Universal Water Recycling EVERY DROP COUNTS
UWR SCHEME 1
Presented By: Joe Taranto Universal Water Recycling 37 Moon Mountain Drive, Mount View NSW 2325 [email protected] www.uwr.com.au copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto [email protected] UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
“Scheme 1” “The Hunter Bayswater Recycling Water Scheme”
This optimum Sustainable Water Recycling Project, I believe with a passion, is the most viable solution for ‘“The Lower Hunter Water Plan.” If we combine Scheme 1 and 2 together it will be a solution to drought proof the majority of the Hunter, it will then be of State and National Importance. Servicing communities, agriculture, industries and the environment for the next century.’
2 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g Index
Page 4 Executive Summary Page 6 Schematic Sketch of THBRWS. Page 7 Subsea HDPE 22klm Pipeline Route. Page 8 Volumes of Water the Lower Hunter Uses. Page 9 Water Recycling Page 10 Water Banking plus Financial Projections Page 11 Vision. Page 12 Water Restrictions. Advanced Water Treatment Plants (AWTP) Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Method to Dispose of Saline Water Page 13 Reservoirs, Information Page 14 Method to determine cost of an AWTP. Page 15 Origin Energy Quote Page 16 Questions regarding THBRWS Page 18 Questions regarding the Emergency Desalination Option Page 18 Quotes and statements Page 19 Emergency Desalination overview Page 20 Transfer cost per Megalitre and Per Kilolitre Page 21 Method to Obtain WTP Page 21 Water Extraction and Pumping Costs from the Hunter River. Page 22 Infrastructure costs for THBRWS Page 24 W3Plus Consulting Page 30 Makai Ocean Engineering Preliminary Cost Analysis Page 37 Intellectual Property Matters Page 38 Cost of the HDPE Pipe Making Machine and production figures Page 40 Quote from Saunders International Reservoirs Page 44 Quote from Global Pipes Australia (GRP) Page 46 Schematic Sketch of the 2009 Major Water Scheme Page 47 Schematic Map - Extension to Flush Saline Water Pages 48-50 Lower Hunter Water Plan Pages 51-52 Volumes of Water That Can Be Harvested Page 53 New Project Developments
3 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g Executive Summary
The Hunter region is expanding. Water demand is increasing. The Metropolitan Water Directorate is studying options available to meet the future requirements.
An Independent Panel has been commissioned to over look the options and involve the public in the process of the future expansion of water needs.
The extraordinary proposal described herein is innovative in the extreme, but clearly meets all criteria … efficiency at reasonable cost.
Substantial International Engineering firms have become interested in the proposal and have cooperated with the proponent by providing advice and cost estimates for a Preliminary Cost Analysis for a 22 klm HDPE subsea pipeline system to transfer 45 ML/Day.
The Bayswater Power Station is the largest consumer of water in the Hunter.
“The Hunter Bayswater Recycling Water Scheme” herein described proposes to provide treated wastewater via a pipeline system, pumps, and Reservoirs, from the Burwood Waste Water Treatment Plant and other smaller treatment plants together with storm water capture to the Power Stations for cooling purposes.
This substitution would allow for the existing freshwater sources, presently used for cooling, to be Water Banked or drawn into THBRWS to be treated to a drinking standard before entering Hunter Waters pipeline Infrastructure.
Preliminary financial figures enclosed in this booklet indicate that the proposal is viable and lower in cost than any other proposition under consideration.
This unique solution for the Lower Hunter Water Plan will provide the water needs for more customers, delivering up to 16,425 ML per annum and will last 50 to 100 years.
I believe with a passion that this Project is of National Importance.
It will use less energy, infrastructure and operating costs are far less than any Desalination option, University of NSW water specialist Dr Khan said 16-10 - 2013 “Recycling water used less energy and was much less expensive than desalination”. This project will be the arteries for future developments.
This project would put the community first.
4 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Executive Summary
Water it is our most precious resource!
The whole system in the Hunter Valley needs to change to conserve this precious resource. More than 50 Power Stations in America use recycled water in their Power Station to help supplement supply where water is scarce.
Queensland use recycled water in “The Western Corridor project”, to help supplement 3 of their Power Stations
The AGL Power Station, the thirstiest water consumer in the Hunter Valley can use up to 70 Gigaliters per annum of water from Glenbawn Dam; this water with little treatment is of a potable grade.
The Burwood Treatment Plant treats 50ML/d of sewage water, Primary, Secondary and towards Tertiary level and then discharges it into the ocean. 5 Million Buckets a day, or almost 1 Chichester Dam per annum, (see page 50. ) The project is a Water exchange system.
(please note this proposal was submitted at the end of 2012, volumes now with population have increased from 45 to 50 ML/d.)
5 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g THE HUNTER BAYSWATER RECYCLING WATER SCHEME
Transfer project will exchange 45 megalitres of treated waste water per day to the Power Station and draw 45 megalitres of potable grade water from the Hunter River near Branxton.
The Western Corridor Recycling Water Scheme, Queensland over 200km of large diameter pipeline supplying purified recycled water to 3 Power Stations. o GlenbawnMuswellbrook Dam T This Lower Hunter Water option has approximately 130kms of a smaller diameter pipeline that will supply purified recycled water to our Power Station.
Bayswater Power 120 metres above sea level Station
Singleton
Pipeline 100klm via the 8km pipeline from river to reservoir. Power Grid Easement Reservoir connected to Hunter Water Infrastructure Branxton Huntlee (New Town) Hunter River Pumping Station Dual Reticulation Reservoir Maitland Reservoir if needed Size yet to be confirmed
Water Treatment Plant - would be needed to treat water to drinking standards Cessnock Hexham Treated Waste Water GRP Pipe or HDPE
50 Megalitre Reservoir Ironbark Recycled Purified Water Creek Town, Vineyards, Industry
Hunter River Potable Grade Water
50 Megalitre Reservoir Potable Grade Water Burwood Waste Water High Density Polyethelene Treatment Plant Subsea Pipeline Pipeline (HDPE) Newcastle 6 22km HDPE copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Ironbark Creek 2
7km Burwood Waste AWTP Water Treatment Plant 1
1 2 potential Reservoir sites if needed 2 has rail infrastructure for nutrient removal 2 Pump Station
HDPE sub sea pipe line Advanced Water Treatment Plant copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
The Lower Hunter
The volumes of water the Lower Hunter uses domestically and industrially is around 80 GL per annum.
The Bayswater Power Station just north of Singleton which powers 40% of NSW, also uses around 80 GL per annum.
Most of its water supply is from Glenbawn Dam.
This water is released from the dam and flows down stream and is then pumped into Plasshett Reservoir, from there to the Power Station for cooling purposes.
The majority of this water, with a little treatment, is of potable grade.
Plasshett Reservoir and Lake Liddell, which service the Power Station, is approximately 120 metres above sea level.
8 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Water Recycling
Hunter Water Currently recycles around 9% of its water. This will increase to approximately 15% with the completion of the Kooragang Industrial water scheme. This still leaves 85% of Hunter Water that is not being utilized.
Israel recycles 90% of its waste water.
The Burwood Treatment Plant currently discharges around 45 ML/d. The Burwood treatment plant treats its water to a secondary stage level before it is discharged into the ocean. We have the technology to treat this water further towards tertiary levels, it may require additional new digesters and screening into the system, this will require extra energy and costs.
Israel also uses its separated matter to produce methane gas, which meets 70% of its electricity requirements of the plant.
Water is life, it is our most precious resource, an investment to improve and update the plant to treat this water to a suitable grade for the Power Station would cost far less than to desalinate sea water.
9 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g Water Banking
The proposed project (THBRWS) unlike the proposed Temporary Desalination Plant would operate everyday, even in times of wet weather and when water is not needed in the Lower Hunter, when Grahamtown's Dam and Chichester Dam water levels are high.
By supplying the Bayswater Power Station or the Mining Sector with a new sustainable water source of 50ML/d, this system would allow and save 50ML/d of potable grade water being left in Glenbawn Dam as a water bank to be used latter when needed in drier times and as the population increases. Currently 50ML/d is wasted from the Burwood Sewage Treatment Plant. Please note the Mining sector would take this water the way is, without further treatment. This would save $70 to $100 million on a totally unnecessary Temporary Desalination Plant, ( THBRWS) is a water exchange system that will provide 50ML/d not 15ML/d, plus there's no “Yuck Factor involved.”
It would also save 5 million buckets of water a day. OR 50ML/d x 365 = 18,250 ML/ per annum That = Almost 1 Chichester Dam = (18,356 ML) (please see page 50)
It is not a good look for Hunter Water to run a campaign asking people to save 4 buckets of water a day and it also doesn't sit well to have a logo, “ Love Water “ when these volumes are being wasted from the Burwood Treatment Plant in the worst drought that this country has ever seen.
Lake Glenbawn can release this water when needed in the Lower Hunter or Central Coast, it will flow downstream by gravity and then pumped into a Reservoir between Branxton and Elderslie, once treated it can be connected to Hunter Water Infrastructure. Capex Capital expenditure. There is $2.6 billion dollars the NSW Government has in the Miners Rehabilitations Assurance fund,” release some of this funding now, create jobs, It will pay for the $70 million ( supply only ) 100 km pipeline, pages 44 and 45. You cannot rehabilitate a mine without water. Opex Operational expenditure. There are many energy sources available, this has gravity to assist, methane, renewable, off peak etc, place this option next to the energy requirements of a 50ML/d desalination plant and by providing this information to all and allowing the public to have a say, we can determine which option has the best value for the people of the Hunter.
10 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g ‘Vision’
To create a new Pipe Manufacturing Industry for Newcastle.
To supply Bayswater Power Station at Lake Liddell with 45 ML/day of treated recycled water in exchange for 45ML/day of potable grade water being part of its daily consumption it uses for cooling purposes.
I believe with a passion that my concept (THBRWS) of capturing and transferring treated recycled water from the Burwood Treatment Plant to the Bayswater Power Station at Lake Liddell will benefit both the Hunter and Central Coast for the next century.
I visualise a new HDPE Pipeline Manufacturing Industry in Newcastle manufacturing pipes for both sub sea and on land use.
I visualise Australia’s future Governments will encourage farmers to reforest their land with trees that can be milled decades from now, to support jobs for farmers and paying them to manage these forests and at harvest a percentage is paid to the Government of the day. It's a Win Win for the farmer, the Government, the environment and the economy all win from Scheme 1 and 2 of my water projects, it will also help to tackle climate change.
I visualise the farmers planting crops for Australia and feeding the world and knowing they can plan their future by having a reliable sustainable water source.
I visualise the economic benefit this project would deliver to the towns by supplying a new sustainable water source.
I visualise the environment flourishing from environmental flows from the vast volumes of water this project Scheme 1 & 2 can achieve.
This optimum project will become the arteries of future developments in Industry, agriculture, new Towns, bio fuels and Power generation.
It would be fair to say this project will attract world wide attention and will make Australia one of the leading countries as an example for others to follow in water recycling and climate change.
‘THAT IS MY VISION’
11 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g Water Restrictions
When a water utility such as the Wyong Gosford Water Authority or Hunter Water starts to introduce water restrictions due to droughts, population growth or insufficient water storage.
This lost water market that can be avoided for many decades with the implementation of the THBRWS.
Hunter Water and also the Wyong Gosford Water Authority could easily calculate what water restrictions at level one, level two, level three and level four would cost them in lost revenue if a suitable water option is not put in place.
If the pipeline to the Central Coast is upgraded to transfer 30 ML/day, Hunter Water and the Wyong Gosford Water Authority could come to an agreement that would be beneficial to both by avoiding water restrictions. All of this is achievable if the THBRWS project is approved.
Advanced Water Treatment Plant
The proposed project (THBRWS) would require an upgrade at the Burwood Treatment Plant to include an Advanced Water Treatment Plant (AWTP) to treat this water to a standard for the Power Station, agriculture, industries and dual reticulation purposes for future town and subdivisions.
Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Branxton
A Water Treatment Plant would be required next to the 50 ML potable grade water reserve at Branxton to bring this water up to drinking standards before it is transferred to Hunter water’s infrastructure.
Method To Dispose of Saline Water
Please note the Power Station and Hunter Mines release saline water in high river flows into the Hunter River.
Both scheme one and scheme two can provide the removal of this saline water directly to the ocean by gravity using the same pipeline with the extension flush system, (see schematic diagram page 47). This will result in keeping the Hunter River healthy for all water options.
12 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g Reservoirs
Potable Grade Reservoir Branxton. The proposed 50ML Reservoir to hold the potable grade water is envisaged to be located on one of the hills between the township of Branxton and Elderslie.
After this water has been treated to a drinking standard via a WTP it will then be connected to Hunter Waters Infrastructure.
Dual Reticulation Reservoir Huntlee. The proposed 50ML Reservoir to hold the recycled treated water from the Burwood treatment plant is envisaged to be south of the future town of Huntlee, this will not only supply the town with a dual reticulation water supply, it is envisaged to be connected to the Pokolbin District Irrigators Pipeline, (PDI) this pipeline supplies water to around 384 irrigators, vineyards, golf courses, agriculture, industries and the Tourism Establishments.
This Reservoir will also pressurize the systems of THBRWS and the surrounding PDI Pipeline Infrastructure.
Burwood Sewage Treatment Plant Reservoirs. The proposed Reservoirs here will be for the purpose of capturing storm water and assisting in the treatment of an AWTP to increase volumes for THBRWS.
Number and size of Reservoirs is yet to be determined.
Iron Bark Creek Resevoir. Size of the proposed Reservoir yet to be determined.
13 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Energy Costs
This is based on the following; - Carbon is repealed 1 July 2014, therefore Cal 14 price as half current carbon cost - Network charges equivalent to black energy charges - Regulatory, metering and environmental charges equivalent to 20% of black energy charge - This is an annual forecast for 2014
Standard Retail Standard Pricing (periods may be selected individually) Rates ($/MWh) From To MWh Peak Shoulder Off Peak 01-January-2014 31-December-2014 19,918 $ 75.64 $ 75.64 $ 39.93 5% 95% EN ERGY $ 75,330.05 $ 755,580.16 $ 830,910.21 C arbon = $20/MWH CARBON (MWh*carbon assumption) $ 199,180.47 $ 199,180.47 Assuming ½ yr carbon, 2014 cost is ($/MWh) $ 10.00 NETWORK $ 830,910.21 $ 830,910.21 (equivalent to energy) ENVIRO, REGULATORY, etc $ 166,182.04 $ 166,182.04 (equivalent to 20% of energy) $ 2,027,182.94
14 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
From: McKell, James ([email protected]) Sent: Friday, 25 October 2013 11:42:37 AM To: Joe ([email protected]) Hi Joe,
We’ve run some indicatives, and I’ve put together a forecast for your reference.
This is based on the following;
- Carbon is repealed 1 July 2014, therefore Cal 14 price as half current carbon cost
- Network charges equivalent to black energy charges
- Regulatory, metering and environmental charges equivalent to 20% of black energy charge
- This is an annual forecast for 2014
The quote from Origin Energy on the opposite page is based on the above Table. Electrical Energy consumed per day in kWh/Day 7796+ 23387 + 23387 = 54,570 54,570 kWh per day x 365 days = 19,918 MWH per annum. 1000 kWh = 1 MWH 19,918 MWH as shown on the opposite page per annum costs $2,027,182
1000 litres = 1 kilo litre 1000 kilo litres = 1 Megalitre
THBRWS transfers 45 ML/ day x 365 days = 16,425 ML transferred per annum At a cost of $ 2,027,182. $125 per ML x 16,425 ML = $2053125 $125 per megalitres divided by 1000 kilo litres = $0.12.5 cents per kilo litre THBRWS costs 12.5 cents per kilo litre to transfer water from the Burwood Treatment Plant to the Bayswater Power Station.
15 UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Questions Regarding The Hunter Bayswater Recycling Water Scheme Option
What is “The Hunter Bayswater Recycling Water Scheme”? (THBRWS) THBRWS is one part of major scheme to utilize the large volumes of waste water from our sewage treatment plants currently being discharged through our ocean outfalls, Burwood at Newcastle, North Head, Bondi and Malabar at Sydney. This scheme was initially for the Hunter and the Murray Darling Basin. A schematic sketch of the 2009 scheme, please refer to index in this booklet.
What is the cost of THBRWS? The scheme consists of a subsea and terrain pipeline, 3 pumping stations Reservoirs, a WTP and a AWTP for costs and information please refer to index.
How do we seek the costs to build a viable 45ML/ day AWTP? Information regarding the method to determine the cost of a viable AWTP please refer to the index.
What is energy in kWh needed to transfer of 45 ML/ Day from the Burwood treatment Plant to the Bayswater Power Station? The energy in kilowatt hrs for the 3 pumping stations for the water transfer please refer to index.
What is the Life Span of THBRWS? The life span of the pipeline is 50 to 100 years depending if its above or below ground. The Reservoirs with regular maintenance is the same.
What is the current cost in megawatt hrs per annum to transfer 45ML /Day from the Burwood treatment Plant to the Power Station? The current energy costs quotes per annum for this transfer is supplied by Origin Energy, please refer to the previous page.
16 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Questions Regarding The Hunter Bayswater Recycling Water Scheme Option
Highest priority Innovative and sustainable solutions (Reduce, re-use recycled, water fit for purpose), by LHWP Project Team 1 20 Feb 2013, 3.20 pm
“The Hunter Bayswater Recycling Water Scheme” is a commonsense approach to providing a value for money innovative, sustainable water solution.
It is a scheme that will operate continually every day for the next 50 to 100 years utilizing 45 ML/Day.
A system in which energy costs are far less and if incorporated with Scheme 2 can provide water for domestic needs, Industry, Agriculture, Vineyards, dual reticulation systems for new Towns and Subdivisions, it will be the arteries for future developments, for Jobs, forestry, water banking , the environment , Mines and Mines rehabilitation works, etc…
This Project puts the community first!
It is transparent and available for all to view on the internet.
The Emergency Desalination plan is quite the opposite of the above approach to this endeavour.
THBRWS will provide for all daily needs, eliminating the need for any “Emergency Desalination” system to be put in place.
17 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Questions Regarding The Emergency Desalination Option The information below and this project was submitted in 2012
A.What is the cost to build an Emergency 40 ML/ Day Desalination Plant? This information has not yet been made available to the Hunter Community!
B.What is the energy in kilowatt hours needed per day for the Desalination Plant to produce 40 ML/Day of potable water?` This information has not yet been made available to the Hunter Community!
C.What is the current energy costs per day to operate the Desalination Plant, to produce 40 ML/Day of potable water? This information has not yet been made available to the Hunter Community!
D.What is the current cost per kilo litre to produce potable water from Desalination? This information has not yet been made available to the Hunter Community!
E.What is the life span of an Emergency Desalination Plant? This information has not yet been made available to the Hunter Community!
F.In the Lower Hunter Water Plan Desalination - Overview, on the opposite page in this booklet, what are the operating energy costs, construction costs, to the Hunter Water users if we use 2 modules totalling 80 ML or 3 modules totalling 120ML per day? This information has not yet been made available to the Hunter Community!
Quotes and statements:
“When we established the Lower Hunter Water Plan process last year I gave a commitment that the community is at the centre of this planning process. I am very pleased to be able to deliver on that commitment,” said Mr Pearce, Member of LHWP Project Team 2 / 2 Nov 2012, 2: 33pm.
“All groups emphasized that the plan needs to be developed transparently and in close collaboration with the community.” Statement by LHWP Project Team 1 / 21 Dec 2012,
“Have your say, bringing the community along with the decision making.”
As a stakeholder, I, Joe Taranto, attended the last workshop meeting at Raymond Terrace. I started to ask a question regarding the Emergency Desalination Plant which still remains an option. I was told that this was not on the agenda for discussion.
With the Lower Hunter Water Plan coming to an end soon and the many questions above that have not been answered, the following question must be asked …
“Does the community really have a say in the Lower Hunter Water Plan?”
18 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto
UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Method to determine the cost of a 45ML/day Advanced Water Treatment Plant. AWTP
THBRWS has obtained the costs already for the subsea pipeline, W3 Plus Consultants has determined the pumping system required and energy in kilowatt hours needed to run the system.
Makai Ocean Engineering will be providing the 22klm subsea section of HDPE pipeline with a Preliminary Cost Analyst of the installation, bathymetry survey requirements etc, the statement of the works and further information. Please refer to index.
The 45 ML/day AWTP is the only infrastructure that needs to be costed.
Location of the AWTP The location of the AWTP could be built next to the Burwood Treatment Plant, or next to Iron Bark Creek.
Iron Bark Creek has both rail and road access for nutrient removal. The nutrient is a product that can be utilized as a fertilizer for agriculture, forestry and mine rehabilitation it could also be used for Power Generation.
It is well documented that recycled water uses less energy than desalination. University of NSW water specialist Dr Khan said 16-10 - 2013 “Recycling water used less energy and was much less expensive than desalination”.
With so many different options in water recycling, how do we determine which is the most viable, most suitable option to recycle waste water from the Burwood Treatment Plant to treat the water to a reuse grade that is suitable for the Power Station, Agriculture, Industry and Dual Reticulation purposes.
The answer is simple. Advertise to seek expressions of interest from Waste Water Engineering Companies all over Australia to tender for the Design and Construction of the proposed 45ML/day AWTP Plant, this will allow all methods of water recycling to be put on the table, with different costs and energy use, then with community input and involvement which is part of the planning process of the Lower Hunter Water Plan, a joint decision on the successful applicant to construct the AWTP can be finalized.
This transparent system would achieve the estimated cost of the proposed AWTP and would have full community support.
20 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Method to Obtain Costs to Build a Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Next to the Potable Grade Reservior at Branxton
The water from the Hunter River would need to be treated to a drinking standard either before entering or after exiting the proposed 50 ML reservoir, before being connected to Hunter Water’s Pipeline Infrastructure.
The answer to obtain the costs for a 45 ML/day WTP are as follows:
Advertise to seek expressions of interest from Water Engineering Companies all over Australia to tender for the Design and Construction of the proposed 45 ML/day WTP. This will allow methods of potable water treated for domestic used to be put on the table, with different costs and energy use, then with community input and involvement which is part of the planning process of the Lower Hunter Water Plan, a joint decision on the successful applicant to construct the WTP can be finalised.
This transparent system would achieve the estimated cost of the proposed WTP and would have full community support.
Water Extraction from the Hunter River.
A suitable location site for the pumping of water from the Hunter River near Elderslie to the Potable Reservoir near Branxton would have to be determined.
The river may need to be deepened or even a weir put in place to raise the river level.
The depth would have to be similar to the extraction point where the Bayswater Power Station draws its water near Jerrys Plains for its cooling purposes.
Pumping Costs from the Hunter River.
The costs of pumping 45 ML/Day from the Hunter River near Elderslie to the Potable Reservoir near Branxton is nil, nothing, the reason being is that THBRWS is supplying under its energy use 45 ML/Day to Lake Liddell or Plashett Reservoir in other words it off sets the energy required for the Power Station to obtain this water, therefore in return the pumping costs to obtain water from the river to the reservoir is transferred to the Power Station.
The majority of the pumping could operate using off peak energy between 11pm and 7am weekdays and 24 hours on both Saturday and Sunday.
Also for Hunter Water to have a 50 ML Water Storage Reservoir on a hill near Branxton I believe would save Hunter Water many thousands of dollars annually, In reducing energy costs pumping its water up the valley.
21 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Infrastructure costs for “The Hunter Bayswater Recycling Water Scheme”. Pipeline Options. GRP HDPE STEEL
HDPE. The estimated costs for the DN 1000 PN 8 if Manufactured here in Newcastle.
Supply only DN 1000 PN8 per meter = $380 per klm = $ 380,000 per 100 klm = $ 38m
The 22klm subsea section supply only = $ 8.36 million.
The 22klm subsea section has to be a HDPE pipeline due to its flexibility and it has the advantage of being made in long lengths using the float and sink method.
A Preliminary cost Analysis for the estimated installation cost and associated works of this 22klm section is envisaged to be prepared by Makai Ocean Engineering.
However on the Terrain section of this project the HDPE pipeline could be more labor intensive then GRP by squaring and Butt fusion welding the pipeline. Longer lengths of HDPE pipeline could be achieved by placing the HDPE Pipe making Machine Factory on location next to the Power Grid easement route.
GRP The estimated quote for the DN 1000 PN 16 GRP is on page….
Supply only DN 1000 PN 16 GRP per meter = $699 per klm = $699,000 per 100 klm = $69.9 million.
Installation estimates for pipeline above ground = $350 per meter = $350,000 per klm = $35 million per 100 klm Installation lay, testing, restoration and as constructed drawings.
Installation estimates for pipeline to be buried at approximately 2 metres. = $500 per meter = $500,000 per klm = $ 50 Million per 100 klm.
Steel Cement Lined Still researching this option.
22 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Infrastructure costs for “The Hunter Bayswater Recycling Water Scheme”. Pipeline Options. GRP HDPE STEEL
Reservoirs Saunders International Reservoir Dimensions 65.2 m diameter x 15.3 m high Price $ 9,2 million + GST per reservoir excluding site costs . Further information please refer to index.
Capital costs of Pumping Stations THBRWS would require 3 pumping station, there are 3 different options to consider in information supplied by W3 Consulting, table1,table 2 and table 3. Please refer to index.
Table 1 Three Pump Stations = $ 5.3 million Table2 Three Pump Stations = $ 6.6 million Table 3 Three Pump Stations = $ 14.9 million
Table 3 costs are higher but it has the advantage of moving more water in off peak times saving in energy costs, energy costs for Table 3 are on page 15.
HDPE Pipe Making Machine The 800 – 1200 HDPE Pipe Making Machine is about USD $750,000. The production is about 120 to 150 meters per day. For more information please refer to the index.
23 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Hunter Bayswater Recycling Water Scheme
W3Plus Consulting ACN 134 199 705
3 October 2013
Revision 0
24 UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Contents
1 BACKGROUND ...... 3 2 HYDRAULIC MODEL ...... 3
2.1 MODELLED SCENARIOS ...... 4 2.1 RESULTS...... 4 3 POWER REQUIREMENTS AND CAPITAL COSTS OF PUMP STATIONS ...... 7 4 DISCLAIMER ...... 7
List of Tables
TABLE 1: PIPELINE HEADLOSS FOR THE THREE FLOW SCENARIOS ...... 4 TABLE 2: REQUIRED PRESSURE AND POWER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE THREE FLOW SCENARIOS ...... 4 TABLE 3: PUMP STATION POWER REQUIREMENT AND CAPITAL COST FOR PEAK FLOW OF 565 L/S ...... 7 TABLE 4: PUMP STATION POWER REQUIREMENT AND CAPITAL COST FOR PEAK FLOW OF 623 L/S ...... 7 TABLE 5: PUMP STATION POWER REQUIREMENT AND CAPITAL COST FOR PEAK FLOW OF 942 L/S ...... 7
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: MODELLED HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS OF THE HUNTER BAYSWATER RECYCLING WATER SCHEME ...... 3 FIGURE 2: PIPELINE PROFILE AND HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE AT 565 L/S...... 5 FIGURE 3: PIPELINE PROFILE AND HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE AT 628 L/S...... 5 FIGURE 4: PIPELINE PROFILE AND HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE AT 942 L/S...... 6
25 UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g 1 Background
W3Plus consulting were requested by Mr. Joe Taranto of Universal Water Recycling, to provide indicative capital costs and energy requirements for pumping stations on the proposed Hunter Bayswater Recycling Scheme, a water recycling transfer project for the Lower Hunter Water Plan.
The project is to transfer 45 ML/day of treated waste water from the Burwood Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to the Bayswater Power Station. From the WWTP, the transfer pipeline runs below the seawater for 20km, before surfacing at Ironbark Creek and continuing for 100km and rising 120m to the Bayswater Power Station. A recycled water storage is proposed for the new town of Huntlee located between Ironbark Creek and the Bayswater Power Station. 2 Hydraulic Model
In order to calculate energy requirements, W3Plus constructed an hydraulic model using Bentley WaterGEMS v8i software.
The model was based on the available information, which included the pipeline lengths and level listed previously, the use of DN1000 PE100 PN8 pipe for the subsea section and DN1000 PN16 GRP pipe for the terrestrial section between Ironbark Creek and the Bayswater Power Station. These pressure ratings would need to be reassessed once the natural surface profile is available, the number of pump stations and sites for these pump stations are selected. Three pump stations were included in this model, and are positioned at the WWTP storage, Ironbark Creek, and halfway between Ironbark Creek and the Bayswater Power Station. The natural surface profile was assumed to be a consistent grade over 100km from Ironbark Creek to the Bayswater Power Station.
Elements of the hydraulic model are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Modelled Hydraulic Elements of the Hunter Bayswater Recycling Water Scheme
26 UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g 21.1 Modelled Scenarios The system is required to deliver 45 ML/day. This requirement was modelled using three specific flow rates:
· 565 L/s over 22 hours for a maximum flow velocity of 0.9 m/s in the subsea section · 623 L/s over 20 hours for a maximum flow velocity of 1.0 m/s in the subsea section · 942 L/s over 13.3 hours for a maximum flow velocity of 1.5 m/s in the subsea section
22 hours is generally considered the maximum design pumping period to allow for scheduled and emergency maintenance. Higher flow rates, over shorter pumping periods, will incur higher frictional headlosses but may be able to take advantage of reduced off-peak power supply rates.
21.1 Results Headloss results in the pipeline for the three modelled flow rates are shown in Table 1, and pump duties and power requirements are shown in Table 2.
Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found. show the modelled natural surface profile and hydraulic grade and resulting from the flow rates of 565, 623 and 942 L/s respectively.
Table 1: Pipeline Headloss for the Three Flow Scenarios
565 L/s 623 L/s 942 L/s Headloss Headloss Headloss Headloss Headloss Headloss Pipeline Pipe Gradient over Gradient over Gradient over Segment Description (m/m) Segment (m) (m/m) Segment (m) (m/m) Segment (m) 20km subsea DN1000 0.0007 15 0.0009 18 0.0019 40 Burwood PE100 PN8 WWTP to Ironbark Creek 50km Ironbark DN1000 0.0005 24 0.0007 29 0.0012 60 Creek to PN16 GRP Huntlee 50km Huntlee DN1000 0.0005 24 0.0007 29 0.0012 60 to Bayswater PN16 GRP Power Station Total (120km) 63 76 160
Table 2: Required Pressure and Power Requirements for the Three Flow Scenarios
Pump Station Req. Head (m) Req. Head (m) Req. Head (m) @ 565 L/s @ 623 L/s @ 942 L/s Burwood WWTP 15 18 40 Ironbark Creek 84 89 120 Huntlee 84 89 120
27
Figure 1: Pipeline Profile and Hydraulic Grade Line at 565 L/s.
Figure 2: Pipeline Profile and Hydraulic Grade Line at 628 L/s.
Figure 1: Pipeline Profile and Hydraulic Grade Line at 942 L/s.
28
13 Power Requirements and Capital Costs of Pump Stations
The costs quoted in this section are based on other investigations completed by W3Plus consulting and have not considered any site-specific elements of this scheme. As the natural surface profile between the Burwood WWTP and the Bayswater Power Station has not yet been supplied, at this point it is also uncertain as to whether three pumps stations is the optimal number.
The accuracies of the capital cost estimates are considered to be in the order of 30%.
Table 1: Pump Station Power Requirement and Capital Cost for Peak Flow of 565 L/s
Pump Station Flow Head Power Pumping Energy Capital Cost of (L/s) (m) Requirement Hours per Day Consumed per Day Pump Station (kW) (h) (kWh/d) Burwood WWTP 565 15 132 22 2900 $ 0.9 mil Ironbark Creek 565 84 738 22 16242 $ 2.2 mil Huntlee 565 84 738 22 16242 $ 2.2 mil
Table 2: Pump Station Power Requirement and Capital Cost for Peak Flow of 623 L/s
Pump Station Flow Head Power Pumping Electrical Energy Capital Cost of (L/s) (m) Requirement Hours per Day Consumed per Day Pump Station (kW) (h) (kWh/d) Burwood WWTP 623 18 174 20 3489 $ 1.2 mil Ironbark Creek 623 89 863 20 17250 $ 2.7 mil Huntlee 623 89 863 20 17250 $ 2.7 mil
Table 3: Pump Station Power Requirement and Capital Cost for Peak Flow of 942 L/s
Pump Station Flow Head Power Pumping Electrical Energy Capital Cost of (L/s) (m) Requirement Hours per Day Consumed per Day Pump Station (kW) (h) (kWh/d) Burwood WWTP 942 40 586 13.3 7796 $ 4.1 mil Ironbark Creek 942 120 1758 13.3 23387 $ 5.4 mil Huntlee 942 120 1758 13.3 23387 $ 5.4 mil
24 Disclaimer
These information and results featured in this report is reflective of the limited information upon which modelling, calculations and estimations were based. Further details regarding the pipeline alignment and an accurate natural surface profile will be required prior to the development of a concept and functional design, and for the system’s costs and benefits to be more accurately estimated and optimised.
29
UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
The Hunter Bayswater Recycling Water Scheme Intellectual Property Matters
I recommend that the Federal Minister for Environment and Water, the NSW Minister for Finance and Services, the Metropolitan Water Directorate and the Independent Panel conduct a comprehensive feasibility study of this proposal before proceeding. In my view, the study will conclude that the project will provide a viable new water source for the Lower Hunter Water Plan and is of national importance.
However, I require that should the feasibility study be conducted, the parties agree to provide me with a copy as soon as reasonably practicable.
All parties who use my work in conducting any studies, planning, or in connection with any other purpose whatsoever, acknowledge that all intellectual property contained in this document is owned by Joseph Taranto. All parties who have access to this intellectual property acknowledge and agree that the information contained herein shall not be used without the consent of the intellectual property owner. The parties with access to the intellectual property contained herein acknowledge and agree that a commercial intellectual property arrangement must be entered into with the intellectual property owner prior to any party using any of the information contained herein. The parties, and all parties who review this document acknowledge and expressly agree that Joseph Taranto retains ownership of its Intellectual Property Rights in the information contained herein until such time as any assignment of Intellectual Property takes place.
37 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Zhou Maozhen 29/05/2013
To: universalwaterrecycling
From: eagleco001 ([email protected]) This sender is in your contact list. Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2013 2:46:29 PM To: universalwaterrecycling ([email protected]) Dear Joe Taranto, How are you? Now I give your approximate information. Machine output: 1500-2000kg/h Installed power: 1100KVA Dimension: about 70 meters long and 6 meters wide, 4 meters high.
I want to know the pressure of the pipe. This will be related to the machine design, also the price. So now i only can give you approximate price, it is about 1.7 to 1.9 million. For this kind of pipe production, the factory must be close to the project site, or near the see or river. To do this way, it can produce longer pipe as we want such as 500m or more, this can save the connection time and reduce the installation cost. Please feel free to contact me, if you need any information or question.
Dear Joe Taranto , How are you? The detailed information for HDPE pipe machine is in attachment, please check it. Regarding the pipe cost, it depends on the water pressure. As my calculation, if the pipe diameter is DN1000, SDR17(10BAR). The pipe weight is 166kg/m. The production is about 120meters to 150meters per day. Now the HDPE is USD 1900 per ton. The 800-1200 HDPE pipe machine is about USD 750,000.
Best regards! Sincerely yours, Zhou Maozhen
2013-06-13 Eagle Extrusion Technology Co. Add: No.16, Quanzhou Nan Lu, Jiaozhou City, Qingdao, China
38 UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g HDPE Pipe Making Machines
39 UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
40
UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
43 UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Global Pipe Australia Terrain Pipeline Section for “The Hunter Bayswater Recycling Water Scheme”
Aaron Mackley Global Pipe Australia Pty Ltd Tel (03) 9305 0600 Fax (03) 9305 0611 Mobile 0401 157 336 Website www.globalpipe.com.au
44 UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
45 UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g Scheme 3
Aristotle wrote and articulated that the water level in two basins, connected by a pipe must be the same.
2000mm SDR21: area 25716cm2, water flow capacity 2571kg/s, 154ton per minute, 9258ton per hour, 222193 ton per day
The accuracy of a water level is based upon Pascal's Law “Water seeks its own level”
A water level is both accurate and versatile and can be used to set grades where grade points are separated by distance.
Curvature of the earth, 11cm per km x 110km = 1210cm = 12.1meters
46 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
The Lower Hunter Water Plan
There are only 3 long term options available.
Revisit the Tillegra Dam OR Build an Emergency, Temporary or Permanent Desalination Plant OR The Hunter Bayswater Recycling Water Scheme
The following is the most viable option for the Lower Hunter Water Plan. The majority of this project is pipelines, it is envisaged that a new Pipeline Production Facility will be established on the Hunter River similar to the AGRU Facility in Charleston South Carolina or the Stathelle Pipeline Production Facility in Norway to manufacture large diameter HDPE here in the Hunter Valley, not just for this project but others needing to transfer large volumes of water. Continues long lengths of HDPE pipelines Kms in length can float on sections of the Hunter River where there is no shipping, longer lengths = less joins = less installation costs.
Funding Options
The $4.2 billion fund created by the Federal Governments buy-out of NSW,s of Snowy Hydro.
The Miners Rehabilitation Funds
Mine Rehabilitation Assurance held by the NSW State Government is $2.36 b The majority of the Mines in NSW are in the Upper Hunter, the pipeline will last 50 to 100 years, as coal is depleted rehabilitation can commence immediately, ( you can't rehabilitate without water )
47 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto copyright upgraded 2018 UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
The supply of water to Lower Hunter is only a small part of the overall project and is so simple and cost efficient compared to the Tillegra Option. The proposed pipelines from Newcastle to Lake Liddell and Plashett Reservoir will be a duel purpose line, Lake Liddell has issues with bacteria and salinity, the Hunter Valley Coal Mines at times are looking to discharge saline water into the Hunter River when there is high river flows.
This pipeline option will flush this saline water from both by gravity straight into the ocean resulting in a healthier Hunter River. Scheme 1 ( The Hunter Bayswater Recycling Water Scheme ) shows a schematic map with a cost effective system of supplying water to the lower Hunter. The construction of a 45 ML reservoir at north of Branxton has now been upgraded to a 80 ML in Scheme 2, water would be pumped from the Hunter River at Elderslie to fill this proposed reservoir. The proposed reservoir would be on a hill less than 3km from the river over looking Branxton.
This water would be treated to a potable grade before it is connected to Hunter Water Infrastructure at Branxton. Grahamstown Dam is an off- stream Dam, water is pumped from the Williams River, The proposed reservoir at Branxton would be an off-stream reservoir pumping water from the Hunter River. The cost to treat river water to a potable is mineable.
The Tillegra Dam option, $500 million to build the Dam Repurchasing the land needed that was all sold off $ 100 million? $200million? Acquisition of land by the Government for those who do not wish to sell. Drawn out court processes, Green groups demonstrations Seven years to fill the Dam under normal weather conditions. It has been also documented that this will destroy a whole Eco System including the prawns, oysters, fishing etc. The whole process to bring back the Tillegra option could take many years.
The Desalination option,
A proposed $100 million Emergency Desalination Plant has just been announced, no energy operating costs have been made to my knowledge. It is well known that the energy costs for the desalination of salt water is far more expensive then to treat recycled water. The Hunter Bayswater recycling Water Scheme is an exchange system, supplying 50 ML/d of treated water to the AGL Power Station or the Mining sector ( see page 6 ) The project is a better option then desalination When Dam levels are healthy the desalination plant will be moth balled because it's to expensive to run however this project would not, continuing to supply 50 ML/d to the Power Station ,resulting in water banking 50 ML/d or 1 Chichester Dam annually in Glenbawn Dam until it is needed, please see page 51
48 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto copyright upgraded 2018 UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Some Costs Estimates, Scheme 1
Build a 80 ML Concrete Reservoir between Branxton and Elderslie $14 million (Size, Ellenbrook Water Tank.)
Pumping infrastructure plus pipe works to connect the Hunter River to the $10 million reservoir, plus filtration system to achieve a potable grade water.
Purchase or acquisition of suitable properties. $5 million
Site preparation $1 million
Fencing Contractors to fence sections of the Hunter River to keep cattle $5 million nutrients reaching the river.
Earthmoving Contractors to build small dams, to supply water for livestock $5 million fenced off from the river, plus piping and pumps to fill these dams.
A Preliminary Cost Analysts from Makai Ocean Engineering for a survey $55,000 of a fresh water Sub Sea Pipeline route from the Burwood Treatment Plant to Iron Bark Creek Hexham. (Page 30 to 37, $38,000 USD = $55,000
Supply only 100 km from Global Pipes Australia $70 million (see pages 44, 45 ).
Total $96,055,000
49 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto copyright upgraded 2018 UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
Volumes of Water Which Can Be Harvested
This picture represents a cubic meter of water. 1 meter by 1 meter = 1000 liters 1 bucket = 10 liters 100 buckets x 10 liters = 1000 liters or 1 cube. 1 ML = 1000 cubes x 100 bucket = 100,000 buckets 10 ML = 10 x 100,000 buckets = 1,000,000 ( 1 million buckets) 50 ML = 5 x 10 ML = 5,000,000 ( 5 million buckets every day) 50 ML/day x 365 days = 18,250 ML per annum Chichester Dam = 18,356 ML
The Lower Hunter Water Plan “The Hunter Bayswater Recycling Water Scheme” 50 ML/d of potable water drawn from the Hunter River and added to the system would result in the majority of this water being recycled many times.
When our dams are levels are healthy, the Emergency, Temporary or Permanent Desalination Plant at Belmont will be mothballed because it is too expensive to run; a burden on Hunter water uses. This water exchange project will not shut down, resulting in water banking of one Chichester Dam per annum, stored in Glenbawn Dam.
50 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto copyright upgraded 2018 UWR U n i v e r s a l Wa t e r R e c y c l i n g
There have been some major new developments in this project.
The Lower Hunter Water Plan has now been incorporated as part of the largest water infrastructure project to service NSW.
Please read Scheme 2 pages 95 to 106.
www.uwr.com.au
51 copyright c 2013 Joe Taranto copyright upgraded 2018