Skip to main content

Australian City Ponders Recycling Sewage For "Fresh" Water

From the AFP:
Residents of a drought-stricken Australian town will vote this week on whether they're prepared to drink water recycled from sewage -- the first such scheme in the country and one of only a handful in the world.

The controversial proposal has divided the town of Toowoomba in the state of Queensland, which has faced water restrictions for a decade.

Local Mayor Dianne Thorley, who is leading the "Yes" campaign, said that without drought-breaking rains the town's dams could dry up within two years.

She insisted the 73 million dollar (US 55 million dollar) plan to pump purified wastewater back into the main reservoir for drinking was safe.

"Somewhere, sometime we have got to stand up and change the way we are doing things," she told AFP as the town prepared for the July 29 referendum.
Given the city's location near a sea coast, one might think there would be other options. Then again, others might not relent in their mindless opposition. For more details, click here. For a more local view, click here and here.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Paul Studier said…
Sounds like the Ground Water Replenishment System in Orange County, California. See
http://www.gwrsystem.com/
In Orange County, they use the ground water aquifer like a storage tank. It has an infinite amount of water in it, but if you pump too much, you suck up salt water from the ocean. So this storage "tank" is carefully managed and replenished with water from the Santa Ana River and other sources. The Ground Water Replenishment System will fill this aquifer with recycled sewage. This water will percolate through the ground for a couple years before actually being pumped up for drinking water, giving an extra layer of safety. It will be about half the cost of desalination of seawater, because sewage is less salty than the ocean.
Robert Schwartz said…
Everybody drinks recycled sewage. It is just a question of how far downstream you are.
john c said…
Toowoomba does not currently draw water from any river.

That's why it's so tempting for the recycled water companies to want to use Toowoomba as a test case.

FYI - Toowoomba is over 100kms from the coast.

That creates real problems for disposal of the RO waste stream. You can't pump it out to sea like Singapore.

Mayor Thorley is relying on a coal company to take the waste stream for coal washing but they don't want it.

Without their involvement, the project's costs double as hundreds of acres of evaporation pond will need to be built - something that is not in the Council's costings. Council also refuses to have the costs of the Water Futures project independently assessed.

The recycled water project does not solve Toowoomba's water issues. We will still need another water source. Toowoomba produces 8,000ML of sewage per annum and they think they can get 11,000ML of recycled water out of this. It's crazy. Singapore works on 80% recovery.

The other difference with the Singapore project is it recycled around 1%. Mayor Thorley's scheme involves 25-29% recycled sewage water for drinking.

No other planned indirect potable use project in the world uses such high levels. Even Council's advisers, CH2M Hill, think this rate is "high by international standards and will require further studies".
Robert Merkel said…
While desalination (nuclear or otherwise) is a good option for water supplies(and one that has already been adopted in Perth, Western Australia), it is generally a more expensive option than recycling sewage, which has been adopted in a number of countries and has proven quite safe and effective.

Recycling sewage and nuclear power are similar technologies in terms of public acceptance, actually - a lot of irrational fear that doesn't match up to a very safe record in practice.

So, with respect, I think you might be barking up the wrong tree this time; just because nuclear technology is often the right answer doesn't mean it's always the right answer.

In any case, there's nothing stopping the recycling plant from using nuclear-generated electricity!
wateruser06 said…
Many people in Toowoomba voted No, not because of any scare tactics, but because they had read the Council's NWC funding application that Mayor Thorley tried to keep secret. This document showed the project as being fundamentally flawed.

The Water Futures project was never a solution - where was the RO waste stream going to go. Where was Thorley going to hide it? Acland Coal didn't want it. Without their involvement, the project's cost doubled. How high would rates be then?

You will be surprised at how quickly other water source options are now adopted for Toowoomba.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…