Hello,

We noticed you're browsing in private or incognito mode.

To continue reading this article, please exit incognito mode or log in.

Not an Insider? Subscribe now for unlimited access to online articles.

  • Christine Daniloff | MIT News Office
  • Water World

    Modest additions to water infrastructure are best.

    Safe water is usually close at hand in the developed world. But global warming, drought, and population growth threaten that easy access.

    Does this potentially massive long-term problem require a massive long-term infrastructure solution? Not necessarily. An MIT research team has concluded that incremental additions to water infrastructure often make more sense than bigger facilities that may be needed only intermittently.

    The study examines Melbourne, Australia, where a drought from 1997 to 2009 led to construction of a $5 billion desalination plant. Approved in 2007, the plant opened in 2012—after the drought had ended—and has barely been used. Instead, the researchers suggest, smaller, modular desalination plants could have met Melbourne’s needs at a lower price.

    This story is part of the November/December 2017 Issue of the MIT News Magazine
    See the rest of the issue
    Subscribe

    “If you build too much infrastructure, you’re building hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in assets you might not need,” says doctoral student Sarah Fletcher, SM ’12. She is lead author of the team’s paper, published in the Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, which flows from the work of research scientist Afreen Siddiqi ’99, SM ’01, PhD ’06.

    The MIT team ran 100,000 30-year water-supply simulations and evaluated a half-dozen infrastructure options for each scenario. They found that shortages tend to be acute but relatively infrequent: 80 percent of all years in the simulations had none at all.

    Factoring in costs, doing nothing proved the best option in half the cases—and the worst nearly a third of the time. Meanwhile, building a plant half the size of Melbourne’s was a top-three option 90 percent of the time and never the worst option.

    So, as Siddiqi puts it, “building on a smaller scale, but planning big” may be the optimal approach.

    Tech Obsessive?
    Become an Insider to get the story behind the story — and before anyone else.

    Subscribe today
    Next in MIT News
    Want more award-winning journalism? Subscribe to Insider Online Only.
    • Insider Online Only {! insider.prices.online !}*

      {! insider.display.menuOptionsLabel !}

      Unlimited online access including articles and video, plus The Download with the top tech stories delivered daily to your inbox.

      See details+

      What's Included

      Unlimited 24/7 access to MIT Technology Review’s website

      The Download: our daily newsletter of what's important in technology and innovation

    /3
    You've read of three free articles this month. for unlimited online access. You've read of three free articles this month. for unlimited online access. This is your last free article this month. for unlimited online access. You've read all your free articles this month. for unlimited online access. You've read of three free articles this month. for more, or for unlimited online access. for two more free articles, or for unlimited online access.