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

[rhino]

quite frankly, I would like to See Adealide 100% off Murray Water with the water to be used elsewhere as irrigation or back to the enviroment.

Considering the capacity of the desal plant, and the fact that it looks like we're going to be paying for the ability to use it whether it's supplying our drinking water or not, I agree with your comment.

[Waewick]

yes, that is the most important point in reality.

[skyliner]

It's either the desal or not enough water - that's reality. Interesting that all other capitals found the same solution to the problem.

SA - GREAT STATE MATE!

[Waewick]

got my first water bill today

Thanks Mike

[Jim Boukas]

So the tax payer is forking out over $2 Billion dollars for a water rates to go up, hmmm what a great solution, well done Mikey another legacy to add to you list of many!!!

BTW when is the forum title being amended, this is my third request.

[Will]

So the tax payer is forking out over $2 Billion dollars for a water rates to go up, hmmm what a great solution, well done Mikey another legacy to add to you list of many!!!

BTW when is the forum title being amended, this is my third request.

Do you have any articles that you could share to support your claim that it is now worth over $2 billion?

We all appreaciate that it is no longer worth $1 billion, but until we hve more concrete proof, we cannot change the thread title.

[[Shuz]]

Ladies and Gentleman, that was Jim Boukas, disgruntled AdelaideNow commentator. Thankyou for your comments Jim...

Now, uhh, moving right along, shall we?

[Aidan]

Do you have any articles that you could share to support your claim that it is now worth over $2 billion?

We all appreaciate that it is no longer worth $1 billion, but until we hve more concrete proof, we cannot change the thread title.

Sorry to be pedantic, but there is a rather important difference between what it cost and what it is worth.

Since it was commissioned, what it cost went up, but what it is worth actually fell - firstly because extra water isn't so urgently needed, and secondly because the cost of desalination is falling due o advancing technology that isn't being used here.

[rhino]

Thankyou for apologizing before typing the rest of your post.

Perhaps it should have been put off indefinately until technology allows the cost of desalination to be zero.

[Aidan]

;ust wanted to clarify a few things. Increased use of groundwater is certainly not an option to secure Adelaides water supply. SA Water is currently trying to minimise groundwater extraction as it is not sustainable (for example they have provided recylced water from Bolivar to Virginia farmers to reduce groundwater extraction in that area). Groundwater levels under the Adelaide Plains are already dangerously low.

What exactly do you mean by dangerously low? There t a few scenarios I can think of where groundwater levels can be dangerously low, but I don't think any of them apply (or applied) to the Adelaide situation. Though ground permeability is lower than it should be, it is still significant, and there isn't much extraction of bore water in Adelaide (unlike in Virginia and McLaren Vale).

I admit I'm only going on what I read in the Murdoch press, but AIUI SA Water still has the bores that Rubberman mentioned, and regards them as an emergency backup. And we now have membrane filtration technology to solve the water quality problem.

Also, increasing dam capacities and increasing extraction from the Murray are not drought proof. If it doesn't rain, neither option will provide sufficient water for the city.

We have had a great year of rain, but don't be fooled into thinking the drouight is over or could not get worse.

We have indeed had a great year of rain, so by definition the drought is over!

There will of course be other droughts in future, some of which could be worse.

We may have 10 more good years, or next year could be our driest yet. Unfortunately a desalination plant is currently the best solution available to secure our water supply, regardless of rainfall.I don't necessarily like the idea or the cost of the plant but there were no better options.

It really depends on what you regard as securing our water supply. Providing enough desalination capacity to totally eliminate Adelaide's reliance on the Murray rather than merely reducing it was a bad decision because we knew it was likely the drought would break, yet we still had other options if it didn't.

And rhino, if the cost is falling then it should be put off until it is needed.

[rhino]

And rhino, if the cost is falling then it should be put off until it is needed.

If I remember correctly, one of the big complaints at the time was "We need a desalination plant! Why didn't this government have the foresight to build it before it was needed?"

Now we have you, with your enormous ammount of knowledge on every subject, some of which you admit is gained from reading the Murdoch Press, telling us that the government was wrong to have built it because the drought broke and they should have waited until it was needed. It beggars belief.

[[Shuz]]

[Jim Boukas]

Thankyou for apologizing before typing the rest of your post.

Perhaps it should have been put off indefinately until technology allows the cost of desalination to be zero.

Perhaps we should spend the money on projects that are required right now like better roads in metro Adelaide or a better public transport system (and no, not electrifying the current fleet of dinosaurs either). This and the $13 billion the Rann government are spending on the new hospital (I’m sure we could have built a new one on the existing sight for say $3 Billion give or take a few project re- baselines) will send this state back 50 years financially!!!!

[rhino]

Jim! Howya Doin' Buddy? Wow $13billion for that hospital now? Who woulda thunk? Imagine the freeway we could have! We could probably have a cloud seeder too, to drought-proof us, for that kinda money!

Hey! Do you wanna be Premier?

[Aidan]

And rhino, if the cost is falling then it should be put off until it is needed.

If I remember correctly, one of the big complaints at the time was "We need a desalination plant! Why didn't this government have the foresight to build it before it was needed?"

Now we have you, with your enormous ammount of knowledge on every subject, some of which you admit is gained from reading the Murdoch Press, telling us that the government was wrong to have built it because the drought broke and they should have waited until it was needed. It beggars belief.

Rhino, that's not what I'm saying at all. I never claimed the desalination plant wasn't needed. The drought made it clear that it was needed.

What was not needed was to build it at 100 gigalitre/year capacity straight away, as opposed to the original plan of 50Gl/y capacity with provision to double it.

Why is that so hard to understand?