News 
 State News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Desalination plant could save the Murray 

Desalination plant could save the Murray

23 Oct, 2008 08:09 PM
Future food production in the Murray-Darling Basin could be secured, and even expanded, if the Federal Government invested funding from its infrastructure and water programs to build a desalination plant for the river on the NSW South Coast.

It’s a bold idea, but one Monaro district farmer, Richard Lawson, has devoted the past six months to researching and is now lobbying for.

He is adamant it’s possible and affordable for the Government.

Mr Lawson, a former Canberra public servant, accountant and political staffer, said in all the debate on the Murray-Darling Basin there had been little to no mention of ways to increase or create new water.

Mr Lawson, who farms at Nimmitabel, brings a unique national perspective to the problem as his family has been farming in South Australia – at the bottom of the system – for generations.

He said the Federal Government had been too focused on reducing the amount of water available to farmers for the benefit of the environment, with little recognition of the consequences to food security or future regional development.

After researching his idea since the start of this year and speaking with engineers and water experts, he said it was possible to develop a desalination plant between Tathra and Eden before piping it to the lakes in the Snowy Mountains.

He said the benefits were obvious – increased environmental flows for the rivers, increased supply of water for the Snowy Hydro system, water for towns reliant on the river for survival, and increases in production of food and fodder crops.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
A bloody top idea, should be implemented, asap.
Posted by A, 23/10/2008 6:02:39 AM
Yeah, great idea Mr Lawson. Does he have any idea how energy intensive desalination is? Let alone how much energy would be needed to pump the water up over brown mountain and numerous other ranges. Please, let's run up the power bill a bit more, produce a bit more global warming, and see what effect that has on rainfall.
Posted by rethink, 23/10/2008 8:12:18 AM
A forward thinking man at last. Sustainability is a word used a lot in agriculture and if the experts are right and we are in for longer hotter and dryer years as the norm water is going to become a very scarce commodity. We are in turn told that the sea is rising as polar icecaps melt and that some islands will go under water so doesn't it make sense all round to pump water out of the sea and use it. Water is no longer a renewable commodity - usage is far outsripping the natural replacement so we must look at solutions that can be seen to be sustainable and problem solving at the same time.
Posted by Helen Clark, 23/10/2008 8:47:25 AM
I do not like to be insulting, but has Mr Lawson any idea of how much it costs per megalitre to 'desalinate' water...........I grew up in Bermuda, and we caught ALL our fresh water on our roofs and stored it in cisterns, until about 1970 when we started a 'reverse osmosis' desalination operation.....if our desalinated water does not cost US$2,000 per megalitre, I would be surprised (we still use gallons, so I do not 'think' in litres. I am not sure of the watershed in Queensland, but I am sure that the certainly annual 'flood phenomena' could be stored in dams, and delivered to the south - the Murray-Darling. The USA, which is considerably wetter than Australia, has built an incredible infra-structure of water storage.........in fact, I watched with some interset three days ago, a comprehensive 'study' of dams in the USA on the "History Channel'............they had a building program, especially during the great depression, for an incredible number of dams for both hydro-electric generation and irrigation.............maybe we should start NOW in Australia--it might even mitigate against another 'depression'!!
Posted by Sanders frith-brown, 23/10/2008 9:13:04 AM
Great story, but if the facts stand up for themselves, where are they? What is the cost per megalitre? They should be available if this accountant has been working with engineers for 6 months. This is only half a story that just grabs attention. Technically possible but ridiculosly uneconomic to have any tangible environmental or productive gain. Suggest the editor should revisit report content.
Posted by steve, 23/10/2008 10:39:42 AM
The only real long-term answer to the regeneration of the MDB eco-system is getting the soil surface covered. The Basin covers 1,059,000 square kilometres or 14% of Australia's land area. Australia's three longest rivers, the Darling, Murray and Murrumbidgee are found in the MDB. The MDB receives an average annual rainfall of 530,617,787 megalitres (ML). Of this, 94% evaporates or transpires, 2% drains into the ground, and the other 4% becomes run-off. This means that 497,289,723 ML evaporates each and every year.

With changes to our management we can produce and sustain covered soil, and thereby reduce the rate of direct evaporation following rain events. But how much difference could this make? Let’s be very conservative and allow that we could reduce the rate of evaporation/transpiration by just 1% - this comes to 4,972,897 ML (damn close to 5,000 gigalitres GL) each and every year. The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists have called for the Gov’t to “guarantee” river flows of 300-400GL to prevent irreversible damage to the Coorong and Lower Lakes. The health of the Coorong and Lower Lakes is inextricably and inversely linked to the degree of bare soil several thousand kilometres north.

Posted by soil carbon, 23/10/2008 3:04:20 PM
I'm sorry, but to put it bluntly, that's a retarded idea. Such a plant would need to be the biggest in the world and still would produce literally a drop in the ocean compared to total basin inflows, and I don't want to think of the cost of pumping water so high! The current best plants in the world produce water for about $500/meg... then add on the cost of lifting that up a kilometre or so. Sure, it's completely possible but just because you can doesn't mean it's good. A better and much more feasible solution would be to implement the Bradfield scheme of diverting a QLD river or two to the top of the basin in QLD.
Posted by Realist, 23/10/2008 10:59:33 PM
Desalination can be done with few greenhouse gas emissions. See www.solardesalination.com.au
Posted by Acquasol, 24/10/2008 4:58:52 AM
A suggestion to help with the power for desalination and pumping costs would be to adopt and develop wave generator technology. An Australian invented wave generator which spins a turbine as the water moves in or out is alleged to be more efficient than any previously available.
Posted by Mal, 24/10/2008 5:21:37 PM
We can't just destroy our coastlines with desalination plants, and create even more greenhouse gases. We don't know what effects the brine would have on the marine environment. What we really need to do is reduce agriculture that requires irrigation. So much of it is exported. We need to be sustainable, not use our land for promoting our GDP. Our fragile ecology has been over-used for our country's wealth creation.
Posted by Milly, 27/10/2008 11:23:44 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Monaro, NSW, district farmer, Richard Lawson, believes a desalination plant could save the Murray-Darling Basin.
Monaro, NSW, district farmer, Richard Lawson, believes a desalination plant could save the Murray-Darling Basin.

Most popular articles

Advertisement



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...