3 ms·

I just looked it up. Cost of the plant was around $4 billion and the 30 year operating costs are apparently around $1.5 billion. It was only finished in 2012

I just looked it up. Cost of the plant was around $4 billion and the 30 year operating costs are apparently around $1.5 billion. It was only finished in 2012 and so far it has not been required to be used. Over the course of the drought the government handed out $4.5 billion in drought assistance to farmers and the economy overall had over $5 billion in losses per year. 2002-2003 alone cost $6.6 billion. To be honest, this looks like a good insurance plan. Australia should build more of them.

neumann 12y ago
The Victorian desal is a bit more expensive to the taxpayers than that to the tune of $24B, but has been embroiled in financial problems mostly due to the dodgy tender process. http://www.theage.com.au/environment/water-issues/desalination http://www.theage.com.au/environment/water-issues/desalinati...
Gustomaximus 12y ago
Sydney also has a desalinisation plant. Like Victoria, the NSW government copped flak for building this as the drought broke as it finished. Personally I think the detractors are very short sighted. They seem to forget how our dam was almost empty despite heavy water usage restrictions. Running out of water is simply not an option for a major city so it seems pretty handy to have this backup IMO even if it isn't used for 50+ years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Desalination_Plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Desalination_Plant
sytringy05 12y ago
A desal plant in Australia is a good idea because it is an arid continent and is prone to drought. The biggest desal plant in the world was not a good idea. It was not required at the time and probably wont be required for another 20 years, especially given how well water restrictions worked during the drought. Over-building on infrastructure is almost as bad as not building it at all. And as someone else pointed out this particular project was beset by dodgy builders, unions drinking at the trough and grandstanding politicians who wanted to be seen doing "something". All up, massive waste of money.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Fair enough. I must say from looking into it more that there seems to be an absurdly wide range of cost estimates being quoted, as well as a lot of mixing up of prices and costs, so the figures I quoted are probably bullshit. Edit - I am not sure I agree with you about overbuilding on infrastructure though. A good example of this is the London sewer system by Joseph Bazalgette, that was massively overbuilt to the tune of twice the maximum requirement from what was considered the highest possible population density, just in case. Which was very lucky, given the development of the towerblock 100 years later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bazalgette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bazalgette
davegardner 12y ago
Years of lower than average rainfall have made this a necessity in WA. We've now got two desal plants here that currently provide 27% of our supply. The supply drawn from dams now only makes up 33% of the total. The plan is to transition to a 50/50 mix of desalination and underground sources (with groundwater replenishment) by 2030.

neumann 12y ago

The Victorian desal is a bit more expensive to the taxpayers than that to the tune of $24B, but has been embroiled in financial problems mostly due to the dodgy tender process. http://www.theage.com.au/environment/water-issues/desalination http://www.theage.com.au/environment/water-issues/desalinati...

Gustomaximus 12y ago

Sydney also has a desalinisation plant. Like Victoria, the NSW government copped flak for building this as the drought broke as it finished. Personally I think the detractors are very short sighted. They seem to forget how our dam was almost empty despite heavy water usage restrictions. Running out of water is simply not an option for a major city so it seems pretty handy to have this backup IMO even if it isn't used for 50+ years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Desalination_Plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Desalination_Plant

sytringy05 12y ago

A desal plant in Australia is a good idea because it is an arid continent and is prone to drought. The biggest desal plant in the world was not a good idea. It was not required at the time and probably wont be required for another 20 years, especially given how well water restrictions worked during the drought. Over-building on infrastructure is almost as bad as not building it at all. And as someone else pointed out this particular project was beset by dodgy builders, unions drinking at the trough and grandstanding politicians who wanted to be seen doing "something". All up, massive waste of money.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
Fair enough. I must say from looking into it more that there seems to be an absurdly wide range of cost estimates being quoted, as well as a lot of mixing up of prices and costs, so the figures I quoted are probably bullshit. Edit - I am not sure I agree with you about overbuilding on infrastructure though. A good example of this is the London sewer system by Joseph Bazalgette, that was massively overbuilt to the tune of twice the maximum requirement from what was considered the highest possible population density, just in case. Which was very lucky, given the development of the towerblock 100 years later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bazalgette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bazalgette

davegardner 12y ago

Years of lower than average rainfall have made this a necessity in WA. We've now got two desal plants here that currently provide 27% of our supply. The supply drawn from dams now only makes up 33% of the total. The plan is to transition to a 50/50 mix of desalination and underground sources (with groundwater replenishment) by 2030.