FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
1. Why the DSPP project?
Aside from restoring the Dead Sea to its former condition,
Israel, Jordan and the PA need more water, much more water.
These water supply deficiencies are projected to increase
in the future, as water in existing aquifers is being depleted
by over-pumping. The water needs of the region (which includes
all of the Jordan Valley, interior Jordan, and the West Bank)
can easily justify the development of 3 billion cubic meters
annual water supply. It would be wise to develop the project
concept that gives the best hope for the future.
(see deadseapower.com for additional information)
2. Why not simply desalinate the Med water at coastal
locations and pump the desalinated water to the desired
locations (Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem)?
Israel can supply its water needs along the coast by
desalination along the Med (even under this approach,
for environmental reasons it would need to discharge
the concentrated toxic brine away from the coast).
There is a cost associated with transporting water
inland. DSPP would deliver needed sea water feedstock
to the area where it can be desalinated and distributed
at least cost. This is especially critical for Jordan,
because of the long distance from Aqaba to Amman.
3. Instead of desalinating water from the Med, why
not purchase water from Turkey and bring it to Israel in tankers or pipeline?
Aside from the political considerations of relying on
Turkey for a vital resource, the transportation costs
make this option more expensive than desalination.
4. DSPP proposes to provide 500 million cubic meters of
desalinated water annually to the lower Jordan River in
order to replace water that Israel and Jordan are removing
from this stretch of the river. The Dead Sea is about 1300
ft below sea level and the Sea of Galilee is about 700 ft
below sea level. Why not build a water tunnel from the
Mediterranean to a location south of the Kineret and perform
the desalination there? The desalinated water could be released
into the upper portion of the Jordan where it could fill the
Kineret and overflow into the Lower Jordan River, be stored in
miscellaneous reservoirs in the Jordan Valley, and eventually
reach the Dead Sea.
Desalination at the Kineret is not feasible [unless a zero
liquid discharge desalination process is utilized, but that
approach is very expensive] because it would require the
storage or other utilization of huge quantities of brine/minerals,
which could be dealt with more efficiently at the Dead Sea.
5. Large-scale desalination continues to be a costly and
problem-ridden process. Aside from the large amounts of
power that are required for any desalination, it produces
a large volume of concentrated brine. This brine must be
stored somewhere. Even if there were sufficient reservoirs
to allow the brine to evaporate, large amounts of salt would
accumulate that would have to be properly disposed of.
The mechanical vapor compression desalination plan we have
proposed is the most energy efficient desalination method.
This process can produce brine that is almost as salty as
the Dead Sea, so that this forms an increasing middle layer
(the Med water that is not desalinated would be the top layer),
a saline gradient between the more salty Dead Sea water and the
Med Sea water on top. Pumping for the mineral mining operations
of Dead Sea Works and Arab Potash Co. will continue to lower
the level of the Dead Sea water (about .3 meters/annum), and
help maintain the saline gradient layering.
6. Once the Dead Sea fills up to the designated level,
the amount of generated power would drop to relatively low
levels since there would be no place to “dump” additional
Med water.
Not really. Depending on (i) how much water passes the
generators to create power (and released into the Dead)
and (ii) when the desalination process begins
(and considering that about 1 billion cubic meters will
be evaporated annually from the Dead Sea and .3 billion
cubic meters is evaporated annually via the mining operations),
it will take many years before the Dead Sea is “filled”.
Moreover, we have proposed the development of additional
desalination using wind power and other non-polluting
sources such as solar panels.
7. What about the feasibility, location, and expense of
the reservoir lake which is a linchpin of DSPP?
Much detailed design must be done for the earthquake
resistant construction of the reservoir dam. However,
the expense is within the projected project cost.
8. How does the Med/Dead stack up against the Red/Dead?
DSPP, compared to the Red-Dead project, is one third as long,
has six times greater capacity, delivers water 100 kilometers
closer to the target water market (Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Jericho,
Amman, and upper Jordan valley) and will cost about the same as
the proposed Red-Dead project.
Our projected costs (in Euros) are 1 billion for the tunnel,
1 billion for the hydropower plant, and 1.5 billion for the
contingent infrastructures (reservoir dam, inlet channel,
filtration system, water carrier from reservoir to hydropower
plant, and miscellaneous). The projected income from power
sales to Israel and to Jordan are about 320 million Euros
annually. The project income should increase with expected
increases in energy prices.
Moreover, our project does not have the environmental
baggage that attaches to the Red-Dead project, including
impact on the Red Sea coral, danger of contamination of
fresh water aquifer along the route of the pipeline,
discoloration of Dead Sea water by precipitation of
gypsum, disturbance of archaeological sites, etc.
9. What about the environmental impact of the Med/Dead?
Our plan answers that concern by placing a deep layer of Med
Sea Water on top of the Dead Sea. This is the only plan with
sufficient flow capacity to fill the Dead Sea without wave
mixing of the Red or Med water with the Dead Sea water, so
ours is the only proposal that will enable desalination of
water from the surface of the Dead Sea (as well as at the
reservoir site). Our plan also restores the level of the
Dead Sea quickly so as to limit the damage from subsistence
and erosion that is quickly degrading the Dead Sea environment.
Environmental risks of boring the ten meter diameter tunnel
will be minimal, because the tunnel will be deep underground,
below sea level, the entire distance, and be lined and grouted
so as to prevent the inflow of water from the overlying aquifer.
10. How is DSPP different from the Med/Dead Project that was considered in the 1980’s?
Some major differences are as follows:
Larger capacity, ten meter diameter compared with 7 meter diameter tunnel
Gravity flow, compared with pumping to a higher elevation, saves 20% in initial cost and operating costs
Location of natural site for head pond storage at 30 meters below sea level
Fill volume available at the Dead Sea is much greater than anticipated in the 80's
Potential for water desalination much greater; unit prices are dropping as the technology advances