COM: Port Stanvac Desalination Plant | 100gL | $1.8b

Threads relating to transport, water, etc. within the CBD and Metropolitan area.
Message
Author
User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

Re: COM: Port Stanvac Desalination Plant | 100gL | $1.8b

#406 Post by monotonehell » Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:58 pm

Aidan wrote:No, i haven't read the past two years of reports into this - I'm an engineer not a doctor. I have read enough about it to know that epidemiological studies have not found a link, and that there is strong nocebo effect. But attributing it all to that seems rather lazy from an engineering viewpoint.

Contrary to what you say, noise and vibration can have health effects. I wouldn't want to live under the path of many low flying aircraft, and I'd be wary of living too near a busy road. Wind turbines have two additional factors that could exacerbate the situation: firstly persistence, because most of them are constantly on. Secondly in some (probably rare) cases they cause buildings to resonate, greatly amplifying the effect. And unlike traffic noise, the sound produced doesn't vary much, so when resonance occurs it's a very big problem (unlike traffic noise where the occasional vehicle causes resonance but soon passes, and most vehicles don't have that effect).
An engineer would at least read the science.

Statistical analysis of complaints have shown no correlation between turbine sites and complaints. They have show that complaints only occur after suggestion.

Quantitative analysis of sites has shown that the levels of low frequency sound, noise and vibration drop off very close to the sites, and fall far below normal urban noise levels very quickly.

In short there's no evidence of illness, and no evidence of that which is blamed for the illness.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

rubberman
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: ADL ex DRW, ASP, MGB
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: COM: Port Stanvac Desalination Plant | 100gL | $1.8b

#407 Post by rubberman » Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:04 pm

Aidan (In company of the SA Government, the Opposition, and SA Water) is correct.

Before the commissioning of the desal plant, by this time of the year, SA Water had higher 'target levels' for its reservoirs. These targets, if not achieved by rainfall, were attained by pumping from the Murray.

The 'target levels' were calculated, based on many years of measured flows from gauging stations in the Adelaide Hills catchment. We keep more water in our dams, just in case we get caught with an unexpected drought. Of course if that unexpected drought does not occur, the water is spilled with the next winter rains....after having been pumped all over the Mt Lofty Ranges at huge cost.

Now that we have a desal plant, it not only acts as a long term supply in case of drought, it also acts as further insurance year on year. Therefore because we have the desal plant, we do not need to keep such high 'target levels' in our hills storages. Because we don't need those higher levels, we don't need to pump as much from the Murray 'just in case' only to have that water spill in the next winter rains.

Since we don't need to pump from the Murray as often, we save on our pumping bills in most years.

Please let us stop this 'keep the desal plant running at all costs' nonsense.

An engineer is someone who can do for a dollar what any fool can do for ten.

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 288 times
Contact:

Re: COM: Port Stanvac Desalination Plant | 100gL | $1.8b

#408 Post by monotonehell » Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:07 pm

rubberman wrote:Aidan (In company of the SA Government, the Opposition, and SA Water) is correct.

Before the commissioning of the desal plant, by this time of the year, SA Water had higher 'target levels' for its reservoirs. These targets, if not achieved by rainfall, were attained by pumping from the Murray.

The 'target levels' were calculated, based on many years of measured flows from gauging stations in the Adelaide Hills catchment. We keep more water in our dams, just in case we get caught with an unexpected drought. Of course if that unexpected drought does not occur, the water is spilled with the next winter rains....after having been pumped all over the Mt Lofty Ranges at huge cost.

Now that we have a desal plant, it not only acts as a long term supply in case of drought, it also acts as further insurance year on year. Therefore because we have the desal plant, we do not need to keep such high 'target levels' in our hills storages. Because we don't need those higher levels, we don't need to pump as much from the Murray 'just in case' only to have that water spill in the next winter rains.

Since we don't need to pump from the Murray as often, we save on our pumping bills in most years.

Please let us stop this 'keep the desal plant running at all costs' nonsense.

An engineer is someone who can do for a dollar what any fool can do for ten.
This^ Aidan's right on the desal topic. (But needs to read up on turbines ;) )
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

Aidan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2036
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:10 am
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: COM: Port Stanvac Desalination Plant | 100gL | $1.8b

#409 Post by Aidan » Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:20 pm

monotonehell wrote: An engineer would at least read the science.
I've read enough about it to be concerned that they're taking the wrong approach - trying to determine whether there's a link rather than under what circumstances there's a link.
Statistical analysis of complaints have shown no correlation between turbine sites and complaints. They have show that complaints only occur after suggestion.
Yes, I'm well aware of that. But there are three problems: firstly there could be data collection issues where real health problems occur before suggestion. Secondly the real cases could easily be lost in the statistical noise of psychosomatic ones. And thirdly, while the link was becoming better known, the turbines were getting bigger so were more likely to cause problems.
Quantitative analysis of sites has shown that the levels of low frequency sound, noise and vibration drop off very close to the sites, and fall far below normal urban noise levels very quickly.
Not always quickly enough, especially downwind of large turbines. Some buildings resonate, and it is that which is likely to be the main cause of the problem.
In short there's no evidence of illness, and no evidence of that which is blamed for the illness.
There's been a TV report featuring a resonating house which is blamed for the illness. Having heard it, it is almost impossible to accept that there is no evidence of it - to do so I'd either need to see evidence that the report (which was on the ABC) was a fabrication, or a detailed and very well scrutinised explanation of why it couldn't possibly cause health problems. A conventional statistical analysis would not be sufficient.
Just build it wrote:Bye Union Hall. I'll see you in another life, when we are both cats.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests