We oppose desalination anywhere, as a first option. Williamsons - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1A

We oppose desalination anywhere, as a first option.

Williamsons Beach, Victoria Proposed site; Desalination Plant.

Formed mid 2007 in response to announcement by State Government that they intend to build a massive water factory on the Bass Coast. In an unprecedented move, via Federal Court action the federal Rudd and state Brumby governments silenced this group’s legitimate opposition to the environmentally reprehensible plan!

1A

For the sake of the future of our planet, the community needed a continued voice, so we formed;

Some Actions

Human sign; 1200 angry people at the site Community assembly; shut down by Mr Brumby Bob Brown, strong supporter; during a site visit Walk Against Warming; Melbourne, 2008

Williamsons Beach

John Brumby’s Water Factory

Powlett River

150 - 200 billion litres annually via pipe, 85 km to Cardinia reservoir (removes salt) (removes sea life) Effluent; 7,000 litres per second;

• brine
• ecotoxins
• dead sea life

Intake; over 15,000 litres water per second

• kills over 300,000 marine organisms per second

John Brumby’s Water Factory

Powered by brown coal (not “green powered”)

• 90 - 120 mW
• New high voltage power supply
• Emits up to 1.5 million tonnes CO2 annually

➡ Equivalent to 350,000 new cars

BASS STRAIT

• Shallow
• Poor flushing

➡ exacerbates negative marine effects

Rural landscape Unspoiled beaches & foreshore reserve

It is;

• not required
• environmentally unsustainable

CO2 emissions marine ecology terrestrial ecology

• economically prohibitive
• socially destructive
• a last resort solution being placed first.

Why we oppose THIS desalination project.

1A

Until now, government has not acted despite years of warnings that Melbourne’s antiquated water supply system will not cope with climate change and pollution effects (reducing rainfall) and increasing population.

It is NOT REQUIRED

There are alternatives that will deliver more water than desalination; cheaper and with a fraction the environmental

• effects. Government knows this;

but refuses to act responsibly.

In Summary:

• 400 billion litres of urban storm water is wasted every year and
• 300 billion litres of treated waste water is wasted every year.

Desalination will suck back out of the ocean just one quarter of this! Why not STOP it all running into the ocean in the first place? It CAN be done (cheaper and with a fraction of the environmental impact). Water experts confirm that.

It is NOT REQUIRED

Neil Rankine’s objective AND fully referenced collation of Government’s own policy (including Melbourne Water’s and CSIRO’s figures & statistics) confirms that we do NOT need desalination.

• Prof. Barry Hart, director Water Studies Centre at Monash University;

“I believe the information in this document is sufficiently robust for there to be concern over the validity of the case for the desal plant”.

It is NOT REQUIRED

Even with severe climate induced restrictions to dam inflows MELBOURNE’S STORAGES WILL BE OVERFLOWING IN 2014 or 2015

Figures are from Melbourne Water for dam inflows (four main storages and an allowance for other inflow/outflows) and 2007 annual consumption. New Supply volumes are from the State Government’s new water policy, others are from their policy presented at the last election (Eastern Treatment reduced), and the last two options (discussed in the previous policy but no figures given) have conservative figures from recent research (see references for detail).

Water consumption for 2007

15 GL Tarago Reconnection 75 GL Sugarloaf Interconnector 15 GL New Water for Environmental Flows 150 GL Wonthaggi Desalination Factory pumping to Melbourne 60 GL Eastern Treatment Plant upgrade and Water Substitution 40 GL Stormwater Harvesting and Substitution for Drinking Water 42 GL Rollout of Rainwater Tanks in 5%

• f suitable

homes per annum

2013 Excess 267GL 2012 Excess 261GL 2011 Excess 211GL 2010 Excess 86GL 20GL 15GL Annual Storage Levels with excess supply (end 2007 level 693GL) 708GL 729GL 815GL 1026GL 1287GL 1554GL

Storages will be overflowing mid 2015 - even assuming augmentations not online until following years

37.4GL Efficiencies

Supply

83%

Above 2016 Con- sumption Consumption scaled for population increase to 4.5+million by 2020

2014 Excess 295GL 1849GL

Severe further climate inflow reduction

(Total storage capacity is 1773 GL)

8

Summary graph from Neil Rankine’s report; demonstrates the volumes of water available.

Link to full report; http://www.yourwateryoursay.org/2008/05/09/analysis-supply-and-demand-melbourne’s-water-version-4/

It is;

• not required
• environmentally unsustainable

CO2 emissions marine ecology terrestrial ecology

• economically prohibitive
• socially destructive
• a last resort solution being placed first.

Why we oppose THIS desalination project.

1A

Desalination: “Bottled Electricity” - Bob Carr, 2004.

“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

Victoria’s proposed DESALINATION plant;

“an energy guzzling, climate changing, ecosystem altering water factory; catch the water falling on Melbourne’s roofs”

• Bob Brown, Nov 18, 2007.

NASAʼs James Hansen* in December 2007: “The tipping points for large ice sheet and species loss were crossed when we exceeded 300-350 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a point passed decades ago. We need to stop emissions and reduce the greenhouses in the air to cool the planet.” * Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Advised U.S. Vice President and Cabinet members on

climate change and its relation to energy requirements.

Some widely accepted figures regarding Climate Change...

• Current atmospheric equivalent CO2 = 387 ppm.
• Even if we stop emissions now this is likey to exceed 400 ppm when there is likely to be a

T increase to 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels).

• 2 degrees is the often quoted tipping point for catastrophic climate change.
• Coral starts dying above 450 ppm CO2.
• The world is devastated at 550 ppm (likely 3-6 degree T increase).
• Professor Peter Christoff (University of Melbourne and Vice-President of the ACF); need

to get CO2 below 400 ppm to keep T rise below 2 C.

• James Hansen suggests a long term safe level is 300 - 325 ppm
• Australian Government has instructed its economic advisers to model at 450-550 ppm!
• 550 ppm as decided upon by Garnaut risks runaway climate change.

Projects such as the Desalination Project are clearly incompatible with responsible Climate Policy.

Southern Ocean close to acid tipping point.

Tuesday, 11 November 2008 Bianca Nogrady, ABC Researchers are concerned that the Southern Ocean could become too acidic by 2030 This so-called 'tipping point' of acidification had been predicted to occur when atmospheric CO2 levels hit 550 parts per million, around the year 2060. However, the new research shows ...the tipping point is likely to be reached at far lower atmospheric CO2 levels

• around 450 ppm
• cean acidification could lead to large scale ecosystem changes, affecting not just plankton but other marine life

including fish, whales and dolphins

Recent climate science;

Desalination projectʼs effect on climate change.

According to the EES, a 90 mW plant will produce up to 1,118,000 tonnes of carbon emissions every year, = 22.36 BILLION black balloons = 300 000 new cars! This project is upgradeable to 120 mW. While there are environmentally friendlier alternatives, this is absolutely irresponsible and incongruous with recent federal government commitments to reducing emissions by 60% by 2050!

Government claims of “carbon neutrality” are a hoax; an irresponsible abuse of carbon reduction schemes.

The “Carbon Neutral” HOAX

Irresponsible justification via;

• ffsite green power production
• carbon credits / ETS

= permission to pollute,

contributing to ecological collapse. Regardless of government spin, the project WILL result in emissions to 1,500,000 t. / yr.

Marine ecological effects.

Entrainment. (the passive capture of small organisms associated with water intake)

★ 300,000 organisms (eggs,larvae,plankton) killed every second. ★ 70-80 tonnes per day of destroyed sea life to landfill or ocean discharge. ★ Loss of biomass from bottom of food chain accumulates with time; flow on effects to higher order consumers (eg. penguins, seals, whales), local fisheries and local reef ecology.

Effluent.

★ Salt; 600 million litres / day of hypersaline discharge. ★ Biocides (chlorine etc.), heavy metals, dead organisms. ★ Neutralising agents, coagulants, antiscalants, cleaning chemicals. Local Ecosystem Alteration = Pest species risk. NO studies on whole effluent toxicity have been done.

Extract from West Australian Newspaper;

Victoria’s proposed factory is 3 times capacity of Perth’s = 3 times the brine. As with Perth’s site, this part of Bass Strait is poorly flushed; brine accumulates.

Marine ecological effects.

Brine component of effluent

• Salt is heavy; it sinks, reducing oxygen content of the floor; kills benthic sea life.
• The proposed discharge point is over high ecological value rocky reef, NOT sand.

Towards an understanding of the flushing of Bass Strait Paul A. Sandery School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences Flinders University Adelaide-Australia

In summer the ocean may “stagnate” and still conditions lead to the same problems experienced in Perth. “Water tends to shuffle backwards and forwards in Bass Strait not out into the

• cean at all” – Associate

Professor Geoff Wescott.

Entrainment & Effluent; CUMULATIVE effects exacerbated by the poorly flushed environment.

Marine ecological effects.

Whales

Marine ecological effects.

Humpback Whales Kilcunda 6/7/2008 Largely ignored by the Environmental Effects Statement (EES). Government claimed the area is of little importance to whales and the whales do not frequent the area. Overwhelming evidence is that the claims are very wrong. Large populations

• f dolphins, Orcas, Humpback Whales & Southern Right Whales are recorded.

The EES FAILED to;

• address the significance of underwater noise impact on marine life.
• acknowledge the potential for cumulative effects from different sound sources.
• acknowledge cumulative effect of different threats to whales.
• acknowledge the significant habitat to whales of Bass Strait.
• consider the effect of the project’s greenhouse emissions on habitat.

Whales

Marine ecological effects.

Threats to whales.

• Loss of habitat via climate change effects.
• Reduced food supply via cumulative effects of entrainment and effluent.
• Underwater noise;

Imagine sound so loud that you are deafened to the world around you; sound so loud that simply moving from one point to another becomes a struggle as you try to overcome your disorientation. Sight, Smell and Touch are of limited value in Cetaceans; they rely on HEARING.

Cetaceans use sound in the ocean for survival (communication, navigation, reproduction & feeding). Sound travels efficiently in water (> 4 times faster and 60 times further than in air; to 3000 km). Noise DOUBLES in the oceans each 10 years; cumulative impacts of noise sources. Cumulative impact of noise with other threats. Effects of ocean noise on whales;

• masking of noises essential to whale survival
• disturbance (potentially serious consequences)

★ move to avoid noise ★ longer or louder calls in the presence of noise ★ no obvious reaction (cannot say that there is no effect just because we do not observe a reaction.)

• temporary hearing loss
• permanent physical damage and death.

Noise associated with construction and operation of the factory, as confirmed by Government’s own project information, is within the frequency and intensity that will have an effect on whales to a distance of well over 150 km; thus potentially affecting the whole Bass Strait migratory pathway. The EES has failed international obligations and government rhetoric on whale welfare.

Terrestrial ecological effects.

The affected area includes important unspoiled beaches, reefs, dunes and foreshore

• reserve. Within 500 metres of the site is Powlett River and a magnificent wetland of

national significance. The hinterland is rural, with no industry. The coastline is listed

• n the National Trust’s Register of National Estate.

Summary of effects;

★ Visual, recreational and rural amenity of this rare region will be spoilt ★ Threats to local ecology and amenity via;

• noise / traffic / activity / night lighting
• loss of habitat (45 ha site, new roads etc.)
• chemical leakage / spillage
• altered wetland flushing (due to interference with natural flooding events by managing opening of

the mouth of Powlett River to avoid flooding of desalination site)

• 30 - 50 metre wide construction corridor for pipes and power, to Cardinia Reservoir
• New high voltage power lines

Great Egret Hooded Plover Orange Bellied Parrot

Terrestrial ecological effects.

A few of the potentially affected EPBC listed species

It is;

• not required
• environmentally unsustainable

CO2 emissions marine ecology terrestrial ecology

• economically prohibitive
• socially destructive
• a last resort solution being placed first.

Why we oppose THIS desalination project.

1A

How much will the end user pay?

• Up to 4 - 5 times current water costs

The Australian Financial Review (Mar 26, 2008) “DESALINATION SET TO CREATE LARGE, COSTLY CARBON FOOTPRINTS” By PETE HEININGER;

“...these additional costs and taxes could lead to a four or five fold increase in the cost of water.”

Economically Prohibitive.

Project Cost; approximately $5 billion

Funding via public - private partnership ensures full operation (or penalty payments to foreign operator) for life of plant, reducing incentive for governments to pursue cheaper alternatives to optimal extent.

Economically Prohibitive.

The Australian Financial Review (Mar 26, 2008) By PETE HEININGER...

According to one of Australia’s 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.

It is;

• not required
• environmentally unsustainable

CO2 emissions marine ecology terrestrial ecology

• economically prohibitive
• socially destructive
• a last resort solution being placed first.

Why we oppose THIS desalination project.

1A

Socially destructive.

“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

A last resort solution being placed first.

1A

By industrialising a rural coastline, setting a precedent for further development. Thus reducing the amenity and destroying the natural value of our dwindling natural resources.

It is;

• not required
• environmentally unsustainable

CO2 emissions marine ecology terrestrial ecology

• economically prohibitive
• socially destructive
• a last resort solution being placed first.

Why we oppose THIS desalination project.

1A

Most importantly, there are alternatives that can deliver more water, cheaper and sustainably...

Desalination; ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Rainwater 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. Potential; 90 billion litres annually.

Ref; Marsden Jacobs Report http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res/res_rainwater_tanks.pdf

Desalination; ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Regional Storm Water Collection Professors Barry Hart and Chris Walsh;

Potential for collecting up to 200 Gl per year.

Holding Storage Pond Inflow capture Pond Treatment pond (cleansing reed bed )

System captures & purifies 1 billion litres annually. Currently building a 15 GL system.

• Water is stored underground in aquifers until required.
• Average holding time 9 days. Water meets all AWDS.
• Commercially viable at only 45% of the cost and 3% of the emissions of

desalination.

Source: Peter Dillon, Stream Leader, Water Recycling and Diversified Supplies CSIRO Land and Water - City of Salisbury’s progress towards being its own drinking water catchment.

Example; storm water capture and treatment in Salisbury, South Australia.

Desalination; ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Recycling

★ Eastern Treatment Plant;

• Currently 130 billion litres sewerage water discharged at

Gunnamatta Beach; local environmental mess.

• Responsible options for use;
• Latrobe Valley diversion / substitution
• Increase Yarra River Flows
• Aquifer feed in for recovery
• Treat to drinking water quality as overseas and Qld.

Can deliver over 100 billion litres annually. Similar potential Western Treatment Plant.

Ref; www.dpi.vic.gov.au

Desalination; ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Recycling / Conservation

★ Low flow shower heads. ★ Dual flush toilets. ★ Grey water systems (home use).

• Saves 350 l / household per DAY.
• For Garden Use.

Still poor uptake in Melbourne. Potential for massive savings.

Desalination; ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Cessation of Catchment Logging Over 30 Gl / year can be saved by cessation of logging in Thomson and Yarra Catchments.

Ref; Environment Victoria; http://www.envict.org.au/inform.php?menu=7&submenu=221&item=506

Desalination; ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

New Supplies

★ Connectors

• Peak flood diversion to

storages; Aberfeldy.

• Tasmanian pipe proposal.

(Rainfall PATTERNS have changed) Watershed’s opinion as that “Rainfall Independent” water supplies and new supplies must be a last resort, immediately prior to desalination. The previous alternatives have the potential to secure Melbourne’s medium term water future.

Desalination; ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

APPROPRIATE Desalination

as a last resort option

• EMERGENCY POINT OF

USE MOBILE SUPPLY.

• SHIPS
• CONTAINERS
• NOT a 30 YEAR contract

with profits flowing

• verseas at the expense of

OUR environment.

Victoria’s proposed DESALINATION plant;

“an energy guzzling, climate changing, ecosystem altering water factory; catch the water falling on Melbourne’s roofs”

• Bob Brown, Nov 18, 2007.

1A

Government has avoided due diligence by choosing the most unsustainable and expensive solution to our water security. For the sake of the future of our planet and our children, they must redress this regressive short sighted decision.