Would you build a desal plant here?

No I wouldn’t!

But as usual, money talks and I hope at the very least that the actions and views are noted so as to not spoil such a beautiful place.

Great capture!

hopefully this wonderful image will be a powerful force and add huge weight to any protest!! good luck indeed!!

Absolutely not ….nor in Black Rock, near me…..another place that was a suggested site.

This is a gorgeous capture, and I agree with you, it shouldn’t be destoyed and spoiled for a diesel plan, but that is what they call progress…I am not in favour but I work in areas where that is what we do…It creates work for some of us but in another hand, it ruins the land and the life of many people..

I would strongly suggest that you take more and more picture of that beautiful area so we see the “progress” and you can show the worl what the industries are doing to our planet…

Have a nice day!!!
Frank

absolutely not – this image is lovely and would be a powerful voice in any moves to stop development. Perhaps an online petition with signatures
Beuticul place beutifully captured

that word is beautiful when my fingers don’t tangle

No way would i, such a beautiful spot. Well captures T..

A great photo Travis. The only thing I would build there is a one man lodge. We had a similar problem i the ‘70s, the Central Electricity Generating Board were planning to build a nuclear power station on the best beach in England. We beat them but it took years and cost us a fortune.

such beauty deserves to be preserved ~ how could they not see or feel the betrayal of such a place cannot be done ~ thank you for keeping us informed and always for your work is such a wonderous experience…

This shows the fragility of eco-systems and how they utterly depend on us for survival. Thank you for adding this lovely place sadly at risk along your generous pledge to Art for Conservation.

Magnificent shot

FYI from America

Debunking Desalination
The “Miracle Process” That Can’t Cure the World’s Water Woes

By Paul Brannan

With population growing and fresh water resources running dry, desalination seems like the perfect solution to the world’s increasing thirst. Just take some sea water, or brackish water from an underground source, and remove the salt. What could be simpler?
In principle, the process really is that simple. The salt is removed either through evaporation or by forcing the salty water through filters. But it takes a lot of energy and, depending on how it’s produced, the end result could be more greenhouse gas emissions or nuclear waste.
Under pressure from environmentalists, Australian engineers are using wind energy at a new desalination plant in Perth. James Duggie of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in Western Australia is equally firm about a second project. “If there is to be a desalination plant, it should be zero emissions in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and it shouldn’t cause environmental impacts when it’s established,” he says.
Worldwide, desalination plants have been built where energy is affordable. It’s no surprise that more than half of all seawater desalination plants are located around the Arabian Gulf, where cheap oil and water shortage come together. Nearly all the remaining plants are in countries rich enough to pay the energy bills—such as Spain and the U.S. The U.S. has the world’s second-largest desalination capacity.
Energy is not the only environmental impact of desalination. In the case of sea water plants, there’s the risk of sucking in marine organisms along with the water, and all desalination plants produce extremely salty water as waste. If this is thrown back in the sea undiluted, the salt concentration is lethal for most sea creatures. Solutions exist to minimize these problems—but at a price.
What are you going to pay for your glass of desalinated water? Costs at the plants range from $700 to $1,160 per acre foot, not including distribution costs. Desalinated water is generally more expensive than natural fresh water, at least while the latter remains available for exploitation. Looking at the costs another way (for membrane-filtered water) energy makes up nearly half of the cost, with around 40 percent going to fixed charges (repaying the original investment) and the rest on daily operations and maintenance.
Cost benefits are in some cases marginal or non-existent, so why is there such an interest in desalination projects at the moment, particularly at a time of rising energy prices? Part of the answer may be that treated water costs have been presented at unrealistically low levels to win contracts. This has been one of the key reasons for the delays to the troubled reverse osmosis plant in Tampa Bay, Florida. Several of the companies involved have gone bankrupt. After a 10-year history in which little water was produced, it is hoped that the plant will be fully operational this year.
The California Department of Water Resources is funding a range of desalination projects, some on a commercial level that would produce drinkable water for a variety of uses, and some as pilot projects or research tools. In the department’s view, a key advantage is the possibility of treating diverse water sources—including from the sea or brackish sources, as well as waste water. Costs of desalination increase with the level of salt concentration in the water, so brackish water treatment is considerably cheaper. The vast majority of U.S. plants built so far treat brackish water.
Despite the current enthusiasm for desalination, not everyone is convinced. Pacific Institute Research Associate Heather Cooley notes, “While reliability is an important benefit of desalination, alternatives can usually provide these same benefits with far fewer social, economic and environmental costs.” The Institute’s report “Desalination: With a Grain of Salt” calls for true-cost water pricing, greater transparency and recourse to desalination only after all cost-effective water conservation and efficiency measures have been exhausted.
The WWF 2007 report “Desalination: Option or Distraction for a Thirsty World?” came to similar conclusions. “Those who look to desalination as the future panacea to the world’s water problems may be glossing over considerable environmental, economic and social difficulties,” it said. The report highlights the benefits of reducing demand and treating wastewater as cheaper options, as well as the politically sensitive diversion of resources from agriculture.
Agricultural water use is a hot issue. Two-thirds of the global fresh water supply is used for irrigation, and the percentage is rising. In Spain, there are even plans approved to devote a large proportion of the country’s desalinated water to agriculture. But there are difficulties in getting farmers to take and pay for desalinated water when there is groundwater left, even though the levels are so low that it is illegal to pump it. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization says that desalted water is not affordable for most crops without subsidies.
London Mayor Ken Livingstone opposes the project to build the country’s first large-scale desalination plant for his city. He argues that the water company should first fix leaks, introduce water-saving devices and educate customers on water conservation. A third of London’s water supply is lost through leaks.
The reaction to a resource shortage is usually to increase supply rather than reduce demand. Few people are prepared to lower their standard of living, but water use can be cut fairly painlessly. The problem is that reducing demand is less glamorous than adding supply, and corporate interests can make more money out of selling a new plant than pushing conservation. Desalination has a role to play in future water supplies, but it is clearly not a panacea, despite ambitious claims and proposals to the contrary.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to E/The Environmental Magazine!
CONTACTS
Freshwater Action Network
Phone: (011)44-0-20-7793-4522

Money greed , greed money, money greed . I feel sick when i hear of these projects to destroy everything good . And still the market prices falter . All in the name of progress but certainly not for the planet . Thank goodness Travis people like you are around .

the very thought of it makes my stomach churn, but money talks and corporate people care nothing for the environment or wildlife of this planet!
amazing shot, beautiful.

Beautiful picture and the colours just stunning, hopefully that can be reserved and there will be another solution for the water issues.

absolutely beautiful Travis !
Time at the river and local coast just leaves one gob-smacked at such a ridiculous and unecessary proposal !
Spread the word and lets hope enough people and action can prevent this potential catastrophe !
I hope your passion and love of the natural environment and this place is also contagous…

DESAL – SAY NO

God governments are just money hungry aren’t they? I don’t understand how they can’t see that further destroying the environment is just going to perpetuate the problem of climate change and make things even worse..
Beautiful shot, photos like these and the words you accompany with them make a huge impact.. you should send some in to newspapers and magazines.

i’m with you Travis, how could you spoil something so beautiful? A beautiful advertisment

beautiful

Wow, it’s great to see so many ppl taking an interest, time to bother the pollies huh !!!

Gorgeous shot :)

This is so beautiful…....

No way…this place needs to stay untouched, it’s just to beautiful!

Beautiful landscape, love the light.

stunning image!

Congrats on your feature Travis, and for bringing this issue to the fore.

nice capture!!!

Way to go Trav!!!
Your Water Your Say
Learn about desal plant for Victoria video

superb image travis.