Was having a yarn on FB about the costs of a large scale desal scheme in Australia. I did some BOTE calcs as follows.

So let’s assume a pessimistic scenario: that climate change is so dire that within 50 years (ie by 2069) we have to commit to sourcing all urban and major regional water supplies from desal, leaving the surface water and bore water solely for argiculture and rural communities.

This is a pretty dire, worst case scenario, because in reality it is thought that it is expected that northern rainfall will increase, so the problem could be partly ameliorated by relocation, but let’s go with this dire scenario.

So Australia has a GDP of 1.83 trillion 2019AUD. Its long term real growth rate is 3% pa but let’s make a further pessimistic assumption that it declines to 2.5% pa in the future. This means that over the interval in question, Australia’s economic product will be about 178 trillion 2019AUD. Overall taxation has bopped around in the vicinity of 26% for a while so going by that, there will be 46 trillion 2019AUD federal revenue on that interval.

48% of Perth’s water is supplied by desalination plants and a dedicated offset wind farm. The cost of the desal PLUS the wind farm that powers it was 570 million AUD but allowing for inflation 640 million 2019AUD. We don’t need to reaccount for the cost of electricity as the power supply was paid for upfront, and the running costs are negligible.

This operation covers a population of 1.95 million people, and allowing for the 48%, this means this size of operation provides water for 0.93 million people.

Australia’s population is 25 million and it is growing at 1.6% pa. If this keeps up, the population will be 55 million at the end of this interval. Let’s ballpark that Australia will be even more heavily urbanised by then and that 50 million of these people are in urban and major regional centres.

So we would expect that that cost for the desalination plants and the electricity to supply them will be 34 billion dollars.

It’s about half the cost of the NBN. This represents less than one part in 5000 of Australia’s product during this interval. It’s less than one part in 1000 of federal taxation revenues.

You’re asking “who’ll pay for it”: it almost doesn’t matter because it is just in the noise. You could allocate that 0.1% out of general revenue, you could put a 0.1% climate change levy on it that no one would even notice, you could do it through market mechanisms so that the water and electricity charges were 0.1% higher. Whatever.

I’ve made pessimistic assumptions throughout: median assumptions would result in lower estimates of the costs.

dv said:

Was having a yarn on FB about the costs of a large scale desal scheme in Australia. I did some BOTE calcs as follows.

So let’s assume a pessimistic scenario: that climate change is so dire that within 50 years (ie by 2069) we have to commit to sourcing all urban and major regional water supplies from desal, leaving the surface water and bore water solely for argiculture and rural communities.

This is a pretty dire, worst case scenario, because in reality it is thought that it is expected that northern rainfall will increase, so the problem could be partly ameliorated by relocation, but let’s go with this dire scenario.

So Australia has a GDP of 1.83 trillion 2019AUD. Its long term real growth rate is 3% pa but let’s make a further pessimistic assumption that it declines to 2.5% pa in the future. This means that over the interval in question, Australia’s economic product will be about 178 trillion 2019AUD. Overall taxation has bopped around in the vicinity of 26% for a while so going by that, there will be 46 trillion 2019AUD federal revenue on that interval.

48% of Perth’s water is supplied by desalination plants and a dedicated offset wind farm. The cost of the desal PLUS the wind farm that powers it was 570 million AUD but allowing for inflation 640 million 2019AUD. We don’t need to reaccount for the cost of electricity as the power supply was paid for upfront, and the running costs are negligible.

This operation covers a population of 1.95 million people, and allowing for the 48%, this means this size of operation provides water for 0.93 million people.

Australia’s population is 25 million and it is growing at 1.6% pa. If this keeps up, the population will be 55 million at the end of this interval. Let’s ballpark that Australia will be even more heavily urbanised by then and that 50 million of these people are in urban and major regional centres.

So we would expect that that cost for the desalination plants and the electricity to supply them will be 34 billion dollars.

It’s about half the cost of the NBN. This represents less than one part in 5000 of Australia’s product during this interval. It’s less than one part in 1000 of federal taxation revenues.

You’re asking “who’ll pay for it”: it almost doesn’t matter because it is just in the noise. You could allocate that 0.1% out of general revenue, you could put a 0.1% climate change levy on it that no one would even notice, you could do it through market mechanisms so that the water and electricity charges were 0.1% higher. Whatever.

I’ve made pessimistic assumptions throughout: median assumptions would result in lower estimates of the costs.

It is likely worth submitting when you finalise all the points.

dv said:

Was having a yarn on FB about the costs of a large scale desal scheme in Australia. I did some BOTE calcs as follows.

So let’s assume a pessimistic scenario: that climate change is so dire that within 50 years (ie by 2069) we have to commit to sourcing all urban and major regional water supplies from desal, leaving the surface water and bore water solely for argiculture and rural communities.

This is a pretty dire, worst case scenario, because in reality it is thought that it is expected that northern rainfall will increase, so the problem could be partly ameliorated by relocation, but let’s go with this dire scenario.

So Australia has a GDP of 1.83 trillion 2019AUD. Its long term real growth rate is 3% pa but let’s make a further pessimistic assumption that it declines to 2.5% pa in the future. This means that over the interval in question, Australia’s economic product will be about 178 trillion 2019AUD. Overall taxation has bopped around in the vicinity of 26% for a while so going by that, there will be 46 trillion 2019AUD federal revenue on that interval.

48% of Perth’s water is supplied by desalination plants and a dedicated offset wind farm. The cost of the desal PLUS the wind farm that powers it was 570 million AUD but allowing for inflation 640 million 2019AUD. We don’t need to reaccount for the cost of electricity as the power supply was paid for upfront, and the running costs are negligible.

This operation covers a population of 1.95 million people, and allowing for the 48%, this means this size of operation provides water for 0.93 million people.

Australia’s population is 25 million and it is growing at 1.6% pa. If this keeps up, the population will be 55 million at the end of this interval. Let’s ballpark that Australia will be even more heavily urbanised by then and that 50 million of these people are in urban and major regional centres.

So we would expect that that cost for the desalination plants and the electricity to supply them will be 34 billion dollars.

It’s about half the cost of the NBN. This represents less than one part in 5000 of Australia’s product during this interval. It’s less than one part in 1000 of federal taxation revenues.

You’re asking “who’ll pay for it”: it almost doesn’t matter because it is just in the noise. You could allocate that 0.1% out of general revenue, you could put a 0.1% climate change levy on it that no one would even notice, you could do it through market mechanisms so that the water and electricity charges were 0.1% higher. Whatever.

I’ve made pessimistic assumptions throughout: median assumptions would result in lower estimates of the costs.

You sure your GDP figures are not out by a factor of ten?

Seems simple enough, even assuming that desalination technology remains static at today’s technology and no allowance made for economies of scale in production if we were to adopt it on a much larger scale.

I have been reading up on graphene recently. This is supposed to be the magic answer to all the world’s fresh water problems.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Was having a yarn on FB about the costs of a large scale desal scheme in Australia. I did some BOTE calcs as follows.

So let’s assume a pessimistic scenario: that climate change is so dire that within 50 years (ie by 2069) we have to commit to sourcing all urban and major regional water supplies from desal, leaving the surface water and bore water solely for argiculture and rural communities.

This is a pretty dire, worst case scenario, because in reality it is thought that it is expected that northern rainfall will increase, so the problem could be partly ameliorated by relocation, but let’s go with this dire scenario.

So Australia has a GDP of 1.83 trillion 2019AUD. Its long term real growth rate is 3% pa but let’s make a further pessimistic assumption that it declines to 2.5% pa in the future. This means that over the interval in question, Australia’s economic product will be about 178 trillion 2019AUD. Overall taxation has bopped around in the vicinity of 26% for a while so going by that, there will be 46 trillion 2019AUD federal revenue on that interval.

48% of Perth’s water is supplied by desalination plants and a dedicated offset wind farm. The cost of the desal PLUS the wind farm that powers it was 570 million AUD but allowing for inflation 640 million 2019AUD. We don’t need to reaccount for the cost of electricity as the power supply was paid for upfront, and the running costs are negligible.

This operation covers a population of 1.95 million people, and allowing for the 48%, this means this size of operation provides water for 0.93 million people.

Australia’s population is 25 million and it is growing at 1.6% pa. If this keeps up, the population will be 55 million at the end of this interval. Let’s ballpark that Australia will be even more heavily urbanised by then and that 50 million of these people are in urban and major regional centres.

So we would expect that that cost for the desalination plants and the electricity to supply them will be 34 billion dollars.

It’s about half the cost of the NBN. This represents less than one part in 5000 of Australia’s product during this interval. It’s less than one part in 1000 of federal taxation revenues.

You’re asking “who’ll pay for it”: it almost doesn’t matter because it is just in the noise. You could allocate that 0.1% out of general revenue, you could put a 0.1% climate change levy on it that no one would even notice, you could do it through market mechanisms so that the water and electricity charges were 0.1% higher. Whatever.

I’ve made pessimistic assumptions throughout: median assumptions would result in lower estimates of the costs.

You sure your GDP figures are not out by a factor of ten?

Quite.

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Was having a yarn on FB about the costs of a large scale desal scheme in Australia. I did some BOTE calcs as follows.

So let’s assume a pessimistic scenario: that climate change is so dire that within 50 years (ie by 2069) we have to commit to sourcing all urban and major regional water supplies from desal, leaving the surface water and bore water solely for argiculture and rural communities.

This is a pretty dire, worst case scenario, because in reality it is thought that it is expected that northern rainfall will increase, so the problem could be partly ameliorated by relocation, but let’s go with this dire scenario.

So Australia has a GDP of 1.83 trillion 2019AUD. Its long term real growth rate is 3% pa but let’s make a further pessimistic assumption that it declines to 2.5% pa in the future. This means that over the interval in question, Australia’s economic product will be about 178 trillion 2019AUD. Overall taxation has bopped around in the vicinity of 26% for a while so going by that, there will be 46 trillion 2019AUD federal revenue on that interval.

48% of Perth’s water is supplied by desalination plants and a dedicated offset wind farm. The cost of the desal PLUS the wind farm that powers it was 570 million AUD but allowing for inflation 640 million 2019AUD. We don’t need to reaccount for the cost of electricity as the power supply was paid for upfront, and the running costs are negligible.

This operation covers a population of 1.95 million people, and allowing for the 48%, this means this size of operation provides water for 0.93 million people.

Australia’s population is 25 million and it is growing at 1.6% pa. If this keeps up, the population will be 55 million at the end of this interval. Let’s ballpark that Australia will be even more heavily urbanised by then and that 50 million of these people are in urban and major regional centres.

So we would expect that that cost for the desalination plants and the electricity to supply them will be 34 billion dollars.

It’s about half the cost of the NBN. This represents less than one part in 5000 of Australia’s product during this interval. It’s less than one part in 1000 of federal taxation revenues.

You’re asking “who’ll pay for it”: it almost doesn’t matter because it is just in the noise. You could allocate that 0.1% out of general revenue, you could put a 0.1% climate change levy on it that no one would even notice, you could do it through market mechanisms so that the water and electricity charges were 0.1% higher. Whatever.

I’ve made pessimistic assumptions throughout: median assumptions would result in lower estimates of the costs.

You sure your GDP figures are not out by a factor of ten?

Quite.

So the sum is 1.8 × 1.025^50 or thereabouts?

Seems to be quite a variance in the cost of a desal.

The Victorian plant cost about $4 billion and can produce 400 ML a day. Perth was $400 million, so 10% of Melbourne and can produce about 140 ML a day. This does not take into account energy costs.

Witty Rejoinder said:

So the sum is 1.8 × 1.025^50 or thereabouts?

The sum of 1.83 × 1.025 ^ n from n=0 to n=49

sibeen said:

Seems to be quite a variance in the cost of a desal.

The Victorian plant cost about $4 billion and can produce 400 ML a day. Perth was $400 million, so 10% of Melbourne and can produce about 140 ML a day. This does not take into account energy costs.

Including energy costs, Perth was 570 m AUD, some 640 m 2019AUD, per OP.

Or, rather, 48% of Perth.

sibeen said:

Seems to be quite a variance in the cost of a desal.

The Victorian plant cost about $4 billion and can produce 400 ML a day. Perth was $400 million, so 10% of Melbourne and can produce about 140 ML a day. This does not take into account energy costs.

I thought we had two desal plants. First one wasn’t big enough so they built a second, however there was no room to expand at the original site so they built a brand new site further south.

dv said:

sibeen said:

Seems to be quite a variance in the cost of a desal.

The Victorian plant cost about $4 billion and can produce 400 ML a day. Perth was $400 million, so 10% of Melbourne and can produce about 140 ML a day. This does not take into account energy costs.

Including energy costs, Perth was 570 m AUD, some 640 m 2019AUD, per OP.

Or, rather, 48% of Perth.

48% of Perth to supply 17% of Perth’s water, do we get to pick who misses out?

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

Seems to be quite a variance in the cost of a desal.

The Victorian plant cost about $4 billion and can produce 400 ML a day. Perth was $400 million, so 10% of Melbourne and can produce about 140 ML a day. This does not take into account energy costs.

Including energy costs, Perth was 570 m AUD, some 640 m 2019AUD, per OP.

Or, rather, 48% of Perth.

48% of Perth to supply 17% of Perth’s water, do we get to pick who misses out?

I’ve no idea what you mean. The desal plants cover 48% of Perth’s water.

dv said:

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

Including energy costs, Perth was 570 m AUD, some 640 m 2019AUD, per OP.

Or, rather, 48% of Perth.

48% of Perth to supply 17% of Perth’s water, do we get to pick who misses out?

I’ve no idea what you mean. The desal plants cover 48% of Perth’s water.

Have you tallied up the cost of all the desal plants or just the first one?

dv said:

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

Including energy costs, Perth was 570 m AUD, some 640 m 2019AUD, per OP.

Or, rather, 48% of Perth.

48% of Perth to supply 17% of Perth’s water, do we get to pick who misses out?

I’ve no idea what you mean. The desal plants cover 48% of Perth’s water.

Ah, it’s got two…who knew. …

dv said:

Was having a yarn on FB about the costs of a large scale desal scheme in Australia. I did some BOTE calcs as follows.

So let’s assume a pessimistic scenario: that climate change is so dire that within 50 years (ie by 2069) we have to commit to sourcing all urban and major regional water supplies from desal, leaving the surface water and bore water solely for argiculture and rural communities.

This is a pretty dire, worst case scenario, because in reality it is thought that it is expected that northern rainfall will increase, so the problem could be partly ameliorated by relocation, but let’s go with this dire scenario.

So Australia has a GDP of 1.83 trillion 2019AUD. Its long term real growth rate is 3% pa but let’s make a further pessimistic assumption that it declines to 2.5% pa in the future. This means that over the interval in question, Australia’s economic product will be about 178 trillion 2019AUD. Overall taxation has bopped around in the vicinity of 26% for a while so going by that, there will be 46 trillion 2019AUD federal revenue on that interval.

48% of Perth’s water is supplied by desalination plants and a dedicated offset wind farm. The cost of the desal PLUS the wind farm that powers it was 570 million AUD but allowing for inflation 640 million 2019AUD. We don’t need to reaccount for the cost of electricity as the power supply was paid for upfront, and the running costs are negligible.

This operation covers a population of 1.95 million people, and allowing for the 48%, this means this size of operation provides water for 0.93 million people.

Australia’s population is 25 million and it is growing at 1.6% pa. If this keeps up, the population will be 55 million at the end of this interval. Let’s ballpark that Australia will be even more heavily urbanised by then and that 50 million of these people are in urban and major regional centres.

So we would expect that that cost for the desalination plants and the electricity to supply them will be 34 billion dollars.

It’s about half the cost of the NBN. This represents less than one part in 5000 of Australia’s product during this interval. It’s less than one part in 1000 of federal taxation revenues.

You’re asking “who’ll pay for it”: it almost doesn’t matter because it is just in the noise. You could allocate that 0.1% out of general revenue, you could put a 0.1% climate change levy on it that no one would even notice, you could do it through market mechanisms so that the water and electricity charges were 0.1% higher. Whatever.

I’ve made pessimistic assumptions throughout: median assumptions would result in lower estimates of the costs.

> Australia’s population is 25 million and it is growing at 1.6% pa. If this keeps up, the population will be 55 million at the end of this interval. Let’s ballpark that Australia will be even more heavily urbanised by then and that 50 million of these people are in urban and major regional centres. So we would expect that that cost for the desalination plants and the electricity to supply them will be 34 billion dollars.

Have you taken into account the capital costs of building new desal plants when the current ones reach full capacity?

There’s also the issue of water quality out of desal plants, high water quality is higher cost, low water quality is lower cost.

> Graphene

I’m not sure how to react to that. Is it a miracle material for water filtration or not? What about quality control and cost?

Ahhh i haven’t taken into account population growth.

“Have you taken into account the capital costs of building new desal plants when the current ones reach full capacity?”

?

That’s the exact thing I’ve costed.

dv said:

sibeen said:

Seems to be quite a variance in the cost of a desal.

The Victorian plant cost about $4 billion and can produce 400 ML a day. Perth was $400 million, so 10% of Melbourne and can produce about 140 ML a day. This does not take into account energy costs.

Including energy costs, Perth was 570 m AUD, some 640 m 2019AUD, per OP.

Or, rather, 48% of Perth.

My point being that excluding energy costs there appears to be something like a 3x difference in cost between the two. It would be interesting to understand the reasons for this and how this will affect your budgeting.

What’s the link for the FB discussion?

Witty Rejoinder said:

What’s the link for the FB discussion?

It’s one of the top items in the Dr Karl Self Service Science group… can’t make a public link

sibeen said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

Seems to be quite a variance in the cost of a desal.

The Victorian plant cost about $4 billion and can produce 400 ML a day. Perth was $400 million, so 10% of Melbourne and can produce about 140 ML a day. This does not take into account energy costs.

Including energy costs, Perth was 570 m AUD, some 640 m 2019AUD, per OP.

Or, rather, 48% of Perth.

My point being that excluding energy costs there appears to be something like a 3x difference in cost between the two. It would be interesting to understand the reasons for this and how this will affect your budgeting.

These are reasonable points

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What’s the link for the FB discussion?

It’s one of the top items in the Dr Karl Self Service Science group… can’t make a public link

this one?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/55383347592/

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What’s the link for the FB discussion?

It’s one of the top items in the Dr Karl Self Service Science group… can’t make a public link

Can’t seem to find it. Also I cannot work out the maths. Even using a spreadsheet I can’t get the correct future GDP amount.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What’s the link for the FB discussion?

It’s one of the top items in the Dr Karl Self Service Science group… can’t make a public link

Can’t seem to find it. Also I cannot work out the maths. Even using a spreadsheet I can’t get the correct future GDP amount.

Is this the link

https://www.facebook.com/groups/55383347592/

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

It’s one of the top items in the Dr Karl Self Service Science group… can’t make a public link

Can’t seem to find it. Also I cannot work out the maths. Even using a spreadsheet I can’t get the correct future GDP amount.

Is this the link

https://www.facebook.com/groups/55383347592/

That links the forum page but not the discussion. For me.at least…

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What’s the link for the FB discussion?

It’s one of the top items in the Dr Karl Self Service Science group… can’t make a public link

Can’t seem to find it. Also I cannot work out the maths. Even using a spreadsheet I can’t get the correct future GDP amount.

Look for scott usenko brown

Assuming we used all available technologies for the betterment of humans, such as farming, water, building, climate etc, surely there would still be a limit to how much population we could have here. Even if we had perfect conditions right now for our population which I would argue we don’t, the population is just gonna get bigger and bigger. I have heard that educating women is a good way to reduce population but it’s still going to rise….Was Thanos right?

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What’s the link for the FB discussion?

It’s one of the top items in the Dr Karl Self Service Science group… can’t make a public link

Can’t seem to find it. Also I cannot work out the maths. Even using a spreadsheet I can’t get the correct future GDP amount.

Okay well then we can do it analytically.

This is a geometric series, ie it has the form a _n = a r ^n-1

a = 1.83 trillion = 1.83e12
r = 1.025

We seek the sum of the first 50 terms

The formula for the sum of the first n terms of a geometric series is

S _n = a (1 − r ⁿ ) /(1−r)

subbing in:

S ₅₀ = 1.83e12 (1 − 1.025 ⁵⁰ ) /(1 − 1.025) = 1.78e14 = 178 trillion

https://www.facebook.com/groups/55383347592/permalink/10156950628762593/

should link to the post

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What’s the link for the FB discussion?

It’s one of the top items in the Dr Karl Self Service Science group… can’t make a public link

way to link to individual threads. click on down arrow thingy top right of OP of thread you wish to get a link for. Click save post. go to saved posts and open that link you will find. copy address. and viola.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What’s the link for the FB discussion?

It’s one of the top items in the Dr Karl Self Service Science group… can’t make a public link

way to link to individual threads. click on down arrow thingy top right of OP of thread you wish to get a link for. Click save post. go to saved posts and open that link you will find. copy address. and viola.

or it could be three dots in the top right hand corner.

Someone is being very bossy in that thread and telling people to “Cut out the ad hominems.” Bastard.

sibeen said:

Someone is being very bossy in that thread and telling people to “Cut out the ad hominems.” Bastard.

i run a tight ship.

sibeen said:

Someone is being very bossy in that thread and telling people to “Cut out the ad hominems.” Bastard.

Stop your damn whining ya big girlie man,

Do we do recycled water in our cities like other countries?

Peak Warming Man said:

Do we do recycled water in our cities like other countries?

I pee on my lemon tree.

Peak Warming Man said:

Do we do recycled water in our cities like other countries?

Not sure about other places, but in Perth the recycled treated water is injected/pumped into underground aquifers.

Quiet a big bit of Perth’s water comes from aquifers.

Peak Warming Man said:

Do we do recycled water in our cities like other countries?

I’m fairly sure the answer is no in that it doesn’t get put back into the reservoirs used for drinking water. It is used on crops etc.

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

It’s one of the top items in the Dr Karl Self Service Science group… can’t make a public link

Can’t seem to find it. Also I cannot work out the maths. Even using a spreadsheet I can’t get the correct future GDP amount.

Okay well then we can do it analytically.

This is a geometric series, ie it has the form a _n = a r ^n-1

a = 1.83 trillion = 1.83e12
r = 1.025

We seek the sum of the first 50 terms

The formula for the sum of the first n terms of a geometric series is

S _n = a (1 − r ⁿ ) /(1−r)

subbing in:

S ₅₀ = 1.83e12 (1 − 1.025 ⁵⁰ ) /(1 − 1.025) = 1.78e14 = 178 trillion

So you can’t just do:

1.83 * 1.025 = 1.87575
1.87575 * 1.025 = 1.92264375
1.92264375 * 1.025 = etc

and continue with that for another 48 times?

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Can’t seem to find it. Also I cannot work out the maths. Even using a spreadsheet I can’t get the correct future GDP amount.

Okay well then we can do it analytically.

This is a geometric series, ie it has the form a _n = a r ^n-1

a = 1.83 trillion = 1.83e12
r = 1.025

We seek the sum of the first 50 terms

The formula for the sum of the first n terms of a geometric series is

S _n = a (1 − r ⁿ ) /(1−r)

subbing in:

S ₅₀ = 1.83e12 (1 − 1.025 ⁵⁰ ) /(1 − 1.025) = 1.78e14 = 178 trillion

So you can’t just do:

1.83 * 1.025 = 1.87575
1.87575 * 1.025 = 1.92264375
1.92264375 * 1.025 = etc

and continue with that for another 48 times?

Sure, and add up all fifty values. You’ll get the same answer but that way is longer.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Can’t seem to find it. Also I cannot work out the maths. Even using a spreadsheet I can’t get the correct future GDP amount.

Okay well then we can do it analytically.

This is a geometric series, ie it has the form a _n = a r ^n-1

a = 1.83 trillion = 1.83e12
r = 1.025

We seek the sum of the first 50 terms

The formula for the sum of the first n terms of a geometric series is

S _n = a (1 − r ⁿ ) /(1−r)

subbing in:

S ₅₀ = 1.83e12 (1 − 1.025 ⁵⁰ ) /(1 − 1.025) = 1.78e14 = 178 trillion

So you can’t just do:

1.83 * 1.025 = 1.87575
1.87575 * 1.025 = 1.92264375
1.92264375 * 1.025 = etc

and continue with that for another 48 times?

Just did that and got 178.4 billion :)

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/55383347592/permalink/10156950628762593/

should link to the post

What a load of bollocks and largely contributed by someone with no more idea of environmental matters than a frog at the bottom of a very deep well. Just as well i don’t post over there.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/55383347592/permalink/10156950628762593/

should link to the post

What a load of bollocks and largely contributed by someone with no more idea of environmental matters than a frog at the bottom of a very deep well. Just as well i don’t post over there.

as if i would let you in.

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Okay well then we can do it analytically.

This is a geometric series, ie it has the form a _n = a r ^n-1

a = 1.83 trillion = 1.83e12
r = 1.025

We seek the sum of the first 50 terms

The formula for the sum of the first n terms of a geometric series is

S _n = a (1 − r ⁿ ) /(1−r)

subbing in:

S ₅₀ = 1.83e12 (1 − 1.025 ⁵⁰ ) /(1 − 1.025) = 1.78e14 = 178 trillion

So you can’t just do:

1.83 * 1.025 = 1.87575
1.87575 * 1.025 = 1.92264375
1.92264375 * 1.025 = etc

and continue with that for another 48 times?

Sure, and add up all fifty values. You’ll get the same answer but that way is longer.

I’m really lost. No matter.

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/55383347592/permalink/10156950628762593/

should link to the post

What a load of bollocks and largely contributed by someone with no more idea of environmental matters than a frog at the bottom of a very deep well. Just as well i don’t post over there.

as if i would let you in.

Would not want to, although the group has the odd interesting and informative thread, when dominated by such an ignorant twit you are bound to get a great deal of irresponsible rubbish. If you want to be influenced by it, that is your misfortune and problem.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

What a load of bollocks and largely contributed by someone with no more idea of environmental matters than a frog at the bottom of a very deep well. Just as well i don’t post over there.

as if i would let you in.

Would not want to, although the group has the odd interesting and informative thread, when dominated by such an ignorant twit you are bound to get a great deal of irresponsible rubbish. If you want to be influenced by it, that is your misfortune and problem.

Besides all the environmental crap, he fails to mention global warming and the influence it will have over the production of food. He ought to be ashamed of himself as he is little better than the Observer. Still carry on you ignorant prick, as it is not you, but your children who are going to suffer for your stupidity.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

So you can’t just do:

1.83 * 1.025 = 1.87575
1.87575 * 1.025 = 1.92264375
1.92264375 * 1.025 = etc

and continue with that for another 48 times?

Sure, and add up all fifty values. You’ll get the same answer but that way is longer.

I’m really lost. No matter.

Witty, put 1.83 in a cell.

In the cell below then put “=Cell*1.025”

Copy that down until you have 50 cells. Cell 50 should contain ’6.136497”

Then just do a sum of the 50 cells.

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Sure, and add up all fifty values. You’ll get the same answer but that way is longer.

I’m really lost. No matter.

Witty, put 1.83 in a cell.

In the cell below then put “=Cell*1.025”

Copy that down until you have 50 cells. Cell 50 should contain ’6.136497”

Then just do a sum of the 50 cells.

Why do we sum the cells though? Are we using the entire GDP for the 50 years and not the particular GDP of the 50th year?

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I’m really lost. No matter.

Witty, put 1.83 in a cell.

In the cell below then put “=Cell*1.025”

Copy that down until you have 50 cells. Cell 50 should contain ’6.136497”

Then just do a sum of the 50 cells.

Why do we sum the cells though? Are we using the entire GDP for the 50 years and not the particular GDP of the 50th year?

The former

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I’m really lost. No matter.

Witty, put 1.83 in a cell.

In the cell below then put “=Cell*1.025”

Copy that down until you have 50 cells. Cell 50 should contain ’6.136497”

Then just do a sum of the 50 cells.

Why do we sum the cells though? Are we using the entire GDP for the 50 years and not the particular GDP of the 50th year?

As we are going to be doing the build of the desal plants over 50 years we take taxation fro, every year, so the total tax base is the 178 billion.

As I said in the FB thread:

“Certain aspects would change: efficiencies would continue to improve, recycling of some metals would become more important, agriculture would need to change to a sustainable footing with regard to artificial fertilisers, renewable energy would continue to tick up, I’d expect electric cars to become the norm. … . It’s not going to be 10 billion next week. It’s a gradual change of resource utilisation that is accompanied by an increase in living standard such that no one is discommoded.”

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

Witty, put 1.83 in a cell.

In the cell below then put “=Cell*1.025”

Copy that down until you have 50 cells. Cell 50 should contain ’6.136497”

Then just do a sum of the 50 cells.

Why do we sum the cells though? Are we using the entire GDP for the 50 years and not the particular GDP of the 50th year?

The former

Okay. This is what I was missing.

dv said:

As I said in the FB thread:

“Certain aspects would change: efficiencies would continue to improve, recycling of some metals would become more important, agriculture would need to change to a sustainable footing with regard to artificial fertilisers, renewable energy would continue to tick up, I’d expect electric cars to become the norm. … . It’s not going to be 10 billion next week. It’s a gradual change of resource utilisation that is accompanied by an increase in living standard such that no one is discommoded.”

That’s nice, so we don’t have a problem then and can carry on as usual! What planet have you been living on dv, certainly not this one? And as usual you take absolutely no notice of what anyone’s says regardless of their background, quantifications or experience. And why, because you think you know best!

PermeateFree said:

That’s nice

Thanks!!

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

That’s nice

Thanks!!

Ignorant Prick. Told your wife and children of your views yet?

On the old forum I remember a long thread on a north/south pipeline for WA.
I cant remember if it stacked up or not.

Peak Warming Man said:

On the old forum I remember a long thread on a north/south pipeline for WA.
I cant remember if it stacked up or not.

ernie bridge. i think desal would be cheaper. when this was mooted you got the impression from people commenting on it that you could take water from the pipeline all along the route from the Kimberley.

Peak Warming Man said:

On the old forum I remember a long thread on a north/south pipeline for WA.
I cant remember if it stacked up or not.

It did not. There was a study commissioned that looked into all sorts of things, including towing big bags of freshwater down by sea. It found that desal was the cheapest of the options studied – with Perth and the South-West having run out of cheap options like building new dams or using groundwater – these two resources have pretty much been used up.

Peak Warming Man said:

On the old forum I remember a long thread on a north/south pipeline for WA.
I cant remember if it stacked up or not.

Yeah it was a serious proposal. More like a canal with pumps.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberley%E2%80%93Perth_Canal?wprov=sfla1

Not a crrrrazy idea but perhaps just not as cheap as other options. Plus then you’ve got a dry Kimberley.

It’s great that like minded environmentalists can get together on here or the K2 FB page to chew the fat and crunch the numbers, it builds a real sense of community among us, the more the merrier etc.

dv said:

It’s great that like minded environmentalists can get together on here or the K2 FB page to chew the fat and crunch the numbers, it builds a real sense of community among us, the more the merrier etc.

I agree. luckily I am an admin over there and can keep the riff raff in check.

dv said:

It’s great that like minded environmentalists can get together on here or the K2 FB page to chew the fat and crunch the numbers, it builds a real sense of community among us, the more the merrier etc.

As long as you don’t include yourself as an environmentalist, although no doubt you do, because you know everything.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

It’s great that like minded environmentalists can get together on here or the K2 FB page to chew the fat and crunch the numbers, it builds a real sense of community among us, the more the merrier etc.

I agree. luckily I am an admin over there and can keep the riff raff in check.

Now we just need to work on Magenta.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

It’s great that like minded environmentalists can get together on here or the K2 FB page to chew the fat and crunch the numbers, it builds a real sense of community among us, the more the merrier etc.

I agree. luckily I am an admin over there and can keep the riff raff in check.

I’m filling out an application in hte next day or so. I just have to word up my references in case they get a call.

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

It’s great that like minded environmentalists can get together on here or the K2 FB page to chew the fat and crunch the numbers, it builds a real sense of community among us, the more the merrier etc.

I agree. luckily I am an admin over there and can keep the riff raff in check.

I’m filling out an application in hte next day or so. I just have to word up my references in case they get a call.

you’ll be a shoe-in. tell the others you know me.

ChrispenEvan said:

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I agree. luckily I am an admin over there and can keep the riff raff in check.

I’m filling out an application in hte next day or so. I just have to word up my references in case they get a call.

you’ll be a shoe-in. tell the others you know me.

you’re one of DO’s minions aren’t you? He’s an admin too.

ChrispenEvan said:

ChrispenEvan said:

sibeen said:

I’m filling out an application in hte next day or so. I just have to word up my references in case they get a call.

you’ll be a shoe-in. tell the others you know me.

you’re one of DO’s minions aren’t you? He’s an admin too.

Bugger. I think he still owes me beer. He’ll keep me out just to spite me. Mark my words.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

It’s great that like minded environmentalists can get together on here or the K2 FB page to chew the fat and crunch the numbers, it builds a real sense of community among us, the more the merrier etc.

I agree. luckily I am an admin over there and can keep the riff raff in check.

Although you like to think you are a model fairness and equality, but you are not really. You grant favours to your friends and treat those you don’t like harshly. You have an inferiority complex Boris and are easily influenced by those you hold in high regard.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

It’s great that like minded environmentalists can get together on here or the K2 FB page to chew the fat and crunch the numbers, it builds a real sense of community among us, the more the merrier etc.

I agree. luckily I am an admin over there and can keep the riff raff in check.

Although you like to think you are a model fairness and equality, but you are not really. You grant favours to your friends and treat those you don’t like harshly. You have an inferiority complex Boris and are easily influenced by those you hold in high regard.

yes dear. whatever.

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I agree. luckily I am an admin over there and can keep the riff raff in check.

Although you like to think you are a model fairness and equality, but you are not really. You grant favours to your friends and treat those you don’t like harshly. You have an inferiority complex Boris and are easily influenced by those you hold in high regard.

yes dear. whatever.

Shrugs….your problem.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

It’s great that like minded environmentalists can get together on here or the K2 FB page to chew the fat and crunch the numbers, it builds a real sense of community among us, the more the merrier etc.

I agree. luckily I am an admin over there and can keep the riff raff in check.

Although you like to think you are a model fairness and equality, but you are not really. You grant favours to your friends and treat those you don’t like harshly. You have an inferiority complex Boris and are easily influenced by those you hold in high regard.

I try to keep my influence over him muted, but sometimes…

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

Although you like to think you are a model fairness and equality, but you are not really. You grant favours to your friends and treat those you don’t like harshly. You have an inferiority complex Boris and are easily influenced by those you hold in high regard.

yes dear. whatever.

Shrugs….your problem.

appears it is more a problem for you.

I think our cane toad mentality of continual expansion, continual growth and over population is where many of our future problems lie.
WWIII might sort a lot of that out or a pandemic of Zarkovian proportions.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I agree. luckily I am an admin over there and can keep the riff raff in check.

Although you like to think you are a model fairness and equality, but you are not really. You grant favours to your friends and treat those you don’t like harshly. You have an inferiority complex Boris and are easily influenced by those you hold in high regard.

I try to keep my influence over him muted, but sometimes…

Interesting isn’t it. Criticise dv, then Boris and sibeen are quickly there to rescue him. Tell you what, he definitely needs you to help to carry his ego around.

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

yes dear. whatever.

Shrugs….your problem.

appears it is more a problem for you.

Jesus to need you, I would really be in a bad place.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Although you like to think you are a model fairness and equality, but you are not really. You grant favours to your friends and treat those you don’t like harshly. You have an inferiority complex Boris and are easily influenced by those you hold in high regard.

I try to keep my influence over him muted, but sometimes…

Interesting isn’t it. Criticise dv, then Boris and sibeen are quickly there to rescue him. Tell you what, he definitely needs you to help to carry his ego around.

don’t you think the way you troll people here is a little childish? I mean you claim to be so smart yet you engage in this sort of trivial behaviour.

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

I try to keep my influence over him muted, but sometimes…

Interesting isn’t it. Criticise dv, then Boris and sibeen are quickly there to rescue him. Tell you what, he definitely needs you to help to carry his ego around.

don’t you think the way you troll people here is a little childish? I mean you claim to be so smart yet you engage in this sort of trivial behaviour.

Sorry, but I thought I was conversing with dv, when you and sibeen barge in to troll me. Just look in the mirror now and again.

Largely due to Trump’s trade wars with China, Europe, Mexico and Canada, the US trade deficit rose to its worst level since the George W Bush administration, rising to 621 billion USD for 2018.
Reducing the trade deficit was one of Trump’s signature promises on the 2016 campaign trail.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-06/u-s-trade-gap-surged-to-621-billion-in-2018-highest-in-decade

dv said:

“Have you taken into account the capital costs of building new desal plants when the current ones reach full capacity?”

?

That’s the exact thing I’ve costed.

Thank you.

forget desal, just recycle water

wookiemeister said:

forget desal, just recycle water

No.I refuse.