Surely, even recycled water would be at a premium during a drought, and would need expensive treatment itself before it could be returned to the water supply?

If there was any doubt the engineers would surely have to go for the lowest risk option, which would surely be desalination?

There may be parallels with an application made for planning permission a year or so back for a desalination plant for London.

The Major of london has thrown the application out although it was approved by the local council.

The Mayor says desalination must not be used, but in my view he has not made due allowance for the cost, both in resources and energy, to provide alternative piped water from the wetter west of the UK, or local storage.

These would be huge, and out of all proportion when you realise that this desalination plant is for drought only. In other words it will only be used at the most for a month at a time, and many years not used at all.

So in terms of the energy footprint of the plant including the construction energy used, and calculated over its 20 year or so design life it is quite likely potentially actually less energy intensive to use the desalination option.

The important thing is the sustainability report and whole life energy assessment.

I presume that a whole life comparison of the energy use of the desalination plant compared with the recycling option, has been produced?

Regards

Charlie