Victorias proposed DESALINATION plant

1
Victorias proposed DESALINATION plant an
energy guzzling, climate changing, ecosystem
altering water factory catch the
water falling on Melbournes roofs - Bob Brown,
Nov 18, 2007.
Desalination should remain the last resort, and
should only be applied after cheaper alternatives
in terms of supply and demand management have
carefully been considered. - World Bank
2
A long way to the power stations
A long way to Melbourne
3
Strong local concern
1200 at Stand in the Sand
Y.W.Y.S. Formed

• To force government, via political pressure, to
  follow due process by
• Providing evidence based rationale as to why they
  have chosen the most expensive and polluting
  solution to securing Victorias water future.
• Choosing the most economically and
  environmentally responsible solution to securing
  Victorias future.

4
(No Transcript)
5
This particular water supply option
FOR 150 billion litres...
Acceptable environmental damage ??? 5 000 000
000. 1.1 million tonnes CO2 annually.

• While 700 billion litres of stormwater and
  wastewater are wasted
• that CAN be collected at a FRACTION of those
  costs
• Recycling
• Stormwater collection
• Water tanks
• Efficient appliances . . . .

6
Population increase and climate change have not
been addressed in terms of new water
infrastructure for decades. Government must now
secure water supply. The governments Water
Plan is to have 225 gigalitres of new water come
on line within two and a half years. This
represents an additional 60 more water than we
are currently using in homes, leekage and
industry. Is this Justified ?
7
But lets consider the State Governments
obligations - What is the problem and
what is the corresponding need
8
So under the current level of drought and climate
change we need an additional 64 gigalitres per
year, 65 GL to stop the dam levels falling
9
64 GL to stop the dams falling under
drought,but we need to cover greater use by an
expanding population, and for river health we
cant be taking so much from our streams. 69 GL
will cover reasonable consumption of the
additional population over the next decade, even
if population continues to increase at the
current extreme rate. 32 GL returned to our
rivers and streams will give them a chance.165
GL then is a reasonable level of augmentation to
greater Melbournes water supply over the next
few years. The component for
population increase will not all be used before
the end of the decade and can be used to boost
dam levels.
10
Even the State Governments own analysis, done
through DSE indicates a similar figure with 175
gigalitres of augmentation seeing dams filling in
2015/16 and then no return to restrictions until
at least 2060. The danger is that if this
augmentation comes from the most costly options,
both for our environment and the hip pockets of
consumers, then there will be no room for the
implementation of the more sustainable water
supply options for possibly decades.
11
(No Transcript)
12
Watershed shows there are solutions
At between 1/3 and1/2 the construction cost
At 1/4 the ongoing cost of water
And at 1/5 the carbon emissions
13
Why was desalination chosen?

• Population and climate change effect on supply
• - 2006 failure of spring rains - PANIC
• - No augmentation to supply since Thomson Dam
  completed in 1983.
• Easy option for Government
• - Guarantee of supply
• - Hand over to PPP and wash hands of water
  supply.
• Lack of opposition
• - Non Labor electorate and long way from
  Melbourne
• - Far enough from next election if act quickly
• - Opposition parties would like water problems
  solved before they come to power.

14
No Electoral mandate to build a desalination
plant on the Bass Coast

• Pre election desalination was scoffed at by Labor
• They worked with Melbourne Water, water experts
  and the universities to develop a Sustainable
  Water Strategy
• Post election this was turned on its head and
  the new Water Plan was announced with
  desalination and the N-S pipe as a done deal.

15
Getting the message out there

• Very difficult to get traction in Melbourne
• Group considered to be NIMBYs
• Experts and academics reluctant to speak out as
  their jobs and funding all comes from Government
• Millions of Government dollars go into
  advertising their plan as an essential
• We are a small group, a long way from Melbourne,
  with few funds
• Government WILL NOT DEBATE THE ISSUES

16
COURT ACTION
Community Group - Your Water Your Say - Crushed

• YWYS challenged the Federal Governments
• decision to exclude
• pilot plant and preliminary site works
• climate change through greenhouse emissions
• migratory species like toothed whales and birds
• from the Environmental Effects Study.

17
E.E.S.

• There was initially no commitment to undertake an
  Environmental Effects Study
• After a huge number of submissions an E.E.S. was
  commited to
• Scope of the study restricted to exclude
  alternatives, greenhouse implications or whales
  and migratory species
• The community is given no funding or assistance
  to have quality input to the process
• Your Water Your Say cannot participate

18
Another Community Group forms to advocate for
better water supply options for Greater Melbourne.
To force government, via political pressure, to
follow due process by Providing evidence based
rationale as to why they have chosen the most
expensive and polluting solution to securing
Victorias water future. Choosing the most
economically and environmentally responsible
solution to securing Victorias future.
19
Why we oppose this desalination project

• excessive scale that will exclude the
• better alternatives
• environmentally unsustainable
• economically prohibitive
• socially destructive
• a last resort solution that is
  particularly poorly suited to Melbournes
  situation.

20
Alternatives to desalination.

• Stormwater capture, treatment and use either as
  lowgrade or highly treated water replacement
• Rainwater tanks capturing water into locally
  built and installed tanks and plumbing
• River peak flood diversion to storages (having
  benefits to irrigators downstream)
• Recycling waste water such as the Eastern
  Treatment Plant to industry, agriculture, parks
  and gardens
• Desalination of brackish water uses less than one
  third the energy and can often be done where the
  water is needed avoiding pumping costs

21
Desalination ALTERNATIVE OPTIONSRainwater Tanks

• Marsden Jacobs Report.
• Rainwater tanks collect and store water far more
  efficiently than dams, especially in times of
  drought. As the climate changes we should be
  installing tanks to take advantage of the rain
  that does fall on our rooftops.
• Rainwater tanks are cost competitive with dams
  and desalination plants.
• Rainwater tanks are five times more energy
  efficient than desalination plants.
• in Melbourne 72 per cent of existing houses have
  potential for a rainwater tank.

22
Desalination ALTERNATIVE OPTIONSRainwater Tanks
Annual yield from a 5,000 litretank in Melbourne
for a 200 m2 roof collection area 86,000 litres
(235 litres / day).
End cost per 1,000 litres water Rainwater Tank
1.07 Desalination 3.00
23
Desalination ALTERNATIVE OPTIONSRainwater Tanks

• Industry Benefits
• Rainwater Tank Industry
• Pump Industry
• Plumbing Industry
• IF Desalination international industry benefits
  at the expense of the above local industries

24

• Desalination ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
• Regional Storm Water Collection

Professors Barry Hart and Chris Walsh Potential
for collecting over 200 Gl per year.
25
Desalination ALTERNATIVE OPTIONSRecycling

• Eastern Treatment Plant
• Only 45 per household
• Protects Gunnamatta Beach
• Latrobe Valley Diversion
• Increase Yarra River Flows
• Will deliver over 100 Gl per year

26
Desalination ALTERNATIVE OPTIONSRecycling

• Grey Water Systems (Home Use)
• Consumption 32 toilet, 33 shower, 23 laundry.
• Saves 350 l / household per DAY.
• For Garden Use.

27
Desalination ALTERNATIVE OPTIONSConservation

• Melbournians use nearly 300 litres / person / day
  c.f. SE Qld Europe (150).
• Desalination PROMOTES wastage

28
Desalination ALTERNATIVE OPTIONSCessation of
Catchment Logging

• 30 Gl / year can be saved by cessation of logging
  in Thomson and Yarra Catchments

29
Desalination ALTERNATIVE OPTIONSNew Supplies

• Dams / Connectors
• River peak flood diversion to storages
• (Rainfall PATTERNS have changed)
• Tasmanian Pipeline

30
Desalination ALTERNATIVE OPTIONSAPPROPRIATE
Desalination

• EMERGENCY POINT OF USE MOBILE SUPPLY.
• SHIPS
• CONTAINERS
• NOT a 30 YEAR contract with profits flowing
  overseas at the expense of OUR environment.

31
The irrational justification

• We need a rainfall independent water source
• The power generation for the plant will be offset
  through renewable energy credits
• Despite REPEATED requests, no research or
  scientific explanation for the above throwaway
  lines has ever been produced.

32
The Carbon Neutral HOAX

• Where there are alternatives (as there certainly
  are in this case), offsetting carbon emissions
  through offsite green power production or through
  carbon credits is an irresponsible abuse of the
  goals of such schemes that aim to reduce
  necessary carbon emissions rather than being a
  justification for new (but avoidable) polluting
  industry.

33
CLIMATE CHANGE NIGHTMARE.

• The 100 mW plant and its 25 mW pumping costs will
  produce an estimated massive 1 200 000 tonnes
  of carbon emissions every year, 285
  000 new cars!
• While there are environmentally friendlier
  alternatives, this is absolutely irresponsible
  and incongruous with recent federal government
  commitments to reducing emissions by 60 by 2050!
• New opinion is that that figure must be 90 to
  avoid climate catastrophe.

34
(No Transcript)
35
Environmental Issues.

• Lack of detail.
• Issues relating to EES / Controlled Action.
• Because of the decision to procure the plant
  through a public-private partnership arrangement,
  the final location, layout, size, form and
  materials of the plant will not be finalised
  until after the selection of the private
  provider.
• Assessment of Matters of National Environmental
  Significance (EPBC Act) for the Desalination
  Project (Biosis Research, 12 December 2007),
  Section 1.1.1

36

• At present, it is not possible to specifically
  address all potential impacts of the proposed
  project as details of the site design are yet to
  be determined. These include details of the area,
  dimensions and location within the study area of
  the facility footprint construction techniques
  ongoing operational requirements adopted or
  potential mitigation measures and possible
  impacts beyond the facility itself. When these
  details have been fully resolved, the
  implications on flora and fauna will be able to
  be addressed specifically and thoroughly for the
  facility and the remainder of the study area.
• Preliminary Flora and Fauna Assessment
  Desalination Plant, Bass Coast, Victoria Impact
  Assessment Report, Biosis Research, November 2007
  (Report 4 , EES Referral)

37

• At present, it is not possible to specifically
  address the potential impacts of the proposed
  route as details of the design are yet to be
  determined. These include the precise alignment,
  proposed construction techniques within each
  section, adopted or potential mitigation
  measures and possible impacts beyond the
  pipeline route (e.g. downstream) itself. When
  these details have been fully resolved, the
  implications on flora and fauna will be able to
  be addressed specifically and thoroughly for the
  pipeline.
• Preliminary Flora and Fauna Assessment
  Desalination Plant Transfer Pipeline Corridor-
  Wonthaggi to Cranbourne, Victoria, Biosis
  Research, November 2007 (Report 5 , EES Referral)

38
Heritage

• 14 identified Aboriginal heritage sites
• No Cultural Heritage Management Plan
• Archaelogical Sites
• Register of the National Estate

39
(No Transcript)
40
Entrainment

• The passive capture and death of organisms
• 14 000 litres water / second 350 000 per second
• Loss of Biomass base food chain organisms
• Poor Mixing / Cumulative effects
• Disposal problems / further greenhouse emissions
• ENTRAPMENT

41
Effluent

• Salt
• Biocides
• Cleaning Agents
• Heavy Metals
• Dead organisms
• POOR MIXING

Local Ecosystem Alteration Pest species risk.
42
Why else is this wrong?

• Public Private Partnership
• Economics

43
The Public Private Partnership

• The MOST expensive way to deliver projects.
• GUARANTEES full operation even WHEN there is
  cheaper available catchment water.
• Ownership of infrastructure to international
  companies reduces control of our essential
  services

44
Economic Arguments.

• How much will the end user pay?
• Up to 4 - 5 times current water costs

45
Economic Arguments.

• Desalination is THE most expensive alternative
• PPP means control of our water is handed over to
  largely foreign owned consortium
• Short term construction jobs will be the only
  bonus to area. Long term jobs numbers will be
  similar to a small supermarket

• Economic Report prepared for DSE indicates the
  majority of labor involved will NOT be from
  Gippsland.

46
Economic Arguments.
The Australian Financial Review (Mar 26, 2008) By
PETE HEININGER... According to one of
Australias leading independent water experts, Dr
Peter Coombes, taxpayers need to know how much
they can expect to pay for water once formal
carbon trading schemes and carbon taxes are in
place, and desalination plant operating costs,
including the costs of transporting water to
cities, have been properly counted. We also need
to ask what implications these carbon footprints
will have on Australia reaching its planned 60
per cent cut to greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
47
Ten year of drought continuing - Current policy
is a mix of pre election Central Region
Sustainable Water Strategy and the New Plan,
Our Water Our Future.
48
Thompson Dam rainfall Runoff
49
Melton rainfall
50
Yarra Ranges rainfall
51
Geelong Rainfall
52
Glen Eira rainfall