ValueBuddies.com : Value Investing Forum - Singapore, Hong Kong, U.S.

(18-02-2013, 10:35 AM)Stockerman Wrote: [ -> ]Our NEWater is mainly for non-domestic use and cannot be drank directly!!!

Is this a statement of fact or your opinion?

(18-02-2013, 10:35 AM)Stockerman Wrote: [ -> ]Our NEWater is mainly for non-domestic use and cannot be drank directly!!!

All it takes is a simple search:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEWater

From the website:
"The water is potable and is consumed by humans, but is mostly used for industry requiring high purity water."

(18-02-2013, 12:37 PM)Musicwhiz Wrote: [ -> ]

(18-02-2013, 10:35 AM)Stockerman Wrote: [ -> ]Our NEWater is mainly for non-domestic use and cannot be drank directly!!!

All it takes is a simple search:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEWater

From the website:
"The water is potable and is consumed by humans, but is mostly used for industry requiring high purity water."

Johor rivers are not much cleaner anyway and we have no ways to control what are being disposed into the rivers.

Newater is recycling but requires "source" that source is from malaysia we have no source of our own. Without source there will be no newater so even though Johore water is not clean it is still our source.

When we announced our newater system back then originally we resolved our water security and vulnerabilities. We even won respect from Malaysian press a few years ago when Malaysia was hit with a drought they even publish an article praising how we managed our water resources compared to them and that Singaporeans through their determination have managed to overcome their water shortages and vulnerabilities. I felt very proud after reading that.

But now with 6.9m even with newater with desalination with recycling I think we going back to being vulnerable all over again.

(18-02-2013, 01:48 PM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]Newater is recycling but requires "source" that source is from malaysia we have no source of our own. Without source there will be no newater so even though Johore water is not clean it is still our source.

When we announced our newater system back then originally we resolved our water security and vulnerabilities. We even won respect from Malaysian press a few years ago when Malaysia was hit with a drought they even publish an article praising how we managed our water resources compared to them and that Singaporeans through their determination have managed to overcome their water shortages and vulnerabilities. I felt very proud after reading that.

But now with 6.9m even with newater with desalination with recycling I think we going back to being vulnerable all over again.

It depends on what is the % of recycling. In the ideal case of 100% recycling, there is no requirement for any further source of water since all the used water are being recycled.
But, practically, it is not possible to achieve 100% recycling.
So, if Singapore can approach a high % of recycling (50% and above??), the required water source will not increase in the same rate.
The beauty of recycling is that it will scale with usage. The more you use, the more waste water you can recycle. Unlike the traditional river water source which will get depleted when they are overdrawn.
As for desalination plants, since earth is covered with 70% seawater, I assume the source is infinite.

The only question mark now is the energy usage. All these can only be done if energy is available cheaply.
Assuming that US starts to export hydraulic fracturing, the energy cost should remain stable or even lower.

(18-02-2013, 02:09 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]It depends on what is the % of recycling. In the ideal case of 100% recycling, there is no requirement for any further source of water since all the used water are being recycled.
But, practically, it is not possible to achieve 100% recycling.
So, if Singapore can approach a high % of recycling (50% and above??), the required water source will not increase in the same rate.
The beauty of recycling is that it will scale with usage. The more you use, the more waste water you can recycle. Unlike the traditional river water source which will get depleted when they are overdrawn.
As for desalination plants, since earth is covered with 70% seawater, I assume the source is infinite.

The only question mark now is the energy usage. All these can only be done if energy is available cheaply. Assuming that US starts to export hydraulic fracturing, the energy cost should remain stable or even lower.

Typically to treat raw water chemically is easier than that to desalinate it. Treating raw water using chemicals like bleach to kill bacteria and parasites like guardia and ecoli. Desalinating require electrical power.

Using google, is estimated 1 gallon of bleach cost around US$1, 1 pint bleach can purify around 1000 gallons of raw water There's around 8 pints in a gallon so 1 gallon of bleach can purify 8,000 gallons of water costs $1. Of course if you make it more platable to consume maybe costs a little more. Just to give an assessment of size 1 small swimming pool on a home property needs around 10,000 gallons to fill up. But to desalination 1000 US gallons it may cost around US$4, for 8000 gallons that's US$32 - 32x times the cost.

so eventually cost will be a factor. And with 6.9m that's going to double this cost whichever way we choose to get our water but this also means doubling the "source" more for us means less for them assuming Malaysians do not mind this and does not piss them off too much.

And even if 100% recycling there will still be loss either via evaporation or pemeable water seeping through the soil in the ground.

(18-02-2013, 03:14 PM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]

(18-02-2013, 02:09 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]It depends on what is the % of recycling. In the ideal case of 100% recycling, there is no requirement for any further source of water since all the used water are being recycled.
But, practically, it is not possible to achieve 100% recycling.
So, if Singapore can approach a high % of recycling (50% and above??), the required water source will not increase in the same rate.
The beauty of recycling is that it will scale with usage. The more you use, the more waste water you can recycle. Unlike the traditional river water source which will get depleted when they are overdrawn.
As for desalination plants, since earth is covered with 70% seawater, I assume the source is infinite.

The only question mark now is the energy usage. All these can only be done if energy is available cheaply. Assuming that US starts to export hydraulic fracturing, the energy cost should remain stable or even lower.

Typically to treat raw water chemically is easier than that to desalinate it. Treating raw water using chemicals like bleach to kill bacteria and parasites like guardia and ecoli. Desalinating require electrical power.

Using google, is estimated 1 gallon of bleach cost around US$1, 1 pint bleach can purify around 1000 gallons of raw water There's around 8 pints in a gallon so 1 gallon of bleach can purify 8,000 gallons of water costs $1. Of course if you make it more platable to consume maybe costs a little more. Just to give an assessment of size 1 small swimming pool on a home property needs around 10,000 gallons to fill up. But to desalination 1000 US gallons it may cost around US$4, for 8000 gallons that's US$32 - 32x times the cost.

so eventually cost will be a factor. And with 6.9m that's going to double this cost whichever way we choose to get our water but this also means doubling the "source" more for us means less for them assuming Malaysians do not mind this and does not piss them off too much.

And even if 100% recycling there will still be loss either via evaporation or pemeable water seeping through the soil in the ground.

Water security is important. We have dammed most of our major rivers to increase the size of our catchment area, recycled water through NEWater and mixing it with freshwater, import freshwater (expire in 2061), and opened desalination plants. As long as we do not consume water needlessly (control the demand pattern), gone will be the days when people threaten to cut your water supply.

^^ Totally agree. It is better to treat sh*t water and consume rather than always having a sword of damocles hanging on top of our heads. Being held hostage and stuck is not a good option for the long term. That's why the settlement of the tanjong pagar railway is a great outcome that was supposed to be tied to water negotiations under Dr "Mickey" ie if we didn't solve the water demand issue and increase our bargaining power, Tanjong Pagar would not have be resolved so easily (albeit likely more easily when not under Dr Mickey)

(18-02-2013, 04:17 PM)Caelitus Wrote: [ -> ]

(18-02-2013, 03:14 PM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]

(18-02-2013, 02:09 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]It depends on what is the % of recycling. In the ideal case of 100% recycling, there is no requirement for any further source of water since all the used water are being recycled.
But, practically, it is not possible to achieve 100% recycling.
So, if Singapore can approach a high % of recycling (50% and above??), the required water source will not increase in the same rate.
The beauty of recycling is that it will scale with usage. The more you use, the more waste water you can recycle. Unlike the traditional river water source which will get depleted when they are overdrawn.
As for desalination plants, since earth is covered with 70% seawater, I assume the source is infinite.

The only question mark now is the energy usage. All these can only be done if energy is available cheaply. Assuming that US starts to export hydraulic fracturing, the energy cost should remain stable or even lower.

Typically to treat raw water chemically is easier than that to desalinate it. Treating raw water using chemicals like bleach to kill bacteria and parasites like guardia and ecoli. Desalinating require electrical power.

Using google, is estimated 1 gallon of bleach cost around US$1, 1 pint bleach can purify around 1000 gallons of raw water There's around 8 pints in a gallon so 1 gallon of bleach can purify 8,000 gallons of water costs $1. Of course if you make it more platable to consume maybe costs a little more. Just to give an assessment of size 1 small swimming pool on a home property needs around 10,000 gallons to fill up. But to desalination 1000 US gallons it may cost around US$4, for 8000 gallons that's US$32 - 32x times the cost.

so eventually cost will be a factor. And with 6.9m that's going to double this cost whichever way we choose to get our water but this also means doubling the "source" more for us means less for them assuming Malaysians do not mind this and does not piss them off too much.

And even if 100% recycling there will still be loss either via evaporation or pemeable water seeping through the soil in the ground.

Water security is important. We have dammed most of our major rivers to increase the size of our catchment area, recycled water through NEWater and mixing it with freshwater, import freshwater (expire in 2061), and opened desalination plants. As long as we do not consume water needlessly (control the demand pattern), gone will be the days when people threaten to cut your water supply.

If you don't increase the population size and it maintain as it is then as these systems come online progressively we will also progressively be more secure.

But 6.9 million means our needs will double and exceed what we can supply that means we are back to being vulnerable all over again.

So means down the road to supply this need we have to purchase much more raw water to treat than current with the malaysians which will mean we become hostage and need to play ah bang - ah deh nonsense all over again or we can build more desalination plants to treat sea water but prepare to pay heck of a lot more.

Are any of you willing to pay in the future maybe $100-$200 monthly just for your water?

can the desalination available technology filter off nuclear-tainted water in the sea? looking at them also wanting to start nuclear plant ...have they tot of such risk? did the white paper look into this aspect - water security?