What about? What about the fact that some people these days enjoy being miserable about everything, and enjoy trying to make other people miserable?

One issue the article did not address was the issue of water storage. To recycle water from either storm water runoff or sewerage you presumably need to firstly capture and store it, and subsequently treat and purify it.

Capture and storage is going to be the problem. Are you going to tap a very large number of storm water channels? Land prices are very high around Sydney, for example, so capital costs will be high. Also, near the coast the topography is relatively flat so suitable sites for constructing even a modest storage dam are few. The alternative is expensive excavation or pumping water a long way uphill to a cheaper site.

It seems to me that water recycling is probably more expensive for coastal cities than building new dams in their hinterland.

I have always wondered why the installation of a rainwater tank isn't mandatory for all new dwellings constructed? That would be a fairly simple low cost start?

Good idea! And if would remove our self-imposed embargo on nuclear power? We could roll out cheaper than coal, safe, clean thorium nuclear power in around a year!

And with that roll out in our hands to use as we see fit! Able to AFFORDABLY pump that same nutrient-loaded wastewater as far inland as we would want and in steel pipes made locally in affordable production thanks to a new and vastly cheaper, carbon-free, SAFE nuclear power fuel source that remains reliable, regardless of the weather!

And produces less radiation as rogue emissions than coal-fired (smokestack uranium and radon) power or gas!

But that's not the end of the good news! This same water can be treated in closed cycle, smell free, wastewater treatment plants to extract considerable volumes of endlessly sustainable and saleable biogas, i.e. methane.

And if scrubbed in decarbonised vacuumed water, cleaned sufficiently to be fed into fuel cells that produce electricity in commercial quantum and produce mostly pristine water vapour as the exhaust product!

That electricity could and should be distributed via underground graphene cored cables to quite massively reduce distribution losses and could be the power source for citywide, electric vehicle, rapid recharge stations!

Yes I know, it'll cost a motza! But affordable if done off-budget and repaid via the earnings provided by the assembly of recharge stations.
Alan B.

Yes Alan B and We could build an MSR trial plant at Kurnell (Sydney) or Wontaggi (Melbourne) and then use the white elephant seawater treatment plant ( desalination plant ) to turn wasted effluent an stormwater into safe cheap drinking water!

Gould we get the recently woke/Green Financers ( I think they could call themselves Net Zero Finance) to funds the pilot study?

Aidan,
You’re not going to get thorium reactors whilst politicians, of whatever ilk, dream of having a nuclear Arsenal.
We could have had thorium power ages ago if it were not for the bomb lovers.
China, it appears, is experimenting seriously with thorium reactors for clean energy.

I.M. I don't believe your idea would wash. given the most wastewater is generated in our coastal cities! Where there's little trouble in accessing volumetric seawater. However, given it is loaded with plant nutrients! Could be used in cash, mop crops!

But particularly in intense double glazed, glasshouse production. Where the aspirated water could be collected as evaporate, then condensed as pristine potable water!

And without involving the huge energy output of reverse osmosis desalination. Done on a large enough scale via grower co-ops. Produce many new jobs, taxpayers and out of season crop production on steroids! The choice, monumental!

Incidentally, after pollination able to be continuously purged with CO2 to completely eliminate predatory insect populations, which then become organic plant food!

Yes, it would cost, out of budget, but as always where there are significant cash flow returns! Not a problem for government!
Alan B.

Thorium was discarded, due to the extreme difficulty of weaponising it! And a good reason for choosing it ahead of uranium and fast breeder reactors which produce weapons-grade plutonium and mountains of nuclear waste! Furthermore, not much nuclear waste ( vastly less toxic) produced by the thorium alternative!

Moreover, thorium is the most energy-dense material in the world and at least four times more abundant than uranium.

And we have by all accounts around 40% of the world's reserves of the stuff. along with considerable reserves of rare earths and lithium etc. All of which along with graphene, need to be mined!
Alan B.

Alan B, sorry, I ment to address you not Aidan.

I think Bren must work for the NSW Government. If its ok to pump desalinated water directly into the Sydney drinking water supply, why not do the same with purified recycled water but of course with less energy demand. In other words you don't need storage! Why don't the NZE advocates support purified recycled water over desalinated water?. It uses less energy, so I assume less emissions?

I have registered to the ongoing COP26 talkfest to see how they think water can help meet NZEmissions. It lasts another week after the Pollies and the likes of Emperor Mal McTurncoat and Twiggy Forest have flown off in his big Biz jet!. From what the talk titles tell me, the seem t o be focused on current energy use, not the benefits and savings of recycled drinking water over desalination. Will keep you all posted!

Amazing ... an author writes an article about poor water planning by failed state burecrats, and the discussion turns immediately to one on MSR, led by surprise surprise by Alan B. I wonder are these commentators paid trolls from the NSW Bureaucrats or their Friends of NSW Bluffocrats society? Distraction seems to be a common trait!

Back on topic, Re Violent Entropy (great avatar by the way), rainwater tanks are a great distributed collector of water in urban areas and utilise unused infrastructure ( roofs!). Unfortunately water utilities like Sydney and Hunter water see rainwater harvesting as " competition" and planners like NSW DPIE have never appreciated the rainwater harvesting.

If you look at their fleeting mention of rainwater in the GSWS document, they merely mention it as an alternative source undertaken by residents and infer its a form of recycling. Odd in that many Australians using it for drinking water, and I have a colleague who actually treats it (including disinfection) to drinking water standards and his water bills are the access charge, with minimal water usage from Sydney Water. Until a few years ago, Sydney Water even banned rainwater harvesting to protect its own monopoly. Hence it no surprise that when rainwater harvesting was allowed, Sydney Water (nor its owner NSW government!) was keen to promote this alternative source.

So why does Government need to have anything to do with most of this? Property Developers and new home buyers could insist that rainwater tanks and a modest solar array will be installed as standard fitout. What's Government going to do, ban it? The optics of any Government doing that would have diabolical consequences.

If Sydney and Hunter Water want to protect their raison d'etre how about they get off their asses and fix the ageing water supply piping? It is my understanding that a significant amount of perfectly good water is lost through leaks from crumbling infrastructure.

Violent Entropy, Your must not know many property developers.They insist on maximum return on investment and don't give a toss about rainwater tanks or any of the other water supply options, unless driven to it by regulation.. That's what governments are meant to do on are behalf.

If you think free market forces can deliver safe, secure sustainable water supplies, please let us know of examples. Have you invested in a rainwater tank in yourself, I bet not. Any way glad to see you didn't encourage Alan B to continue on his MSR distraction.!

Bren you raise an interesting point. BUT, why do we need storage reservoirs. The purified recycled water seems to use the same process/technology to produce the same high quality water as the desalination plant and it requires no extra storage. It just pumps the water straight into the system via a pipeline that you can see on the southern side of Sydney Airport. In addition, if you wanted to locate distributed purified recycled water plants close to existing sewerage treatment plants in western Sydney, you could do the same or utilise the existing reservoirs like the one at Prospect. Job done at no extra cost.

Given that purified recycled water uses less energy than desalinated water, you would reduce Co2 emissions and make all the Greenies happy! Win-Win all round as they say!.

We all start thinking about this planned drinking water made from recycled effluent/stormwater. Given that we appear to sell unplanned recycled water through Sydney Water, I wonder why our NSW bureaucrats are so dismissive of the concept?

Also is it really true that unplanned potable recycled water is acceptable, and is Essery's claim that it already occurs in Sydney and across Australia?, If so, what's all the fuss about, particularly if the Head of Sydney Water says its "a no brainer". Interesting podcast if a bit long

As we all paid a fortune to build Homebush, why aren’t they promoting it? Given that its been running for 2 decades with no complaints that I have heard about.

AJ- I know property developers very well, I invest as part of a Group that designs and builds small apartment blocks (max 6 stories) that are built using quality materials and 5 to 6 star Nabers ratings. The ROI is absolutely there, yes they do cost a bit more however our buyers appreciate the long term impacts eco friendly design delivers.

Your assumption that I have never invested in a rainwater tank is false. My last house had two 10K litre underground tanks that I used to flush the toilets, water the garden etc. As I had a large roof area I also installed a quite over the top solar array. So we were pretty set in regards to substantially lowering our water and energy bills. I do admit the time to break even on the investment of these things was quite long. From memory, the water tanks were about 5 years, the solar close to 12.

Free market forces are a key to delivering in the future, just because they have not in the past is a moot point. From a marketing and social perspective a Company would be insane to not lean towards a more efficient and sustainable stance. That is the direction the Group I am in have taken and we are reaping the benefits.

In regards to Thorium MSR's, is their anything they cannot solve/ do? Homer Simpson and Donuts immediately spring to mind?
Mmmm Donuts....

Violent Entropy,
One of the reasons that water leaks are not fixed until they become embarrassing is that leaving them alone saves money.
I have a friend who lives in town and there has been a slow sewerage leak under the foot way in front of his house for the last 25 years at least. When the pipe blocks from roots seeking nutrients through the crack then the Council engages a local contractor who bores away the obstruction; this occurs about every 7 years so the Council saves money because the cost of doing the job right would pay a contractor over the next 100 years or so.

I see no reason to drink recycled effluent in any coastal city, when there's inexhaustible seawater!
And no reason to use the far costlier reverse osmosis method when the four times cheaper, deionisation dialysis desalination option is available!

Which also produces four times the volume as up to 95% potable water!

Nutrient-rich effluent needs to be piped inland and used in under glass, intense agriculture, where the subsequent evaporate can be collected as pristine water suitable for very safe human consumption.

MSR thorium would allow the costly pumping requirement, to become very affordable. But not the current reactors in "our" subs! which burn a product as rare as platinum and around as expensive. Only scarlet fools would counsel the latter!
Alan B.

water recycling is probably more expensive for coastal cities than building new dams
Bren,
Dams are the solution just as the Bradfield scheme to flood Lake Eyre would be. The problem is that some morons who attended Uni for a few weeks think that animals are as stupid as they are & would drown when the water rises. Unlike an insipid half-baked Accie, an animal will crawl to higher ground when its butt gets wet.

Alan B and Individual... Did you two get onto ye old Buckfast Fortified Tonic Wine a bit early before adding your comments.

Alan, stick to your MSR sphere of knowledge, as you clearly don't understand water. Recycled purified water uses significantly less energy than desalinated water. Simple physics/chemistry mate. Sea water is 35ppthousand compared to 10 ppt. So needs less energy to clean it thru RO filters. I suppose because you worship at the Shrine of MSR, you want more energy to be used. So purified water is less expensive when made from slat water over treated effluent.

Also why use even more energy to send effluent to the country side via a pipeline that would half to go up and over the Great divide ( 800 up hill from Sydney coastline if you wanted to supply it to agriculture in valley like the Lachlan? Of course again maybe you want to justify more expensive use of your much beloved MSR god.

Individual, The Bradfield scheme was an interesting idea, and could have been built in the early 20th Century. Some are even trying to revisit the scheme. However, they are unlikely to success not for economic or technical reasons, but the massive barrier created by environmental legislation and the Green meanies. In my 30+ year career in water resources in Australia, I only know of one dam that succeeded to be built from scratch ( many have been raised) and even it ended up being build to only 1/3rd the original size due to environmental "constraints".

So no Dams are NOT cheaper than purified recycled water. Sydney has two great sites for dams, but will never be built until the Chinese take over in post 2050!

To both of you, when you recover from your Buckfast hangover, re read the article ( and indeed previous ones) to see that even unplanned recycle water as supplied by SWater via North Richmond is perfectly safe.

My goodness, what a slanted perspective hardly consistent with either history nor facts.

“Quite simply, it must be either: mismanagement; a lack of political will/vision; corruption; or the barriers are controlled by the multiple layers of Federal, State and Local Government bureaucrats who fear true community consultation.  I fear it is the latter, namely inefficient, constraining, government bureaucracy.”

Rubbish, it was venal politicking.

The most often cited reason for reluctance to head toward a future featuring recycled water is Toowoomba.

That is where after giving fully support for recycled water for the town Liberal Senator at the time Ian McFarlane and local the National Party State member both jumped ship due to irresponsible self interest.

If they had shown true leadership we wouldn't still be having Toowoomba trotted out every time drinking recycled water comes up. In my experience bureaucrats want to get on with it but there is a constant tug on the reins from now gun-shy politicians.

But the strategy he links to at least has a crack”

“We will continue to engage and consult with the community on options for future water management approaches and services. This includes an increased focus on water efficiency and working together to understand attitudes towards different supply augmentation options, such as desalination and purified recycled water.”

“planning for a range of rainfall-independent supply options such as desalination and purified recycled water so that we can deliver the additional supplies we need, when we need them, and in the right locations across Greater Sydney.”

And,

“By investing in a demonstration plant for purified recycled water and engaging with customers we can highlight the safety of demonstrated and proven technology and the range of beneficial uses for using purified recycled water, including for supporting greening and cooling across our city, enhancing the health of our rivers and potentially supplementing our water supply (subject to public consultation).”

Cont...

Cont...

So there really isn't “Deflection of the key issue for all cities around the world, namely the use of potable/purified recycled water…. the “honest elephant” in the room.” as the author asserts.

And they demonstrably do “address the elephant in the room, namely the need to communicate, educate, discuss and assist community/customers/society to understand the key issue”.

Finally treating recycled water to a standard which deals with things like PFAS, hormonal and prescription medication contamination drives the price to very near that of desalination. Every desal plant across the country had had a renewable energy build as part of the project. The Cockburn Sound plant was accompanied by the Emu Downs Windfarm.

“Electricity for the desalination plant – which has an overall 24MW requirement and a production demand of 4.0kWh/kl to 6.0kWh/kl – comes from the new 80MW Emu Downs Wind Farm, which consists of 48 wind turbines located 30km east of Cervantes.”
http://www.water-technology.net/projects/perth/

So the overblown claims of the author are again found out. I invite him to be a little more conscious of the facts with his next offering.

Ah Steel Nutcwit, I miss your arrogant, ill-informed utterances.. And now I must congratulate you as probably as one of the few who have read this failed strategy. I reckon very few citizens/consumers of Sydney Waters service have read it.

Mind you, the fact that you use those quotes of text from the document that you so appreciate, and hence use to defend your opinion on how good it is, ... make me think you must be a NSW Government Troll?

Grieve after all that stuff I have seen you write on OLO comments on the topic.. is it really just Pro Government propaganda.. I hope they pay you mate.

Ah well, bet you don't have a rain tank, nor are concerned that Sydney, like all drinking water treatment even attempts to remove your feared contaminants. You really need to read up on water treatment mate, we professional just smirk knowingly at the mis-understanding you and your woke green meanie mates display and your weak minds. You should try the Buckfast tonic wine that Alan B and Individual must drink. It might make your limited supply of braincells happy!

Dear Alison Jane,

I understand your pain.

If I were either incapable of digesting said document or so ideologically tainted that there was likely a complete unwillingness to contend with anything someone else had put then I too may well resort to name-calling and vacuous mutterings.

I hope it helps.

In your dreams my dear boy. Why not comment of the article, rather than use endless quotes from others that you can't form for yourself. I

do hope you learn how to read, think, analyse and conclude something original for your self. If you do, I will be happy for you. Sweet dreams in your virtual world.

I remember when they banned rainwater tanks !

Alison Jane,
Recycling water can be cheaper if it's meant for irrigation however, for human consumption it's still way too complicated & costly to make it worthwhile. Desalination is viable for small communities but for large cities the reject outflow poses massive problems down the line after a while.
Flood mitigation is the only other viable alternative wherein canal developments can be mated to settling ponds & the real estate alone can just about pay for it all.
All it needs is to offer the Greenies to demonstrate how they can make ends meet through merit rather than just being hanger-on bureaudroids. That too would free up capital for sensible irrigation & infrastructure projects.
Keep the academic experts away from anything infrastructure & all will come good !