DSal plant

[largsbaysquidder 2]

Hi boys and girls, just voicing my opinion on how :c up the government are for letting this plant to happen I realise our ever need for water but the dsal is not the answer for one very very big reason its going to absolutely ruin this gulf! The amount of salt brine will dissapate and kill our sea grasses there for ruining the squid population and for that all fish species as nearly all species need seaweed for shelter,food etc etc.for the love of god why didn't the government make better use of stormwater run off and harvest it In places like the old cheltenham race course site.instead they saw $$$$$$ in housing typical making someone rich than looking after the environment for everyone to benifit from. so I guess the moral of the story is for all of us to enjoy it now why we still can before we all start going out fishing and coming home with nothing and we will have the government to thank for that.

[jagger 24]

There has been many a dicussion on this topic with arguments fore and againsts...personally, I can't see it as a positive for the area but you have to look at other such projects in other states/countries to get a full appreciation of may or may not happen.Hav'nt seen many (if any) examples of humans messing with the coastline where the outcome has been to the benefit of the ocean !

[brenton 637]

I reckon if they spread the outfall over a couple of Km's with a number of outlets it wouldn't be too much of a problem....... but they will take the cheap way out and as you say stuff things up. cheers brenton

[largsbaysquidder 2]

I honestly think this time next year we will all be complaining about the lack off fish in this gulf n will decline in thr future unless they wake up and realise what their doing

[afishyfish 4]

Hi boys and girls' date=' just voicing my opinion on how :c up the government are for letting this plant to happen I realise our ever need for water but the dsal is not the answer for one very very big reason its going to absolutely ruin this gulf! The amount of salt brine will dissapate and kill our sea grasses there for ruining the squid population and for that all fish species as nearly all species need seaweed for shelter,food etc etc.[/quote']One "easy" answer to all this carry on; slow population growth, therefore decreasing demand for natural resources. Unfortunateley the fly in the ointment is our "need" for an ever expanding economy :pinch: :whistle:

for the love of god why didn't the government make better use of stormwater run off and harvest it In places like the old cheltenham race course site.instead they saw $$$$$$ in housing typical making someone rich than looking after the environment for everyone to benifit from.

The good news is from a report on the ABC recently, this is apparently now being looked at, and from memory, works will begin in 3-4 yeras Personally I cant see why almost all the parklands around the city centre couldnt be turned into one large wetland, with a cafe here and there, large trees, native scrub displays etc etc and make it a very attractive and eco-friendly place.Not only would we have the worlds only parklands surrounding a city centre, we'd have a great resource too, atracting tourists, families, birdlife etc How good would that be

[largsbaysquidder 2]

Wow that's great news re: the segment on abc I missed that one, your spot on afish it would be great, the cheltenham race corse would have been ideal for this both natural wetlands and an under ground storage aquafier. Put a stormwater treatment pump there and wella drinkable water on tap. No un environmentaly nasties and like you said put a cafe there etc etc and its a win win for everyone and out fish stocks ain't tainted with polluted brush.

[Borryking 6]

The outfall as mentioned is a questionable topic, but personally I don't see it as a good thing. They are removing salt gigalitres of water and dumping the concentrate into one area. If it was in backstairs passage it wouldn't be a problem due to extreme currents that would dilute the outfall quite quickly. Dumping it into a culdesac such as our gulf can't be a good thing. It will also take a while for the true impacts to be seen, as firstly the micro / macro marine growth will die, then everything else will ship out as it decides there is now nowhere to hide and nothing to feed on. The weeds will go first followed small fish / crustaceans then everything else further up the food chain. One great plus though - there won't be any sharks!! They will no longer have anything to eat so will head for greener pastures.The big question I would like to ask is how the hell are they powering the great white elephant of the south? All this BS about carbon taxes, the environment, etc and they are installing this thing. The nature of RO plants is that salty water is forced through a series of membranes at high pressure to remove the salt. Pumps with high discharge head require very large motors to power them. Now combine this with the volumes that they are expecting, and we are talking some serious pump duty. Maybe if they installed a massive windfarm next to it they could come close to justifying it, but no, they will be pulling the electricity off the grid which is mostly supplied by dirty great coal burning power stations. Media Mike made a job creation scheme with little regard for the impacts. They should have looked further into recycling the vast amounts of storm water that ends up back in the ocean.

[kon 300]

Borryking

they will be pulling the electricity off the grid which is mostly supplied by dirty great coal burning power stations.

Ah, but on paper they have said they will be aiming to be "carbon neutral" - through the usual smoke-and-mirrors of carbon credits, offsets, RECs etc. As to who ultimately foots the bill for this environmental friendliness of course, well... :whistle:

[Ranger 48]

Largsbaysquidder, the big question mark surrounding this issue is "will the brine affect the environment?" It's also one which has been under discussion for quite some time now.I have to admit, just like you and everyone else, I know bugger all about water and desalination, and the thought scared me a little too.I had a chat with a fellow angler who just happens to work overseas with water, and knows a lot more about the issue than me or you, and I have to say that he had no concerns whatsoever.He told me that water evaporates constantly, leaving salt behind, and the amount of water evaporated in the sunlight each day would have far more effect on the gulf than any number of desalination plants. He went on to tell me that he thinks the desalination plant would be little more than a drop in the ocean by way of comparison, and that the size of our proposed desal is actually very very small.I then had someone else discuss their own concerns with me, about the chemicals used to clean the plant, and the effect they may have on the surrounding area.I think when it comes to desalination, none of us are privvy to a great deal, we are all uneducated as to the possible effects and real level for concern (if any), so we hear those with a scare campaign lecturing on the disaster it will create, and we also hear those trying to gloss over the issue saying there will be no harm whatsoever and no reason for any concern.My own guess would be that the truth lies somewhere in that grey area in between the two opposing views.Me personally, I would rather see stormwater catchment areas to trap the billions of litres of rainwater runoff which goes out to sea each year, but with the cost and value of land which would be turned into reservoirs and catchment areas, that's unlikely to ever happen, so our government seems set that desalination is the best answer for us, and they will not be swayed on this ideal.I must admit, although it seems an expensive option, there is no shortage of seawater worldwide, and if we must follow this avenue to ensure adequate water supplies, I guess we need to look overseas as to how it has worked out for them, and carefully consider the placement of our own desalination plants if it looks to pose a possible environmental issue.The governing parties are more concerned with being voted in and retaining leadership of the country than any other concern, so it's votes which will count if change is required, and the government will always go with the majority of voters. You tell me, which party is the lesser of the two evils when it comes to the future of our nation? When it comes time to put pen to paper and lodge our vote for the future of the country it's leadership and the policies of each party, do we lodge our vote to stop desalination, do we lodge our vote to stop marine parks, do we lodge our vote to stop illegal refugees, do we lodge our vote to improve education, do we lodge our vote for better healthcare, do we lodge our vote for lower taxes, do we lodge our vote for tougher laws, etc, etc? What are the big issues to each of us, and where will we place the most importance come time to choose leadership?

[largsbaysquidder 2]

thanks ranger for the detailed info cheers, bit one question on the evaporating water leaving salt behind, if that happens naturally what's going to happen when 1000s of litres of salt brine is discharged in one particular spot? The tide is just going to push it 20 or30 kms one direction then push it back when the tide recedes or comes in. but your 100% right time will tell and I hope Im so far wrong its not funny

[afishyfish 4]

I wonder whats going to power all those "emmission Free " electric cars when they stop burning coal Unfortunately anyone driving an electric car to help the environment ( apart from less noise ) is quite possibly fooling themselves :whistle:

The big question I would like to ask is how the hell are they powering the great white elephant of the south?

Simple' date=' bump our power prices right up to pay for more gas and coal to be burnt! :c Then pay to make solar systems more affordable to be seen as being green.Then use the "new" water to quench the thirst of all the new people he wants to put into our state :pinch: , and so it goes on and on .

Media Mike made a job creation scheme with little regard for the impacts. They should have looked further into recycling the vast amounts of storm water that ends up back in the ocean.

Why would you do that and help stop the slow death of coastal marine grassbeds, home to thousands more aquartic species Oh well I guess if the brine doesnt clean it all up and out, thehoepfully run-off will :dry: :whistle: Media Mike is such a great guy for creating so many jobs, but at what cost One "plus " of the brine disposal is that it will be pumped into the ocean thorugh a lot of smaller pipes spread out over some distance, maybe better at least than just having 1 point of discharge. Wether this helps or not, time will only tell :side: Let's keep our finger Xed anyway

[Killtank 0]

Borryking

they will be pulling the electricity off the grid which is mostly supplied by dirty great coal burning power stations.

Ah' date=' but on paper they have said they will be aiming to be "carbon neutral" - through the usual smoke-and-mirrors of carbon credits, offsets, RECs etc. As to who ultimately foots the bill for this environmental friendliness of course, well... :whistle:[/quote']And this is all on top of the huge amount of electricity they already use! Apparently Sa water is already the highest user of electricity within SA (as a result from the pumping of water from the Murray and into all the resivours)...go figure!

[sbarnden 397]

Having looked into the numbers and design for the desal myself I have zero concern about the brine. The rate it diffuses and position and design of the outlet deals with it so that further than 20-50m from the outlet it is practically undetectable from normal natural salinity variations. Pretty much all the experts I've heard from don't have a major problem with the brine.The biggest concerns that I've seen the experts worry about is the cleaning chemicals that are used to treat the water and equipment mixed with the brine and dissolved metals that it picks up passing through the machinery. But that can be managed by rigorous water quality testing and treatment. The other really big concern is the inlet sucking up large amounts of larvae from crabs/shrimp/krill and other juvenile stage sea life. Again, good design of the inlet so it has minimal intake velocity and is placed in a zone with minimal spawning characteristics.My greatest concern is quite simply efficiency. Salt water desalination is EXPENSIVE. It is one of the most expensive ways to get fresh water in both capital and energy.However you can blame you average suburbanite for it. Because everywhere they have tried to introduce treated storm-water and effluent as a water recycling method to secure supplies cheaply and efficiently there is a backlash against it on the unfounded concerns of "our sewage and waste was mixed with that at some point". Hence why politicians go for the expensive, but more politically and emotionally palatable option, of salt water desalination. Plus currently treated storm-water is a political hot potato due to the potential risk for heavy metal contamination.Hell, it would be cheaper more efficient just to pump the treated effluent and storm-water through the desalination plant and would produce just a pure water, but again, people vote with their hearts and not their heads.And no politician is willing to take an avoidable risk or face public backlash from their cotton-swaddled suburbanite constituents.

[Ranger 48]

Salt water desalination is EXPENSIVE. It is one of the most expensive ways to get fresh water in both capital and energy.However you can blame you average suburbanite for it. Because everywhere they have tried to introduce treated storm-water and effluent as a water recycling method to secure supplies cheaply and efficiently there is a backlash against it on the unfounded concerns of "our sewage and waste was mixed with that at some point".

Being a little working man in this country, I've been forced to eat sh*t for years, so I cant see any reason why I shouldn't also drink it!

[GDK 0]

I used reverse osmosis units for fish breeding and found although the water was almost pure (down to 1 or two ppm tds - the water was quite acidic....I drank it for a while (it tasted great) and found my acidity levels rose out of this world - basically had to do a detox and stop drinking it or I would have gotten very sick.....I have asked around about what the powers that be were going to do about this fact and was met either with a bewildered look or shut down....I for one will be doing water tests once it comes online....I think the gulf will handle the salinity most of the time - BUT - in the event of a dodge tide and a long hot summer which heats the water up and hence makes the water even mose saline - I would like to know how long seagrass can withstand a hyper saline condition before it starts suffering.....I mean these guys aren't going to stop production just becuase of the tide - are they?All things said and done - just another way for the pollies to milk us for that little bit more and getting away with it....We will all see in a couple of years....Cheers...

[mrfish 327]

t The tide is just going to push it 20 or30 kms one direction then push it back when the tide recedes or comes in. but your 100% right time will tell and I hope Im so far wrong its not funny

There is a 'circular' water flow in gulf st vincent. The water comes in from the north of KI and along the western side till it gets to the top where it is pretty stagnant but it then flows out via the eatern (ie adelaide metro side) the out the bottom of the gulf again. Salinity levels are naturally higher north and east and fairly stable around KI. So at least they are putting the plant on the side of the gulf where water is leaving. But salinity levels are pretty high anyway so putting a desal plant in an inverse estuary (which the gulf is) that experiences dodge tides and where the whole water exchange cycle takes around 1yr seems pretty retarded . (most of that informaion is taken from a paper by Dr Jochen Kaempf of flinders uni who beleives the desal to be a bad idea.)Other papers i have read from some of the shallow basins in europe that recieve desal effluent state that salinity levels for around 100 m around the outflow can reach as high as 60ppt but after that distance the dispersal is pretty good. 60ppt would obviously kill any grasses and many organisms and deter fish from passing through that area.Like others storm water catchment seems such a better option, it has less long term negative effects and is much more sustainable. I cant see why youd put money into desal when in the long run you might have to chut it down because it cost too much or is having detrimental effects on teh environment. How long ie years do they think they can pump brine into teh gulf

[afishyfish 4]

However you can blame you average suburbanite for it. Because everywhere they have tried to introduce treated storm-water and effluent as a water recycling method to secure supplies cheaply and efficiently there is a backlash against it on the unfounded concerns of "our sewage and waste was mixed with that at some point". Hence why politicians go for the expensive' date=' but more politically and emotionally palatable option, of salt water desalination.Hell, it would be cheaper more efficient just to pump the treated effluent and storm-water through the desalination plant and would produce just a pure water, but again, people vote with their hearts and not their heads.And no politician is willing to take an avoidable risk or face public backlash from their cotton-swaddled suburbanite constituents.[/quote']Our sewer was mixed with everything at some stage. Natures been recycling it for years ! We/ve probably all got some T-Rex or ancient carbon in us now as part of our make up! And yet your Joe average, and the pollies seem to forget the rainwater that leaches through cemetries of rotting corpses into aquifers that run to the sea, or are pumped from, dog faeces etc that gets washed out to sea, while nature does its own purification, and people are happyu to drink that water Think about it :whistle:

[Borryking 6]

The biggest concerns that I've seen the experts worry about is the cleaning chemicals that are used to treat the water and equipment mixed with the brine and dissolved metals that it picks up passing through the machinery. But that can be managed by rigorous water quality testing and treatment. The other really big concern is the inlet sucking up large amounts of larvae from crabs/shrimp/krill and other juvenile stage sea life. Again' date=' good design of the inlet so it has minimal intake velocity and is placed in a zone with minimal spawning characteristics.[/quote']I wouldn't be at all concerned with the intake, that is easily designed around with oversized suction piping and large surface area inlet screen to reduce the inlet velocity. Not sure on the exact design of the intake, but being sea water I would say that they would also have some sort of backwash mechanism to stop build up on the screens. This could be achieved either by a parasitic load off the discharge side of an upstream pump, or via a compressed air blasting system. The use of (if they have used them) wedge wire inlet screens also allows smaller aperture sizes without the pressure drop. Due to the geometry any items caught on the downstream side of the screen also tend to fall off (ditto if there is a backwash system).Agreed that the biocides used in the discharge system are of the biggest concern. They typically use sodium hypochlorite, which is essentially chlorine. Sodium metabisulphite is often added near the discharge to neutralise the chlorine, but this also comes with its own series of environmental impacts. A bit like introducing cane toads....They are however, using GRE pipe which has an inherent resistance to marine fouling, so technically not too large quantities of the chemicals should need to be used. That being said, the content of chlorine needs to be at a high enough quantity to clean ALL of the piping - right to the discharge point. This guarantees that there will be chlorine at the discharge point. I believe they would be well aware of this, and would hence know that a certain area of the environment will be affected. I would like to know how they are going to control the discharge of these chemicals? Is it through periodic manual testing of the water at the outlet, or with some type of sensor within the pipework to alarm / shutdown on high level? If it is manual, you can pretty much guarantee that the control is going to be pretty average.

[Piranha 76]

Like others storm water catchment seems such a better option, it has less long term negative effects and is much more sustainable. I cant see why youd put money into desal when in the long run you might have to chut it down because it cost too much or is having detrimental effects on teh environment. How long ie years do they think they can pump brine into teh gulf

Don't get me wrong i'm against desal for the power it chews up alone, but wouldn't stopping large amounts of freshwater runoff from getting to the ocean also have a negative effect in the gulf and make the water more saline as well?

[largsbaysquidder 2]

I don't think that would make a difference man made storm water run off has only been around since humans so the ocean has survived millions of years with out huge excess storm water. Storm water run off is one of two or three reasons why or natural sea grasses have died off so making better use of storm water would benifit everyone !!!

[silaflex 103]

I remember Mr Rann assuring everyone that the desal plant will be run off 100% renewable energy.What a disgrace.

[afishyfish 4]

I remember Mr Rann assuring everyone that the desal plant will be run off 100% renewable energy.What a disgrace.

I wonder what renewable energy he meant, and where its supposeed to come from

[afishyfish 4]

Heres some more interesting info on the process, including 1 method of slowing intake velocitys http://superfund.ciesin.columbia.edu/Rocklandwater/swansea.html

[Piranha 76]

I don't think that would make a difference man made storm water run off has only been around since humans so the ocean has survived millions of years with out huge excess storm water. Storm water run off is one of two or three reasons why or natural sea grasses have died off so making better use of storm water would benifit everyone !!!

storm water would have run off the land long before humans, they just would have been creeks ect, agree with your points about pollution though cheers

[Guest emufingers]

Storm water runoff is increased dramatically from built environments. It also contains pollution from vehicles. The runoff in the gulf is a major contributor to sea-grass reduction. I the natural environment the storm water ran into swamps where it was filtered by reeds etc and entered the sea slowly with the nutrients removed. There used to be wetlands treating the runoff all along from where west-lakes is now to where the airport is now. This filtered the Torrens and brown-hill creak run off. We continue to stuff the gulf's by putting large volumes of unfiltered storm-water into it. We have reduce the nutrient rich sewerage outflow in recent years, but not before as great deal of damage was done. Now we are going to put chemically contaminated brine into a sea which has low levels of mixing activity. There seems little purpose in marine parks and fisheries management strategies if the government will not deal with the damage done by hkan generated disruption of the Gulf systems. The new expansion of Aldinga and Sellicks is just addingaing the stormwater runoff problem to another area.To meet economic greed we populate. The more people there are the higher the cost of offsetting the damage done by runoff and effluent. But we are not prepared to pay the cost. Result we deplete fishing stocks and mess up the marine ecosystem while making token effort through marine parks.

[largsbaysquidder 2]

Couldn't have agreed more with u emufingers!!!! 110% spot on