. Does anyone have any data on how much it might cost to plumb a rainwater tank to two toilets? And what if one of the dunnies is on the 2nd floor?
Where it starts to get tricky is when you have electric pumps involved. Starts to become like owning a swimming pool which as we know isn’t for everyone. But then again “no water” might also start the technological adaptation process.
Attempts at new urban design for water conservation.
http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/About_the_department/publications/newsletters/Sectorwide/2005_Editions/July_2005/Extraordinary_estate_pioneers_water_conservation/
http://www.healthyhomeproject.com/tech/index.html
http://www.healthyhomeproject.com/tech/raintank.html
How can it be so difficult? We have thousands of people on “trickle” town water supply, in Beaudesert shire. Perhaps we could run seminars to show you city slickers how to do it.
You have a tank, with a pressure pump supplying the house in a self contained system.
Town water is supplied, through a valve, which controlls the flow.
When the tank gets very low, the valve opens, & brings the tank back to 1/4, 1/3 or what ever its set at, with town water. This leaves 60% to 80% of the tank, empty, to catch rain water.
Visitors, from the city, are totally unaware that they are not using town water, excepr for the taste. The people I know, on this system, go to extraordinary effort to avoid getting town water into their tanks, as it contiminates their nice fresh rain water. Kids will not drink town water at school, due to the lousy taste, & Beaudesert water is not as bad as Brisbane’s.
To retro fit to a town water system.
Install the tank, & pressure pump.
Disconnect the town water, & supply it to the tank, through the valve.
Connect the pressure pump outlet to the house, where the town water was disconnected.
Pumps cost $450, to $750 depending on size, & have a service life of 10, to 15 years.
Once you have done this, you are just a little bit closser to being able to call your houes, your castle.
The councils in Southern NSW require a 100,000 litre tank if you are building in a area without reticulated water.
Because we have been in one of those reocurring droughts that this part of the world suffers from,we have built a third shed to catch water from , now making a total of 465m2 of catchment.This should remove the need to buy in water ever again.
As a rule of thumb a tank will cost a tenth of the capacity of the tank in dollars,then you add the cost of a pump then the normal plumbing costs.
So to be self sufficant in water in SE Australia needs requires a fair bit of land to have catchment and tank footprint.
Still better than living in the cities!
In the new house that I am currently constructing (very slowly) the aim is to have a sqat tank with top just below the guttering and bottom above the sink tap. The shower will be higher than the main floor and will get its water from a smaller tank fed from a shed further up the hill. The grey water from the shower and the sink will be caught in a small 200 litre tank at main floor level which will then supply the toilet cistern. The modified asian squat toilet will be at the main floor level so the cistern can be close to the floor. This particular part of household water use will cascade from level to level.
As both shower water and kitchen sink water is a daily use item the same as the toilet water, only a small tank is required to ensure that this water recycles on a daily basis. If you do run out of water in your cistern, you either have a serious case of dysentry or you are long overdue for a shower.
It also cuts total household use by 25% and can be done just as easily on town water without need for a water tank.
e-journal OLO published a piece by me this morning on the issue, you can read it by clicking here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4742 .
An interesting read Jennifer, nice one.
Ross Gittins brushes with the theme of good governance vs. personal choice in the last few lines of this article as well:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-mind-has-an-elephant-of-its-own/2006/07/25/1153816179991.html
As a Toowoomba resident, I am quite happy with the outcome. Hopefully now the council can get on with the job of researching all the alternatives without bias toward the mayors pet project. Recycling would have locked out one of our three dams for at least 5 years while tests were done on water quality. Short term, this would have made the water situation much worse. The cost argument from the mayor is nonsense. A pipeline from the Norwin aquifer would be a cheaper option than the recycling plant.
I’m all for recycling however. We can use it for industry and agriculture which has the added benefit of economic benefits for the community.
Dear Jennifer
I am a little surprised by your statement
“Interestingly I support the Australian Greens on this issue. Since 2004 it has been their policy to:
Implement national policies that facilitate a decrease in per capita consumption of fresh water and expand opportunities for its re-use.”
I checked out their website and could find no reference to their policy on re-use of water so I am at a loss to know exactly what is their policy.
I would have thought or rather would have hoped that any debate/discussion re suplies of water would be based on the cost of bringing future supplies to users, whether they be from recycling, water tanks ( Ian Mott has some good information on that topic), desalination, dams,etc.
But equally important why are people overlooking the use of the price system to influence the public’s decision as to where future supplies should be sourced?
If sourcing water from dams costs (say)$1000/ML, recycling,$500/Ml (I don’t know the costs), why not factor this into the price that current users pay for their water? Users are then in a position to make their decision as to whether to invest in another supply source eg rainwater tanks or to change their water use habits.
My previous years in the public sector has made very wary of such statements as “facilitate”, “expand opportunuties” without seeing the detail. They seem like the sort of releases that follows from a long lunch!!
And why would you have a policy to “facilitate a decrease in per capita consumption of fresh water and expand opportunities for its re-use” if the users could pay for the fresh water?
Blair
I support rainwater tanks as 1st option too, but thuoght they were already reasonably common in toowoomba. In urban areas you also need a pump that’s not noisy or doesn’t cut in too frequently. And council regs in urban areas can make installation more expensive than what you can get away with in rural areas. Agreed the cost of meeting council demands barely justifies getting the rebates. Anyway, Motty my quick search, 1st result was this:
Toowoomba City Council supports the installation of rainwater tanks, making it compulsory for all new developments to fit tanks and offering rebates for residents who retrofit them.
However, claims made by Dean Cameron in the Chronicle on Thursday, that installation of 30,000 rainwater tanks to homes would be a “cheaper and more effective” solution to Toowoomba’s water shortage problem are naïve according to Mayor Dianne Thorley.
“Council has already looked into the costs associated with installing rainwater tanks and there is a lot more expense than simply paying for the tanks,” she said.
Costing of the option was undertaken as part of the “Water and Wastewater Strategy Study for Toowoomba and the Surrounding Areas”.
Costing was based on 10,000 litre tanks, smaller than those proposed by Mr Cameron, and included pressure pump and slab, plumbing connection to toilets, hotwater system, laundry tap and one external tap – it does not include costs associated with alterations to roofs and landscaping.
The total estimated cost was $5,000 per property, for 35,000 properties, a total of $175 million.
The provision of recycled effluent to supplement laundry and outside water use, as suggested by Mr Cameron, would require the installation of dual reticulation.
Water for dual reticulation needs to be treated to at least Class A+ (equivalent to 4 star) standard, due to possible cross contamination and the high probability of human contact with the water.
The estimated cost of an appropriate treatment plant is $10m.
This would also require the digging up of every road to lay new pipes, at an estimated cost of $175m.
This figure is based on the replacement value of our existing water reticulation system and is conservative because it does not take into account additional costs associated with working around or relocating existing services such as gas, electricity and telephone lines, nor restoration of roads.
Council would also need to install new parallel plumbing to each property because we cannot allow interconnection with the potable water supply. The estimated cost of this would be $5,000 per property, a further $175m.
The total estimate for rainwater tanks is $535m and this can only be seen as conservative.
Tanks will also not be able to provide enough water to substitute regular supply to homes.
This is because at least 50% of household water, or 245 litres per day, could not be served by recycled water; for apart from drinking, things such as showers, the kitchen sink and washing machines which require five star water.
According to figures from the “Water and Wastewater Strategy Study for Toowoomba and the Surrounding Areas”, a 10,000-litre rainwater tank can only reliably supply 70 litres per day, clearly inadequate for regular supply.
Cr Thorley said it was important for people to realise that there were two costs involved for any option, the upfront or establishment cost and the ongoing supply costs.
“The ongoing maintenance costs of rainwater tanks and electricity demand of an additional 35,000 pressure pumps cannot be glossed over,” Cr Thorley said.
“The $68 million establishment cost for Water Futures will be offset in part by the State Government and hopefully also by the National Water Commission.”
“The installation of rainwater tanks would not be subsidised by state or federal governments and the cost burden would have to be shouldered by the rate payer.”
http://www.toowoombawater.com.au/media-releases/alotmoreexpensethansimplypayinfortanks.html
Blair, I think you will find the recycled water is much more expensive than the fresh water.
Thats why the power stations are bucking about being told to use it.
Pinxi, when you quote a council study, designed to provide the desired result, you can not expect much credibility.
My post on “trickle” supply offers tank instillation for 20% of your studdy cost, & does supply all the water required for household,[not garden] by of thousands of homes, with out using any town water.
This is not a “study”, this is fact.
It may suprise you, that most of the population has absolutely no faith in any “study” conducted by any of our ruling bodies, council, state or federal.
Hi Blair,
I try very hard to take an ‘evidence based approach’. But I’m not necessarily going to choose the cheapest option.
After all I took a pay cut to work for the IPA.
I’m not an economist.
I’m a biologist who cares deeply about the natural environment.
I’ve accept the following information from a member of the Australian Greens in good faith:
” http://greens.org.au/ploneprint/carefortheearth.pdf
Targets
“6.2.1 implement national policies that facilitate a decrease in per capita consumption of fresh water and expand opportunities for its re-use.”
I am not sure of the precise date this target was added to our policy, but the policy has existed in its current form on the national greens website since at least early 2004. If you are interested I can point you to some further info. Also check out http://www.nodams.org.au ”
Cheers,
Absolutely true, Hasbeen. Pinxi, for a study to make a statement about the ‘reliable supply’ from a 10,000 litre water tank without reference to the size of the roof catchment would be gross incompetence if they were in a purely commercial relationship.
They appear to be trying to give the impression that the tanks are to be a stand alone solution when Toowoomba City itself regards it’s own solution as a combined option with existing sources.
The optimum use of water tanks in an urban situation is that the tanks capture every drop that falls on the roof and this water is used as first choice whenever it is available. And in the dry season they all fall back on the existing supplies in the Dams. And in Toowoomba that would mean a halving of annual deliveries from the dam.
And all the stuff about ripping up roads for a dual recycled water pipe is thrown into the equation for the sole purpose of inflating the cost of tank water. It is clear that Thorley has tried to imply that the only form of recycling is via her pet project when blind freddy can see that the best form of recycling is on-site recycling of water that is already there.
I saw this hideous woman on SBS dateline and what I saw was a boorish yobbess who talked right over the top of everyone else with the listening skills of a rhino in rut. She is a AAA rated shonk.
Allen’s example of the NSW councils requiring a 100,000 litre tank is further evidence of the total dearth of competence exhibited by this whole sector. Such a tank would rarely be full. On a standard 250 square metre roof it would need 400mm of rain in a few weeks to fill and would be a futile measure without similar prescriptions on roof size. Without matching roof area it would be like a dogs scrotum glued on a duck.
The one conclusion we can draw from all this is that THE MAJOR IMPEDIMENT to an effective water supply system is the local councils themselves. And that is because they are protecting their monopoly revenue base. For example, the wholesale price charged by SEQ water to Brisbane water is $195/ml while the cost of that megalitre is only $80 each which gives a profit of $115/ml or a massive 144% markup. It is more profitable than selling Cocaine.
My experience is that you need a tank of about 40,000L for a normal house – this should see you through the dry times. You do also need a big roof fo catchment and good gutters and downpipes to catch every drop of rain.
All tanks cost the same, conc, tin or plastic and the plumbing is negligible unles you want to split the system.
Pumps are cheap, about $650 for a good Grundfos.
A big problem with suburbia is space – blocks are tiny.
You could bury a conc tank (mine are), put it under the garage even.
The whole structure of centralised water supply at high pressure is a concept rooted in the technology of the early 1900’s. The only effective pipe material was steel which was heavy and inflexible and could only be economically worked into comparatively large diameter pipes that needed to be buried for protection.
With cheap plastic moulding and cheap water tanks it is possible to deliver a days household water use via a 3mm continuous drip line that is light enough to clip onto your foxtel cable.
At very low pressures these lines will deliver a continuous 30 litres/hour or or the average 700 litres/day into a small tank on site. And this can then be drawn from the tank at will.
And it means no expensive excavations for all but main trunk lines. In fact, it could be fed along the existing underground telstra conduits that are already in place in most suburbs at minimal cost.
With a larger tank on site such a small pipe could supply a number of houses with partial top-up water rather than the full requirement.
It costs less than 20 cents per lineal metre and can be run under sills, through walls etc for a fraction of the cost of conventional plumbing which will still be in place to service the taps and showers etc.
And that is another serious element of Thorley’s misleading costings above. They assume that there will need to be a whole new set of plumbing when all that is needed is to intercept the main pipe onto the property just before the first outlet and connect the tank pipe to it. The pipe in can then be extended to the top of the tank (to prevent the grossly exagerated risk of back flow) and attached to a standard float cock as found in every toilet cistern so it only allows mains water in when the tank level is low.
So private water in tanks is a very economical option to just about everybody except those people who have the words “Freddy” imprinted on their forehead. And there is nothing we can do to lower the price of anything for them.
Dear Ian
What price SEQ currently sells its water for is largely irrelevant for pricing water to cater for future demands and possible changes in rainfall patterns.
If (say) projected water use in SE Qld at current water prices is expected to increase by 30% over the next 20 years and/or more storages are needed to allow for greater climate variability, then current water charges should reflect the cost of this expected increase in supply.
If (say) the cheapest source(s) of this increase in supply means that current domestic water charges should increase by (say) 40% then charge current users this higher price for the last 30% of their current water use.
If the higher (marginal) charge means that current users cut back on their water use and/or invest in domestic tanks, water saving devices etc then it could be that the new dams/recycling plants/desalination plants might not need to be built.
As I said in my earlier blog no thought seems to have given to using the price system to manage water use.
Blair
Blair,
I agree that ‘the price system’ should inform the decision making process. I think Di Thorley attempted this. I’m not sure that Peter Beattie is as interested.
But I also think the potential environmental impact, of for example, a new dam should be considered. And that’s not to say I’m against more dams, but they don’t appear to be the best first option for SE Queensland.
Well Motty & rog n co you’re bound to be ecstatic to know that we’re in agreement on the rainwater tanks. I grew up drinking rainwater with no filter more glamorous than an old stocking & nothin wrong with me, eh? There might have been green slime in the tanks causing my green tendencies.
rog/Motty/others: how much electricity is needed to pump water up from tanks in-ground or below tap level? Where there are limitations on siting a tank, some pumps have to cut in all the time. (+ noise factor in built-up areas).
There are a other plumbing solutions that don’t make it on the official agenda as motty says. I know of some people, ahem, who’ve DIY unofficial plumbing workarounds despite the councils.
If recycling is in place, it could create a mindset that absolves people from having to take other water-saving measures, ie might lead to a reduction in efficiency savings that also needs to be included in future supply costings.
Not so sure about that pizzie, I never heard of someone drinking out of a pantihose.
The problem with switching over to tanks is that the cost of the mains water infrastructure has to be borne by a relative few. Institutions such as hospitals, schools and businesses would have to carry the full cost of dams, pumping stations, purification works and mains.
One way is to jack up the cost of water and allow rainwater for domestic drinking. Use recycled for washing, flushing etc.
This could be a big problem for those in medium to high density living. – not much room for a rainwater tank in a high rise.
Rainwater tanks are only part of the solution.
there’s an important difference between stockings & pantyhose rog. I see you know yr way around neither.
How much electricity for pumps (oops typo I accidentally typed ‘pimps’) that hafta run regularly, I’d like to know. Not a negligible factor if you can’t install tank high enough in yr urban residence.
no recycling for melbourne: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,19977001-661,00.html
Pinxi!
I do know my way around stockings (being an old codger) but still young enough to be familiar with the pantyhose as well.
You on the other hand have absolutely no knowledge how household pressure pumps work.
They either hold a certain amount of water under pressure and turn on only when this amount of water is expelled, or if, of the instantenious type, they turn on automatically only when the tap is opened.
Most are only half to one horsepower units (one HP = 736 watts, your hairdrier uses 3 times as much), and on average would need less power/day then your stereo.
Rest assured they would not be a major drain on the electricity supply, remembering also that the main pumps at the purification plants wouldn’t work as hard as they are now.
Hope it helps
I agree with you, Blair, on price signals. The BCC is going onto such a scheme where the first 200Kl is at 94 cents/Kl with a scale up to $1.30/Kl beyond 300Kl. But this would still allow a two person household to waste water in a Jakuzi while a large family would get pounded for just trying to stay clean.
I think we need to define a households obligation to help themselves so we can then determine the extent of the government’s duty to supply as a last resort (at one scale) and as a commercial service (on another scale).
And this will produce a properly integrated system of private tanks and public storage that maximises the benefits of both.
The main advantage of tanks is that if a single millimetre of rain falls it will be captured by the tank but it is more costly than a Dam.
The main advantage of Dams is that they are very large scale with very low unit costs which are the only effective and economical means of warehousing for a number of years, a large volume from a peak event. The advantage of tanks lies in multiple refills while the advantage of Dams are low storage cost of a single refill.
The thing is that at the moment, the water in the dam that has been warehoused for 4 years costs the same as water that flowed in last week, and this is bad accounting practice. If the annual cost of operating the dam is allocated to all the water in the dam then the water that remains at the end of a year will carry that cost forward into the year it is actually used. So the water that is used when the Dam level drops from 30% to 25% some four years after it flowed into the dam will be a lot more expensive than the water that was used 3 months after it flowed in.
There would need to be a separate treatment and pricing for basic “as of right” water for which every person has a right to have. This may be determined in the same way as the old Basic Wage was determined where the minimum, frugal, requirement for drinking, washing etc was calculated for each member of a household and allocated from the most recent inflows first at the lowest price. The remainder would then be charged on the proper warehoused water method that would send stronger and stronger price signals the longer a drought persists while safeguarding that minimal entitlement.
It is still a bit rough in concept but would appreciate your thoughts.
Rog and Pinxie, you eat the stockings and then drink, silly.
Ian
Your approach of minimum diameter pipe to supply a trickle top-up to (rainwater) tanks at individual houses is OK for rural residential properties where the houses are usually significantly further apart than in the urban areas. In fact the general concept is in use already in SE Qld. [NEW PARA]
However, an urban water reticulation network is designed not only to provide water to individual customers but also to provide, as a community service, an adequate supply of water, at the required flow rate and pressure, for firefighting at any point in the network. The minimum pipe diameter of 100 mm in the suburbs is necessary to meet the firefighting requirements. [NEW PARA]
Your proposal does not take firefighting needs into account. It is not good enough to say that these needs could be drawn from the nearby rainwater tanks belonging to individual householders. There would be hydraulic difficulties getting a sufficient quantity of water at the required pressure and flow rate from nearby tanks back to the site of the fire. But, more importantly, in times of drought there would be no guarantee that there would even be enough water in those nearby tanks to start with. [NEW PARA]
[After a quick search of Google & the Movable Type site, I’m none the wiser on how to get my paragraph breaks to show up in the preview, so I’ve put in visual cues in my text.]
Interesting point, Geoffay, but nearly all urban fires take place in locations with very good street access and this would allow a very large volume of water to be taken to the fire in larger fire trucks with tanker. This was not the case when the water reticulation systems were first developed around 1900-1910. A 20,000 litre tanker load is more than enough to deal with most household fires so the high pressure reticulation systems would only be needed in specific development areas like industrial uses, commercial districts and highrise housing.
What we need is horses for courses not one-size-fits-all. It is not good enough to simply load up the water delivery system with a number of additional requirements without reviewing the relative cost and benefits of other ways of delivering the same service.
And if a fire fighting requirement is to be added onto the water supply function then it must be clearly identified and the cost charged to the user in its own right. That is, the water that comes out of that large pipe system is priced at a level that will cover the cost of its installation and the overheads of it just sitting there unused for 10 years until the fire broke out.
Fire units with tanker capability are the norm in the rural fire service. They can put out a house fire just as well as the urban fire service but the volume of water they can take is restricted by the quality of roads they sometimes have to use. So a small unit may only take 1 or 2 thousand litres to a fire.
There are no such constraints on urban roads where a 20,000 or even 30,000 litre tanker can get to a fire in only slightly less time than a smaller unit.
Once again, the cities have persisted with an excessive overcapacity of infrastructure based on old technology when cheaper, more flexible options are readily available.
And your point about reliance on empty on-site water tanks is a bit off point in a city where every second house has a swimming pool, the water from which could be requisitioned with only minor change to emergency laws.
How many times have we seen it on TV where the desperate suburbanite tries to fight a bushfire with a dribbling hose due to the excess demand by other homeowners while the pool sits there in pristine condition without a fire pump in sight.
In most situations it is far easier to find a pool than a fire hydrant.
In suburbia the fire trucks are motor pumps only and do not carry water. The need fully charged mains to operate from, they use the truck motor to drive a big pump.
In the bush they are tankers, carry their own and hence house fires may have to wait as they fill up from wherever.
Swimming pools are fine but suburban fire pump motors are not designed for small delivery they are for high volume high pressure.
When you look at it a water main running along each property is a marvelous thing.
‘its’ a marvelous thing
Dear Ian and others
You may be interested in this news item in today’s Courier.
Where feasible, it appears that appropriately sized rainwater tanks may be the cheapest source of future urban water supplies.
“RECYCLED water, desalinated water and water from new dams cost about the same per kilolitre to produce, according to the head of the Australian Water Association.
AWA chief executive Chris Davis said the cost of moving water was a critical factor, but many large cities probably needed a combination of sources to meet demand.
But the price of water could triple in the next decade unless governments subsidise infrastructure costs.
Tapping existing dams and rivers was the cheapest way to get water, costing only 30¢ per kilolitre (1000 litres), but catchments were dry in many parts of the country. “There is no free lunch in this business. You have to pay for whatever you get,” he said.
Sydney intends to use a combination of strategies – including demand management, importing water, desalination, bores, dams and recycling – to meet its future growth.
The highest priced water is from long-distance water pipelines, such as the 1200 km Burdekin Dam proposal being studied by the Beattie Government.
Mr Davis estimated the $7 billion-plus pricetag of such a pipeline could drive the cost of its water as high as $4.50 and supplies would be limited.
“It doesn’t make much sense,” he said.
Seawater desalination, recycled drinking water and new dams cost between $1 and $2 a kilolitre to produce, plus the cost of distributing the water.
Another inexpensive way to get water is from underground sources, but it requires linking multiple bore fields and doesn’t generally produce large supplies of water.
Rainwater tanks also could be expensive, when costs were assessed per kilolitre of water, Mr Davis said.
The AWA chief said accurate comparisons were difficult because costs were site specific, and many of the costs weren’t disclosed by governments.
The cost of water
Existing local surface water (rivers and dams)
Cost: 30¢ per 1000 litres
Local groundwater
Cost: $20-$50 per 1000 litres
Seawater desalination
Cost: $1 per 1000 litre, plus distribution
Recycling wastewater into high grade industrial or drinking water
Cost: $1 to $1.50 per 1000 litres, plus distribution
New dams
Mary River dam
Cost: $1.10 per 1000 litres, plus distribution
Wyaralong dam
Cost: $1.73 per 1000 litres, plus distribution
Long-distance water pipelines
A 1200km pipeline from the Burdekin Dam
Cost: $4.80 per 1000 litres
Source: Australian Water Association”
Blair
Thanks for this, Blair. The cost of water from a tank will vary depending on the total rainfall in a given year. In a very dry year the annual cost of the tank is spread over fewer tank fulls so the cost per litre goes up. The opposite takes place in a good year but if it is too good then demand for garden water will drop and the overall volume will be slightly lower. The cost also varies with the size of the tank so one that is too small will lose too much from overflow in the wet season and not store enough in the dry.
But in an ideal world where the weekly household needs are met by a weekly equivalent rainfall, on schedule, then the average annual household need of 255,000 litres would be met by a 4,900 litre tank that fills up 52 times. This would spread the annual $77 cost of the $1080 tank over 52 tank fulls for a cost of 30 cents/Kl.
But the more variation we have from this ideal the larger the tank we need and the higher the cost will go. It is also complicated by the losses from overflow and the cost of buying mains water in the dry season.
But in a normal year in Brisbane the optimum 13,500 litre tank will deliver 87% of the average households needs and the combined average cost of both mains and tank water will be 69 cents/Kl.
In a below average year with only 857mm (81%) of normal this 13,500 litre tank will still deliver 82% of the average household need (assuming no changes in water use habits in response to the drought) and the average cost of both mains and tank water will increase to 74 cents/Kl.
Interestingly, in the year from April 2005 to April 2006, an above average year with 1245mm and an unusual 239mm of that in June 2005, this tank would have delivered only 86% of the average household need and the average price would be 70 cents/kl, a cent higher than in the average year. This is because 2.88 of the 4.43 tank fulls of rain in that month overflowed down the drain. whereas if that rain had been evenly spread over the following three dry months there would have been significant cost savings.
When we add $1,025 worth of plumbing and pressure pumps, this cost increases by 50% to $1.04/Kl and $1.11/Kl respectively.
Add another $1,025 worth of local council compliance costs and these costs will increase to $1.38/Kl and $1.48/Kl respectively.
I have modelled this for a range of tank sizes but my blog won’t take spreadsheets. But in Brisbane in a normal year, in the absence of local council bull$hit, tank water is no more than the cost of mains water and is likely to get cheaper as mains water costs increase.
I yield to Sir Ian’s back o’ envelope.
Ian – still interested in the cost of electricity with any pumps. I have been told that it’s not the running cost of the pumps per se, moreover the startup current. Don’t have numbers but maybe someone out there in blog land may know. i.e. depends on how often one pings the pump to move water upstairs (assuming one has an upstairs and is using in the house).
And a question – what period of the historical rainfall record have you modelled the tank water balance over?
Luke, I have 2 pressure pumps, working at any one time.
One is on rain water, tank supply to the house, with 4 adults & a teenager to supply.
The other supplies outside water for garden, stock water, car washing, etc. pumped up, from a dam, to a tank at the house.
Both pumps are 1 HP, a little larger than a suburban house would require.
My electric bill ranges from $275, to $325 per quarter, depending on the amount of airconditioning, or heating that is happening.
Our usage is high, because of 3 fridges, 2 freesers, 2 hot water systems, 4 TVs, & 1 pool.
Water pressure pumps only run while pumping, which is not for that long. My estimation of usage would be about 1/3Rd the time/cost of running a pool pump.
The problem with the recycled sewage plant proposed for Toowoomba is that it just would not work.
It is not possible to produce 11,000 ML of recycled water from 8,000 ML of sewage. Toowoomba City Council also had nowhere for the RO waste stream to go. Acland Coal did not want it. Singapore pumps its RO waste stream into the sea.
The plant could never have been built for $68 million – closer to $150-200 million would be more accurate when you take into account the hundreds of acres of evaporation ponds required which were not included in the budget.
Regardless of your view on recycled water use, the no vote in Toowoomba was correct because the proposal was a dud.
WOW u guys need to uopdate this site a bit dont you think. Does any one have anything on wats happening 2day with the water stuff