Page 10 of 13
Re: #Article: City plan to use recycled water
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 1:56 pm
by jk1237
capitalist wrote:will this keep the whole lot green? from goodwood road to north terrace?
good question? Parts of the SW and western parklands have never ever been irrigated in summer, except for a water truck doing the young gum trees. IMO they look the worst so maybe some increased vegetation from irrigation will be a good thing, but I doubt if every sq mtr in summer will start to look like the Irish countryside
Also Advertiser, the project started in 2008, not 2009
The future possibilities of this pipeline are quite significant. I reckon the project was as cheap as chips, considering the cost of how much piping SA water needs to do for constant new subdivisions of urban sprawl. Also, plants love poo, and less sewerage water is dumped into the gulf. I cant think of one negative of this project, considering we live in one of the dryest cities in the dryest state in the dryest continent.
It gets a great big round of
from me
Re: #Article: City plan to use recycled water
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:27 pm
by crawf
jk1237 wrote:btw Advertiser, you make us sick, your an insult to anyone with half a brain. Used car salesman spin less nonsense than The Advertiser nowadays
AdelaideNow does seem like its full of rubbish today, negative stories to ground breaking stories today such as Kate Ellis with a mystery man in Sydney (omg!).
Glad to hear this is opening ahead of schedule, I look forward to seeing the parklands and squares nice and green on my next visit.
And its opening just in time before the Tour Down Under and the Festival Season kicks off.
Re: #Article: City plan to use recycled water
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:54 pm
by Waewick
well its a postive move, i just hope we don't get any whinging gardeners wanting their gardens to be as green as the public ones
selfish people like that always interfere with these types of things
Re: #Article: City plan to use recycled water
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:43 pm
by Wayno
Just an observation: Having the water is great, but greening the parklands will incur additional costs. We'll all expect the parklands to "garden-like" which means the ACC must set aside $$$ for increased gardening expenses (weed killer, weed mat, plants, gardeners, fertilizer, plant & equipment, blah). It certainly won't be a trivial amount...
Re: Smaller Infrastructure Projects
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:54 pm
by Wayno
We drove back from McLaren Vale late this morning (spent a a leisurely weekend at the wineries - most enjoyable) and noticed the South Rd / Victor Rd intersection is earmarked for an upgrade. Anyone know the detailed plans? hope it involves some sort of overpass or underpass. I think the sign said $12m budget which does not seem like much at all...
- victor-rd-upgrade.JPG (80.22 KiB) Viewed 2800 times
Re: #Article: City plan to use recycled water
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:29 pm
by rhino
No, but it will be worth it to see the parklands looking green - people might actually want to use them. In fact, they will be needed in the future as the population of Adelaide City increases. Makes more sense than moving the Governor to Carclew and turning the Government House grounds into a park, IMO.
Re: Smaller Infrastructure Projects
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:22 pm
by AtD
For $12m it's probably a set of lights.
Re: Smaller Infrastructure Projects
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:50 pm
by Briggzy_03
AtD wrote:For $12m it's probably a set of lights.
You are correct. A band-aid solution IMO.
Re: #Article: City plan to use recycled water
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:58 pm
by Wayno
rhino wrote:No, but it will be worth it to see the parklands looking green - people might actually want to use them. In fact, they will be needed in the future as the population of Adelaide City increases
yes i agree - apologies if i sounded negative in my previous post. The additional parkland 'gardening' will incur expenses, but it really should be viewed as an investment. CBD residents will benefit in multiple ways, but i feel the state govt (i.e. SA Taxpayers) should pay for some of the gardening expenses too...
Re: Smaller Infrastructure Projects
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:09 pm
by Wayno
Wayno wrote:We drove back from McLaren Vale late this morning (spent a a leisurely weekend at the wineries - most enjoyable) and noticed the South Rd / Victor Rd intersection is earmarked for an upgrade. Anyone know the detailed plans? hope it involves some sort of overpass or underpass. I think the sign said $12m budget which does not seem like much at all...
Wayno, as always i like reading your posts. Here's the answer to your question, but it does not involve under/overpasses - just extra lanes in most directions.
From SA Parliament website
The Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI) proposes to upgrade the safety and efficiency of operation of Main South Road between Seaford Road and Victor Harbor Road. Specific attention will be focused on
eliminating the long queues of vehicles on Victor Harbor Road at its junction with Main South Road. This objective will be achieved through:
? Replacing the existing stop sign control on the Victor Harbor Road with a new signalised intersection
? Providing three north bound lanes on the Victor Harbor Road approach to Main South Road
? Providing two south bound lanes on the entry to the Victor Harbor Road from Main South Road
? Upgrading of the existing Seaford Road junction, to provide three through lanes in both directions along Main South Road and two right turn lanes into Seaford Road
Full report including pikkies of the improved intersections here ==>
http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/NR/rdon ... ORMAIN.pdf
Project timeframe:
* End July 2009 Community consultation (COMPLETE)
* Early Oct 2009 Calling of tenders for construction
* Nov-Dec 2009 Service relocations & accommodation works
* Mid Dec 2009 Awarding of contract
* Early Jan 2010 Commencement of main contract works
* Mid August 2010 Completion of work
Re: #Article: City plan to use recycled water
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:31 pm
by Norman
So this will be like the River Murray Levy, the Great Green Garden Levy perhaps?
Re: #Article: City plan to use recycled water
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:44 am
by rhino
Advertiser article wrote:The project - which the Sunday Mail understands has overrun its budget by about $2.5 million - is expected to be officially opened tomorrow by Premier Mike Rann.
I heard Karlene Maywald on the radio yesterday, explaining that the reason for the cost "blowout" was that the original idea was accepted so well that they decided to put in more junctions where new lines could be taken off, allowing the treated water to service more areas. Although the ACC is the only client that has signed up so far, negotiations are on-going with many others. Cost of the water is apparently going to be 75% of that of potable water. I wish I could get a deal like that for my garden! And it sounds pretty good for running commercial/office aircon units and toilets. Kudos for getting it done ahead of time too!
Re: Glenelg Wastewater Reuse Pipeline
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:55 pm
by victorious80
Wayno wrote:The Pipeline officially opens tomorrow!
Opening 6 months ahead of schedule. I'm not surprised only 1/3rd of the water has customers (ACC for the parklands) at this point. Suspect more customers will arise once the parklands start looking green.
Warning: Typical AdelaideNow negative spin on what's a truly positive project.
A $75 MILLION project to pump billions of litres of treated wastewater into Adelaide and its parklands still lacks customers.
The 40km Glenelg-to-Adelaide pipeline, which includes 30km of piping around the parklands, is supposed to transfer up to 3.8 billion litres of water from the Glenelg wastewater treatment plant instead of flushing it out to sea, reducing the state's dependence on the River Murray.
The project - which the Sunday Mail understands has overrun its budget by about $2.5 million - is expected to be officially opened tomorrow by Premier Mike Rann.
SA Water, which is managing the project on behalf of the state and federal governments, has said only Adelaide City Council has so far agreed to tap into the piped water in the city.
The council is expected to use up to 1.3 billion litres to irrigate the parklands - leaving a considerable surplus.
SA Water spokeswoman Courtney Blacker said the utility was "in negotiations" with 30 potential customers for the remaining 2.5 billion litres, but would not disclose who they were.
The lack of customers for the wastewater pipeline project has cast doubt on the viability of the Adelaide Airport stormwater re-use scheme, due to launch in 2012 - the same year Mr Rann has declared water restrictions will end. The $9.8 million stormwater scheme - announced in June 2009 as part of the Government's Water for Good plan - will treat water from Brownhill and Keswick creeks by biofiltration, reportedly for use by the airport, industry and councils.
It is not certain if this water will ever replace drinking water - and therefore help increase Adelaide's water security. Originally planned to produce one billion litres of water a year, the airport project has apparently been downgraded to 400 million litres, and still has no customers locked in to use the water.
The Glenelg pipeline and airport projects are expected to compete for the same customers. The lack of committed customers for either project has raised doubts about the sense of the combined investment.
Documents submitted to Parliament's Public Works Committee have revealed the $9.8 million airport project cost does not include infrastructure to deliver the water to any users beyond the airport. The cost of laying pipes and retro-fitouts to accommodate a dual (mains/stormwater) supply will be the responsibility of customers - who may be several kilometres away.
It is not even certain the airport will be a customer, as access points to the Glenelg pipeline have been installed throughout the airport precinct.
An airport spokesman said the airport had "an option" to take 150 million litres from the Glenelg pipeline to cater for future expansion.
The airport master plan, which was approved last month, also revealed wastewater from the Glenelg pipeline "is sufficient to meet the demands of Master Plan developments" - raising doubt whether the airport would ever need the stormwater.
Ms Blacker said water from the stormwater scheme would be "supplied to local users to irrigate parks, ovals and (for) commercial purposes", but would not specify if any businesses were in talks to sign up.
She said the Glenelg pipeline had been delivered six months ahead of schedule, and any cost overruns were due to extra engineering work done to circumvent previously unknown infrastructure in the parklands.
Work on the pipeline began in September 2009. Wastewater will be treated at United Water's Glenelg wastewater treatment plant and piped towards the city.
Wow this sort of story really gets under my skin. This project is such a good news story - and very innovative mind you - and yet the newspaper bad mouths it with ignorant and incorrect comments. SA Water and the SA Govt should be applauded for taking a considerable risk in investing in recycled wastewater which, let's face it, is not looked upon favourably by the public as an alternative water source (even though the water quality is very good).
I am almost certain that once a few city business tap into the recyled mains network, other businesses will hear about it and jump onto the scheme. After all, it has the capability to significantly save them money on water bills - now there is a big incentive for big offices. Plus this treated wastewater will REPLACE potable water - sounds like a very positive story to me. I am baffled as to why the Adevertiser would not choose to portray it as such.
And regarding Adelaide Airport - I am involved in this project and could not believe the garbage that has been written about the project. Firstly, water is not being sourced from Keswick Creek - only Brownhill Creek. Secondly, the currently funded scheme was never meant to produce one billion litres of water a year. Thirdly, the statement "It is not certain if this water will ever replace drinking water" is ridiculous. The fact that the customers of the scheme will use treated stormwater instead of potable water (even if only to irrigate) EXACTLY MEANS THAT DRINKING WATER IS REPLACED!!! you dont need to be drinking the treated water for it to replace potable water! Fourthly, the line "still has no customers locked in to use the water" - the project funding was approved only 1 month ago. hence, the design of the scheme is in its EXTREMELY early stages. so naturally the pipeline route, water quality, flow rates, etc are nowhere near finalised. so how can customers be locked into contracts at this stage, when they do not even know if they are on the pipe route???
I think i have vented enough. the real motto of my post is that public sources of information (such as the advertiser) should be ashamed of themselves for printing incorrect information, and for portraying a hugely impressive project as such a negative. in the current situation (GFC, global warming, drought, etc) we really do need good news stories, and this one had the potential for Adelaide to be really proud of it.
Re: #Article: City plan to use recycled water
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:21 pm
by rubberman
And then they wonder why newspaper circulation is falling like a stone.
I mean there is only so much insulting of the intelligence of their readers that they can do.
I am sure that most people would be confused by that piece - it contains so much that strains credibility I hardly know where to start.
Imagine, there's this water costing 75% of potable water, and the Advertiser thinks there's going to be a problem selling it? Fancy, all those Adelaide businesses not being interested in saving money on their water bills - who'd a thunk it?
I have given up on reading 'The Advertiser'
for some time now. Seems I have saved myself money.
Re: #Article: City plan to use recycled water
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:03 pm
by Benski81
I know this isn't really relevant to the thread but there is something so theraputic about venting.
I wouldn't wipe my a$@e with the advertiser. Everyone involved in the production and distribution of such a shiteful rag should be ashamed of themselves.
Ah that feels better.
Thanks for the opportunity to put that out there.
