SALT FREE Amid Water Shortage, Australia Looks to the Sea By PATRICK BARTA
PERTH, Australia -- As global water shortages loom, this remote city on Australia's parched western coast is giving desalination – the arduous process of removing salt from sea water -- new clout.
Opened in late 2006, Perth's $360 million desalination plant sucks in roughly 50,000 gallons of the Indian Ocean every minute. It then runs that water through special filters that separate out the salt, yielding some 25,000 gallons of drinkable water -- enough to meet nearly a fifth of Perth's current demand.
For decades, critics dismissed desalination as a costly boondoggle that burns colossal amounts of energy, including dirty
fuels like coal. Technologically complex, it's also far more expensive than tapping other water sources. The few major
desalination plants that did make it to fruition went up mainly in the Middle East, which had energy -- and money -- to
burn.
Perth's facility squarely tackles both environmental and financial concerns. It gets around the issue of noxious emissions by
harnessing power from a wind farm. By relying primarily on renewable energy -- a recent trend in desalination -- the plant
releases fewer dangerous greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Upgraded systems remove salt more efficiently than past
processes, making operating costs less daunting.
Despite higher water bills for consumers, officials here deem the project so successful that they plan to build a second,
$875 million desalination plant. Once online, it will allow Perth to source as much as a third of its water from the ocean
and significantly cut its dependence on rain-fed reserves.
Not long ago, "desalination was something you'd do only when you didn't have any other choice," says Jim Gill, chief executive of Water Corp., Perth's state-owned water supplier. Now, "there just aren't that many sources left."
Perth's plunge into desalination comes at a critical time, when water is emerging as the world's next major natural-resources challenge. Water use, like oil, is surging as economic growth takes off in China, India and elsewhere. According to the International Water Management Institute in Sri Lanka, about a fifth of the world's population, or more than 1.2 billion people, already lives in areas with insufficient supply.
Due to changing rainfall patterns linked to climate change, many places -- including parts of Australia, the
American Southwest, India and Western Europe -- are getting as much as 10% less rain than they used to. There's
also a global push to expand agriculture, the world's biggest guzzler of water, to meet growing food and alternative
energy demand.
As many as 75 major desalination projects are in various stages of development world-wide, including a $300
million facility north of San Diego. Although large-scale desalination is still unpopular in the U.S., local officials
and private investors are pressing to build plants in other states such as Texas and Massachusetts.
Several Australian cities are adding massive desalination plants. The largest, near Melbourne, carries a price tag of
more than $2.5 billion. Similar facilities are envisioned in Spain and India. And London is planning a $400 million
plant along the River Thames.
Combined Impact
Environmentalists worry that the combined impact of these plants will be devastating, especially if they run on power generated by cheap coal. Big desalination plants can burn through enough electricity annually to power more than 35,000 homes a year. Last June, WWF, the international conservation organization, released a major report challenging the desalination boom. It cited a potentially "major misdirection of public attention, policy and funds."
Yet WWF staffers acknowledge there could be a place for some desalination plants -- so long as certain criteria are met.
First, however, they want cities to exhaust other options, such as water recycling. If plants are eventually called for, the WFF wants to see them built like the one in Perth. "Perth is going to be the model for desalination in the developed world," says Tom Pankratz, an industry consultant in Houston. Although other facilities might not employ the same renewable sources for power, most of the newer ones are trying to address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions, says Mr. Pankratz, including the latest plants in London and Sydney. "Everyone is thinking that's going to be the way of the future."
Surrounded by desert, this remote Western Australia city is booming as a center for mining iron ore and other valuable commodities. By some estimates, Perth is attracting as many as 750 families a week, and now has a population in excess of 1.3 million. But in recent years, water supplies have shrunk as rainfall levels declined -- possibly due to factors related to global warming. In the 1980s, annual inflows into reservoirs fell to less than 300 billion liters a year; by the late 1990s, the figure was down to fewer than 150 billion liters.
Leading the charge for desalination was Mr. Gill, 61 years old, a self-taught expert on climate change. A native Australian, he received a master's degree in public administration from Harvard and worked for many years at Western Australia's railway system before joining the Water Corp., the state-owned company, in the mid-1990s. His hobbies include trekking deep into the Australian Outback to see aboriginal rock paintings in their original setting.
He says he noticed the sharp drop-off in available water after studying historical charts at Water Corp. Then, in 2001, Perth had one of its worst droughts ever. Reservoirs were less than 25% full and officials worried the city would run out of water completely. Water Corp. executives ordered residents to restrict garden sprinkler use to two days a week. One scuttled idea involved towing, and melting down, an iceberg from Antarctica. Officials also mulled the case for desalination. Mr. Gill's
engineers had studied it before as part of a long-term planning process, and had concluded the method was viable. But they
didn't think it would be needed until 2020 at the earliest.
At first analysis, the cost seemed "horrifying," Mr. Gill recalls. According to David Lloyd Owen, a water expert at United
Kingdom-based consulting firm Envisager, even the cheapest desalinated water can cost eight times more than traditional groundwater sources, which can be tapped for as little as five cents per cubic meter. Mr. Gill changed his mind after desalination experts in Germany and elsewhere acquainted him with the latest technological improvements. He also saw that other water sources were becoming more expensive to exploit -- making desalination look more attractive. Most modern facilities use a process known as reverse osmosis. This involves pushing water under high pressure through porous membranes that filter out the salt. Energy is needed to raise the pressure and then force the water through the membranes.
In recent years, engineers have developed better membranes that capture salt more effectively than before, and they've improved "pre-treatment" methods to remove large particles from water before it goes through the process. Newer facilities also use "energy recovery devices" that allow them to recycle as much as 90% of the energy that's expended.
Working to Convert
By 2003, Mr. Gill was working to convert a dubious public. Homeowners fretted over potentially higher water bills, which stood to rise by as much as 12%. Environmentalists warned that saline discharge would turn a nearby bay into a giant salt lake.
Perth's newspapers blasted the project in editorials and cartoons. Critics insisted the idea didn't address Perth's long-term water
problems, which they say require more efforts to promote conservation. Desalination "is exactly like taking an aspirin for a tumor," says Jorg Imberger, director of the Centre for Water Research at the University of Western Australia in Perth. He believes people are simply using too much water. While the Perth plant was under consideration, he says, he phoned the state premier directly to voice his complaints.
Mr. Gill, meanwhile, responded to naysayers by warning that Water Corp. might impose a total sprinkler ban if water supplies didn't improve. To counter environmental opposition, his team considered planting thousands of trees to offset greenhouse gas emissions. But the real breakthrough came with a plan to use renewable power from a $165 million wind farm. The project's developers, which include private investors and a government-owned power company, had wanted to build the facility for years, but needed a big customer.
Making sure the desalination plant didn't burn fossil fuels was necessary to "defuse one of the key arguments against" it, Mr. Gill says. The eco-friendly design "also suited our values." Mr. Gill cultivated unusual allies, including members of Perth's gardening industry. He also circulated charts and diagrams to the public showing the huge drop in water supply -- an effort that won over Geoff Gallop, then the state premier. Government officials approved the plant in late 2004.
"I wanted to make sure we had water security," says Mr. Gallop, now a professor at the University of Sydney. The plant was up and running by late 2006. Situated in a bland industrial park 45 minutes south of the city, it includes a first-stage facility that removes silt and other impurities from water that's piped in from the adjacent, azure-blue sea. The water is then moved into a giant building the length of a football field where it is pressurized and sent through membranes in high-tech vessels.
The resulting water is treated with chlorine to meet health standards and piped into a reservoir that feeds into the local water supply. Leftover salt is flushed back into the ocean, where it disperses. The facility even includes a tap where visitors can take a quick slurp. "Tastes better with whiskey," says project manager John Stansfield. When the process is finished, the water has a salt-free taste.
The Facility's Value
Some Perth residents still question the facility's value. Advocates for the poor say that lower-income citizens, including many Aboriginals, can't afford to pay more for water. "Why are we building desalination plants to help wealthy people have gardens?" asks Irina Cattalini, director of social policy at the Western Australian Council of Social Service, an advocacy group.
Other desalination foes worry that Perth's success may be inspiring other cities to follow suit, but with lesser regard for any environmental toll. At the Garden Affair, a small garden center in one of Perth's wealthier neighborhoods, some patrons indicated they have no intention of cutting back their water use -- even if the additional supply comes at a higher price.
"In the long run, we have to have the water, don't we?" said Lorraine Cook, a 65-year-old retiree who was shopping there one recent afternoon. "I'd rather have a garden that uses more water" than have to give up azaleas, roses and other such plants, said Joanna Gage, a 45-year-old compliance manager at a financial-services company. Even some of the country's biggest critics of desalination have warmed up to the Perth facility -- including, to a degree, Mr. Imberger of the University of Western Australia. Desalination "gives you security," he acknowledges. And he's pleased about the use of renewable energy. Mr. Gill and others agree that desalination isn't perfect. "The price of water will probably go up over time, but it's scarce -- I think people realize that," says Mr. Gallop, the former state premier. "We're in a new world now."
Write to Patrick Barta at atrick.barta@wsj.com
The Hard Economics of Going Green Source: Harvard Business Review
On January 9, 2008, the London stock market reacted strongly to a 12-week Marks & Spencer trading statement: Same-store sales, excluding new space, were down by 2.2% compared with the previous year. Our share price fell 18%, taking £1.6 billion off the value of our business.
In light of increased business uncertainty and fragile consumer confidence, it might have been tempting to quietly shelve Plan A, our 100-point, five-year eco-plan. We could have heeded critics who said, "Times are tough, best ditch the fluffy stuff." But we didn't.
We started Plan A last year, to make M&S carbon neutral and send no waste to landfill from our operations by 2012. The plan extends to sustainable raw materials sourcing, sets new standards in ethical trading, and helps customers and colleagues lead healthier lives.
Despite the tough consumer climate and the reaction to our sales results, we are sticking to Plan A. There are compelling commercial--as well as moral--reasons to do so. Take the early results it's generating. Our "Wash at 30" campaign, which encourages consumers to wash their clothing at a lower temperature than used to be considered the norm, has saved an estimated 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide.
We have reduced C02 emissions by an additional 55,000 tons by switching 23% of electricity to renewable resources. Toward our goal of zero waste to landfill, 75% of the construction waste from our store refurbishment program is now recycled. While we've estimated Plan A could cost around £200 million over five years, we haven't actually done a hard cost-benefit analysis. What we know is that individual decisions within Plan A need to make financial sense. For example, various initiatives--recycling clothes hangers, reducing packaging, and encouraging reusable carrier bags instead of plastic--are saving us millions of pounds, reducing landfill waste, and decreasing electricity consumption.
Progress against Plan A is closely monitored because we regularly consult with a wide range of NGOs. The plan has also gained NGO recognition and was recently awarded the World Environment Center gold medal for sustainable business practices. We have a series of key public reporting dates with NGOs so that we can take their recommendations and ask for help. We have also deliberately tied Plan A reporting to our financial reporting schedule so that our stakeholders know when to expect to hear from us, and we expect to be held accountable to our commitments.
Cutting back would also be a commercial mistake. A 2007 M&S customer survey said that 75% of British consumers are interested in green issues. Last November, in a survey which scored M&S with the best reputation in British business, the Confederation of British Industry concluded that customers will pay a premium for a great reputation, and that, as far as M&S is concerned, Plan A is already contributing positively to our wider standing.
We've also taken some tough decisions not to do certain things. We decided not to put wind turbines on the roof of our first eco-store, a store designed entirely around green principles, because they wouldn't have been capable of generating sufficient power in that location and it would have been too expensive to build and maintain them. Symbolic perhaps, but not economic.
So, responsible business is good business, provided we don't get too far ahead of our customers. I think half a step is about right: Any more and you can't sell to them; any less and you lose the lead.
by Sir Stuart Rose
You Are Only As Green As Your Supply Chain
The importance of a multi pronged approach becomes apparent when examining the wider implications of greening ones business Source: Harvard Business Review
Years ago Herman Miller decided to become an advocate for the environment, both because we believed it was the right thing to do and because we saw the potential for a clear business benefit. Ever since, we've been refining our processes to put our aspirations into practice.
Our Perfect Vision campaign, launched in 2003, includes green goals such as no landfill waste, no hazardous waste, no air or water emissions from manufacturing, and the use of 100% green energy, all by the year 2020. These are stringent targets our company cannot reach without engaging over 200 materials and components suppliers in the ongoing task of greening our global supply chain.
As we've examined every aspect of our worldwide supply chain, we've learned one key lesson: A business, and the products it sells, can only be environmentally sustainable through a holistic approach to design, raw materials, production methods, packaging, shipping, recycling, and even marketing--across the entire value chain. It's far too large and complex a undertaking for any organization to go it alone and be truly effective. You know the saying, "It takes a village to raise a child." Well, it takes an entire supply chain to green a company.
Here are three things we recommend to companies working with their suppliers on the long-term goal of going green.
1. Design your products with sustainability as a core principal. At Herman Miller, we have a problem-solving, design-driven culture, so we spend a lot of time thinking about how to create our products. 2001, when we were creating our Mirra chair, we had been working with architect Bill McDonough and chemist Michael Braungart, both leading-edge environmentalist thinkers, toward their vision of a "cradle-to-cradle" design that embraces sustainable materials in a closed-loop life cycle. As a result, we eliminated the use of a chemical called polyvinyl chloride in that chair. Now, PVC has advantages, including the fact that it is inexpensive and durable. However, PVC releases toxins during manufacturing and when it is burned. We decided not to use it and implemented that decision with the help of our suppliers. We embedded those cradle-to-cradle principals in our product development process for all new designs, beginning with Mirra.
2. Refine your goals and put them to paper. We aim to be fully sustainable by 2020, but we're holding ourselves accountable to interim goals along the way. For example, by 2010, 50% of our sales will come from products that conform to our own rigorous Design for the Environment standards, and we aim to reduce our environmental footprint by 80%.
Achieving these goals requires paying attention not only to materials, including their chemical ingredients, but also to our sources of energy, to our manufacturing processes, and to our packaging. We don't want to reduce our impact in one area while ignoring it in another. Nor do we want to move our environmental impact upstream into our supply chain.
3. Embrace transparency and meaningful metrics. Our company, our customers, and our industry in general are moving inexorably toward more transparent reporting when it comes to the environment. And, like any other management issue, what gets measured gets managed. When it comes to our supply chain, several measures apply. We award points through our Supplier Quantification Process for formal environmental programs and active waste-reduction programs. We rate our suppliers according to how effectively they are working to help us reach our goals--from researching alternative materials to incorporating our measurable targets into their flow charts. And this is the crux of the issue: We're not only looking at our suppliers, but at our suppliers' suppliers.
We have 12 years and a long way to go before reaching our self-imposed deadline for our Perfect Vision mission. By looking--and forcing change--outside our company as well as inside, we believe we can achieve this goal. By following the three steps above, we believe other companies can reach their green goals as well.
London plans to punish gas-guzzling vehicles
London Mayor Ken Livingstone on Tuesday announced a stinging new charge on driving gas-guzzling vehicles into the centre of the capital, in a bid to cut pollution. by Robin Millard Tue Feb 12, 12:31 PM ET
London Mayor Ken Livingstone on Tuesday announced a stinging new charge on driving gas-guzzling vehicles into the centre of the capital, in a bid to cut pollution.
People with the most polluting cars, such as sports utility vehicles and high-powered performance cars, will pay a daily charge of 25 pounds to drive into central London.
Most drivers will continue paying the regular eight-pound charge, a measure introduced by Livingstone five years ago in a move to cut traffic congestion that has been watched closely by other major cities including New York.
However, those with the lowest carbon dioxide-emitting vehicles will become exempt under the new plan, Livingstone told reporters.
It is the latest radical scheme targeting London's traffic pollution and congestion problems.
The mayor will introduce the charge on October 27, providing he gets re-elected in May for a third four-year term.
"I believe this ground-breaking initiative will have an impact throughout the world with other cities following suit as they step up their efforts to halt the slide towards catastrophic climate change," he said.
"I think the scheme will start a cultural revolution whereby drivers in every city in Britain start to think about the impact on the environment of their choice of car and how they plan their journeys."
Livingstone hopes the initiative will raise 30 to 50 million pounds per year, which will largely be invested in cycling schemes.
The mayor has long demonised off-road vehicles, dubbing them "Chelsea tractors" after the plush west London district where they are a popular status symbol.
He professed every sympathy with Scottish hillfarmers who needed them but said it was ludicrous to plough one through London's city streets.
Of the cars currently driving in the congestion charge zone, 17 percent would be liable for the 25-pound charge, while two percent would not have to pay anything, Livingstone said.
He called it was the world's most ambitious scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from urban traffic.
"The carbon dioxide charge will encourage people to switch to cleaner vehicles and ensure that those who choose to carry on driving the most polluting vehicles help pay for the environmental damage they cause," he said.
Vehicles emitting up to 120 grammes of carbon dioxide per kilometre will be exempt from the congestion charge.
Vehicles emitting more than 225 grammes of carbon dioxide per kilometre, as well as those registered before March 2001 with engines larger than 3,000cc, will pay 25 pounds per day.
The standard eight-pound charge applies to all other vehicles.
"Nobody in their right mind drives into central London unless they really have to," Livingstone added.
Environmentalists welcomed the move, while businesses groups feared congestion could increase if low emissions car drivers flock back to the capital.
Livingstone introduced the congestion charge in February 2003. London is the biggest conurbation in the world to charge such a toll and city chiefs from around the globe have considered copying the idea.
The US embassy is unhappy about the congestion charge, in force from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday to Friday.
Diplomats, citing tax exemptions, refuse to pay it and have racked up more than one million pounds in unpaid bills.
Earlier this month, London introduced Britain's first low emission zone in a bid to cut air pollution, whereby drivers of high-polluting trucks must pay 200 pounds a day to enter the metropolis.
Manchester, Britain's third city, plans to introduce road pricing by 2012, although Edinburgh residents voted overwhelmingly against a scheme in 2005.
Abu Dhabi ECO-CITY
The proposed $22 billion Masdar City in Abu Dhabi, the world's first zero-carbon, zero-waste, car-free city, will rely mainly on outside funding and use less than one-third of the Abu Dhabi Government's $15-billion dedicated fund to the initiative.
Masdar City is an ambitious alternative energy project to develop environmentally-friendly future sources of energy.
"We are looking at an array of financing vehicles for the Masdar City," Masdar's chief executive Dr Sultan Al Jaber told a news conference late on Saturday, shortly after the cornerstone for the zero-carbon city was laid by General Shaikh Mohammad Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces.
"Large financial institutions and banks have approached us to build the Silicon Valley of renewables in Abu Dhabi," Al Jaber said. He, however, declined to name the banks and the financial institutions, saying any announcement regarding the funding of the Masdar City will be made at a later date.
Al Jaber said Masdar City will promote leadership in eight sectors, namely: Advanced energy, sustainable transportation, water and waste management,
energy efficiency, green construction and materials, biodiversity, climate change and sustainability finance.
"Each of these sectors will have innovation hubs, creating new technologies and solutions, as well as a commercialisation unit for the rapid deployment of these solutions. Residential and commercial spaces will be blended together with supporting infrastructure, creating a truly unique, vibrant and productive community," Al Jaber said.
Maximum benefits
Masdar will maximise the benefits of sustainable technologies, such as photovoltaic cells and concentrated solar power. By implementing these technologies, Masdar City will save the equivalent of more than $2 billion in oil over the next 25 years, based on today's energy prices.
The city will also create more than 70,000 jobs and will add more than two per cent to Abu Dhabi's annual GDP.
A senior Masdar executive told Gulf News that the bulk of the $15 billion Abu Dhabi fund for Masdar initiative will go towards manufacturing, project development, building solar and thermal plants, carbon capturing storages and hydrogen power plants.
The 6.5-square kilometre Masdar City, located close to the Abu Dhabi international airport, upon completion in 2016, will house 1,500 businesses and 50,000 residents.
The first step in the city's seven-phase plan is the development of the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology (Mist), the world's first graduate school dedicated to renewable energy. Developed in collaboration with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the school is scheduled to open in 2009.
