Water is another commodity that if we believe all we're told, there is a shortage. Another desalination plant is on the drawing board, so will the information from the experts be heeded or once again ignored?Water Corp are going through the process of attempting to have strict monitoring conditions in Cockburn Sound relaxed or removed.When will they realise these conditions are placed in the license for a very good reason.
So why are the public being asked to reduce their water usage, there seems to be plenty for the new water guzzling industries being constructed in the south. For that matter have government taken into consideration the increased population, according to the figures were looking at an extra 30,000 for the year. Is this why Water Corp want the new desal at Binningup, so why are the tax payers expected to foot the bill who is the real beneficiary?
The Corporation itself confirmed as recently as 2002 that catchment thinning would have doubled the run-off in high rain fall areas, IF it had been done. The main reason for low levels is reduced catchment inflow efficiency is because the corporation ceased catchment thinning and maintenance in the mid -1970's. By the Water Corp's own figures the rainfall on average had not decreased from 1910 to 2007, the average rainfall is the same.
Conservative indications are that a return to the previous 6 per cent efficiency would provide Perth with an additinal 120 GL's a year. Based on the government's cost forecast for Binningup RO plant, this would save tax payers nearly $3 billion in capital costs and $140 million a year in the cost of the water. (the costs are an approximation,they could be a lot higher by now)
The irony and hypocrisy is that the same government is blaming our "water crisis" on climate change and global warming & is demanding that industry and the public substantially reduce their carbon footprint, while they are hell-bent on installing these power guzzling,CO2-polluting and expensive (monuments) desalination plants .
So why are the public being asked to reduce their water usage, there seems to be plenty for the new water guzzling industries being constructed in the south. For that matter have government taken into consideration the increased population, according to the figures were looking at an extra 30,000 for the year. Is this why Water Corp want the new desal at Binningup, so why are the tax payers expected to foot the bill who is the real beneficiary?
The Corporation itself confirmed as recently as 2002 that catchment thinning would have doubled the run-off in high rain fall areas, IF it had been done. The main reason for low levels is reduced catchment inflow efficiency is because the corporation ceased catchment thinning and maintenance in the mid -1970's. By the Water Corp's own figures the rainfall on average had not decreased from 1910 to 2007, the average rainfall is the same.
Conservative indications are that a return to the previous 6 per cent efficiency would provide Perth with an additinal 120 GL's a year. Based on the government's cost forecast for Binningup RO plant, this would save tax payers nearly $3 billion in capital costs and $140 million a year in the cost of the water. (the costs are an approximation,they could be a lot higher by now)
The irony and hypocrisy is that the same government is blaming our "water crisis" on climate change and global warming & is demanding that industry and the public substantially reduce their carbon footprint, while they are hell-bent on installing these power guzzling,CO2-polluting and expensive (monuments) desalination plants .
No comments:
Post a Comment