Australia: A long term solution

[Ronald]

The news recently has been dominated by the fires burning in New South Wales and Victoria though relatively few people have actually died given the scale of the disaster. But with a bit of vision Australia could be converted into a fully green continent, with a large inland sea and agriculture and forests deep into the interior. It could triple its population to at least 90 million and become a major international power.

There are several long term reasons why Australia is prone to bushfires like those recently:

1) Unlike Europe , blessed with numerous navigable , inland waterways Australia is a hot desert in the middle and what lakes and rivers that form there are temporary and then evaporate. In Summer a body of very hot and dry air sits at the centre of the continent.

2) Australians do not have strong state tradition when it comes to large scale infrastructure projects or concerted efforts to clear the bush for that matter. Even their fireservice for all its recent bravery is an amateur voluntary organisation in the main.

3) Climate change is making the world a hotter place and even a 1 degree rise has had a massive impact on drought prone Australia

Well I was praying for Aussie land today and I thought I would offer what I believe is a long term solution to the problem.

Basically I think Australia should invest in a dam/pipeline infrastructure from the North of the country pumping water from the wet North to the rivers that run down towards Lake Eyre in the centre of the country. At the same time it should create some massive desalination plants in the South of the country and South West.
The desalination plants in the SW would run regardless of the weather to restock the water table and dams and to ensure that there is never a hosepipe ban in NSW or Victoria regardless of weather. If the dams are full and the water table high then they can switch these plants off. They should replace bush with cleared forest, perhaps using goats and sheep to keep the vegetation between trees down.

A massive set of desalination plants should be built near Port Augusta on the South coast generating 10,000,000m3 of water a day(that is the equivalent discharge rate of the Danube river - produced for $5m a day - these costs could be entirely covered by water sales at the new price of $5 a m3 and the surplus water go towards the project). .
All of this water should be pumped 1000km north and allowed to fill up Lake Eyre North and Lake Eyre South and much of the Simpson desert to create a new semi fresh water super lake in the heart of the country. A water way can be easily created along a line from Port Augusta to Lake Eyre North. The waters from the South and diverted from the North should be enough to fill the whole basin. Initially this water will be quite salty and so drainage to the sea will be encouraged. The whole scheme could be solar powered with water pumped up into mountain reservoirs during the day and then being released at night to generate hydroelectric power and maintain the flow of the river while the desalination plants close down for the night.

When it becomes clear what the boundaries of the new inland sea in the heart of Australia are then towns and farms and forests can firm up these boundaries which will be artificially maintained regardless of weather and rainfall. Trade and commerce can flow up and down these water ways much as they do in Europe and large stretches of useless land will become cultivated and habitable. This should also completely alter the climate of inner Australia as the water tables rise, the stock of vegetation increases.

Basically the scheme can also cost out.
Water could be desalinated on such a scale for about 50 cents a m3 by reverse osmosis. But sold for a higher price of $5-$6 a m3 compared to about $2.5-$4.5 at present. Australians would pay more for their water but never have bush fires or hosepipe bans again. The scheme only involves pumping water 200 m uphill from the South which could be accomplished by gravity and aqueducts or pumping stations also and diversion schemes in the North can use natural waterways for their water flow. The underlying price of water would probably decline due to the surplus but the extra tax paid on water could fund a federal scale development planning and pay off disgruntled people who currently live in salt lakes or deserts.

Possible or not? Can a democracy do such grand projects like the Chinese did with their Grand Canal?

Bradfield Scheme - Wikipedia
Goldfields Water Supply Scheme - Wikipedia

By all means and within cost guidelines, build dams and waterways to provide for people. But Australia, (as all other dry areas on earth), was once lush and green. It took at least four thousand years to turn 1/3 of the planet into deserts.
Just wait a few years or so, Jesus will return soon and turn this world back into a paradise. It's interesting how by simply planting trees, you can change the climate in that area as the wooded area spreads out, but wow, that's a lot if trees. I'm hoping and anticipating the Lord's return soon thank you very much.

 

[mindlight]

By all means and within cost guidelines, build dams and waterways to provide for people. But Australia, (as all other dry areas on earth), was once lush and green. It took at least four thousand years to turn 1/3 of the planet into deserts.
Just wait a few years or so, Jesus will return soon and turn this world back into a paradise. It's interesting how by simply planting trees, you can change the climate in that area as the wooded area spreads out, but wow, that's a lot if trees. I'm hoping and anticipating the Lord's return soon thank you very much.

We live in expectation of our returning King. Should we not also act like Him when able?

Also he may come tommorrow or in a thousand years. Stewardship requires actions now - the job he gave us was to tend his garden. If we are not watering the plants, we are not doing our job.

 

[Larniavc]

Well Aussies are not exactly practicing their faith and asking God to bless the land in Sunday worship even though a majority are nominal Christians.

Also they are foul weather environmentalists that forget the cause once it rains. Solutions and Stewardship require persistant commitment

So it is the Australian’s fault for not worshipping hard enough?

That’s an odd take.

 

[mindlight]

So it is the Australian’s fault for not worshipping hard enough?

That’s an odd take.

No the reasons why God does anything are usually more complicated than that, their are opportunities for good people to rise to the challenge here also. The point is more thata nominal Christian who is barely practicing his faith is hardly in a position to question the Almighty about the place of pain and suffering in his experience. Practicing Christians already know about the pains of this life but are strong enough to bear them

 

[Ronald]

We live in expectation of our returning King. Should we not also act like Him when able?

Also he may come tommorrow or in a thousand years. Stewardship requires actions now - the job he gave us was to tend his garden. If we are not watering the plants, we are not doing our job.

Yes, we are to be good stewards, do our part. Yet, thousands of years of climate change has turned a greener earth that was once paradise, into what it is now. We did not do that. It was not in God's will to sustain this paradise due to sin and it's effect. The distortions that sin has not only effected our nature but also the natural world. Diseases caused by viruses, bacteria were born on that day. Did Adam and Eve experience hurricanes, tornados and droughts before the Fall? NO. Climate was effected before and after the Flood. The defects in our biological world and environment have increased. This is not our doing. We cannot effect extreme weather and climate change. Sorry, I do not adhere to that belief. God is Sovereign and so we are and the earth is exactly where it is supposed to be. The Bible predicted droughts upon the earth as well as storms. God controls all and so the current climate is under His control, not ours. He allows these things whether good or evil (which may result in catastrophic weather conditions, death, wars, famines, pestilence, etc.) We cannot re-create paradise, not even a flourishing totally lush green Australia as you would imagine.

 

[Larniavc]

No the reasons why God does anything are usually more complicated than that,

What could God possibly hope to achieve that would necessitate such an inferno?

 

[Bob Crowley]

...Like the bible verse, the return of Jews despite massive population increase has indeed made the deserts bloom...

One problem - Israel's total area is 22,072 square kilometres, and 8.7 million people. It's also not far from the Mediterranean Sea at any point. That's about 395 people per square kilometre.

Australia has 7.692 million square kilometres and about 24.6 million people. That's around 3.2 people per square kilometre.

Lake Eyre, which only fills about four times a century, when flooding rains fall in the north, is about 500 kilometres from the coast at the closest point.

That's one of the reasons the Australian tax dollar gets stretched so far - we've got a small population, but thousands and thousands of miles of roads (paved and unpaved - fly across Australia and way out in the back blocks are all these gravel roads criss-crossing the countryside), bridges, railways, dams, and of course towns and cities.

The sort of capital works required to ensure all of Australia has adequate water would cost enormous amounts of money.

The idea of using the heavy rainfall in the north, especially around North Queensland, and diverting it to drier areas isn't new. Way back in 1938, the Bradfield scheme was mooted. But it was discounted due to miscalculations by the planners.

Bradfield Scheme - Wikipedia

The writer Ion Idriess promoted the scheme in his book "The Great Boomerang" written in 1941.

The Great Boomerang - Wikipedia

 

[coffee4u]

While interesting do you have any idea how large we are? Similarly sized to the USA while our population is less than Texas. Taking a pipeline from the north to the centre would be the same as the US doing something similar from Lake Ontario to Colorado. Then we have 1,371,000 square kilometres (529,000 sq mi) of desert to water. While the Daintree has 2000-9000mm (79in-345in) in the wet season that's mainly from December to March. I'm not very good at maths, but that doesn't sound feasible to me. With only 24 million people we couldn't afford it anyway.

 

[mindlight]

One problem - Israel's total area is 22,072 square kilometres, and 8.7 million people. It's also not far from the Mediterranean Sea at any point. That's about 395 people per square kilometre.

Australia has 7.692 million square kilometres and about 24.6 million people. That's around 3.2 people per square kilometre.

Lake Eyre, which only fills about four times a century, when flooding rains fall in the north, is about 500 kilometres from the coast at the closest point.

That's one of the reasons the Australian tax dollar gets stretched so far - we've got a small population, but thousands and thousands of miles of roads (paved and unpaved - fly across Australia and way out in the back blocks are all these gravel roads criss-crossing the countryside), bridges, railways, dams, and of course towns and cities.

The sort of capital works required to ensure all of Australia has adequate water would cost enormous amounts of money.

The idea of using the heavy rainfall in the north, especially around North Queensland, and diverting it to drier areas isn't new. Way back in 1938, the Bradfield scheme was mooted. But it was discounted due to miscalculations by the planners.

Bradfield Scheme - Wikipedia

The writer Ion Idriess promoted the scheme in his book "The Great Boomerang" written in 1941.

The Great Boomerang - Wikipedia

I mentioned the Bradfield scheme in my OP and yes it had a number of miscalculations. But the basic idea of diverting the massive excess rainfall of the Summer monsoon across the mountains so that they flowed down towards Lake Eyre was a good one and once the pipes were in place could be done by gravity alone. There are already natural channels in place but only occasionally activated. The benefits to the eco system of a more regular flow are the advantage here. Again there is also already a natural lake at Lake Eyre which fills naturally 4 times a century. What is being proposed is filling it permanently. Desalinated water from the South only requires a pipe line and given that Lake Eyre is at the moment below sea level the pumping or flow of water need not be too energy intensive. It also appears that at some time there may have been a natural channel from Lake Eyre to the coast at Port Augusta, so digging a water way navigable by canal barges and cargo ships is not as problematic as it sounds. Noone is talking about watering the whole of Australia the scheme I propose simply activates natural waterways and lakes already in place and restores the possibility of vegetation on their borders. This opens an enormous amount of potential space for cultivation and habitation as well as whole new economic zone deep in the interior.

Also the scheme rests on desalination plants using reverse osmosis technologies that reduce the cost of kiloliters of water to only 50 US cents. That is competitive with aquifiers. A rich country like Australia can make an executive federal level decision to make something like this happen. The reason why it should do this is threefold

1) The country has exhausted many of its natural aquifiers and these must be replenished to avoid a future catastrophe and to allow for future population growth and ecosystem stability. The present strategy is unsustainable and their is a massive strategic risk and vulnerability in allowing cyclical droughts and normal times to become the norm.
2) The space at the heart of the country is wasted but could be utilised with a step by step approach starting with something like a lake Eyre project. This is about growing Australia and turning its assets into something productive.
3) Global warming is a growing problem around the world and the desertification of Australia is a contributing factor. If you can turn your dry interior soil which is radiating heat into the atmosphere into vegetated spaces using sunlight to produce life and suck in Carbon dioxide with forests etc then you reduce Global Warming and in fact its impacts on your country also.

 

[mindlight]

While interesting do you have any idea how large we are? Similarly sized to the USA while our population is less than Texas. Taking a pipeline from the north to the centre would be the same as the US doing something similar from Lake Ontario to Colorado. Then we have 1,371,000 square kilometres (529,000 sq mi) of desert to water. While the Daintree has 2000-9000mm (79in-345in) in the wet season that's mainly from December to March. I'm not very good at maths, but that doesn't sound feasible to me. With only 24 million people we couldn't afford it anyway.

Do not underestimate your country, I certainly don't. You are a trillion dollar economy. Producing a river of fresh water the size of the Danube (about 10m kiloliters a day) would cost about $5m a day or $2bn a year. But much of that water could be sold to consumers at higher water prices and at a large profit. Pumping the excess into a lake could be done with solar power in the day and even stored hydro at night.

Also the first steps have to be done anyway. INcreasing the size of desalination plants serving NSW and Victoria and using them to replenish depleted aquifiers and reservoirs.

Small steps could be taken around Port Augusta to build facilities and water the area around the proposed channel north. The scheme should ultimately pay for itself with increased agriculture, population and industry in the newly watered areas. The final goal does not have to be built overnight but could be achieved on a step by step basis which costs out and is in your countries best interest.

But it needs Australians to push it , no one will listen to a British-German like me over there.

 

[Bob Crowley]

It also appears that at some time there may have been a natural channel from Lake Eyre to the coast at Port Augusta, so digging a water way navigable by canal barges and cargo ships is not as problematic as it sounds. Noone is talking about watering the whole of Australia the scheme I propose simply activates natural waterways and lakes already in place and restores the possibility of vegetation on their borders. This opens an enormous amount of potential space for cultivation and habitation as well as whole new economic zone deep in the interior.

While I posted the reference to the discredited Bradfield scheme above, I have to admit that in my idle moments I have thought of digging a canal from the Gulf of Carpentaria to Lake Eyre. so it became a permanent inland sea. It's probably no more practical than the Bradfield scheme, but still...

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

While massive desalination seems attractive, there's a few problems with Bradfield-type schemes.

Firstly, they're hugely expensive. Even if they could work (and there's large doubts they would due to problems with the calculations), it would be far, far cheaper to simply pay inland farmers from water-intensive industries to move to the north where rain is plentiful, or to subsidise investment in water-efficient technologies.

Second - simply moving water to the interior won't make trees grow. There would need to be massive fertilisation of the soil as well, which would also need to be controlled to prevent runoff pollution. Again, given the scale required, it would run into the hundreds of billions.

As for population, Australia is the fastest growing first world country on Earth, with a pop growth rate 8x that of Germany. To reach a target of 90 million people by, say 2050, we would need to quadruple of current growth rate. the infrastructure costs alone would run into the hundreds of billions. Even if you could find enough water for everyone.

Ultimately there are simply far more productive uses for that money then trying to cover the desert in water.

 

[klutedavid]

While interesting do you have any idea how large we are? Similarly sized to the USA while our population is less than Texas. Taking a pipeline from the north to the centre would be the same as the US doing something similar from Lake Ontario to Colorado. Then we have 1,371,000 square kilometres (529,000 sq mi) of desert to water. While the Daintree has 2000-9000mm (79in-345in) in the wet season that's mainly from December to March. I'm not very good at maths, but that doesn't sound feasible to me. With only 24 million people we couldn't afford it anyway.

The number of pumping stations to transfer the water over vast distances, would be an astronomical cost.

Water is very heavy and requires enormous power to pump water through the pipes.

I think a large dam anywhere in the middle of Australia would be impractical and very expensive.

 

[mindlight]

While massive desalination seems attractive, there's a few problems with Bradfield-type schemes.

Firstly, they're hugely expensive. Even if they could work (and there's large doubts they would due to problems with the calculations), it would be far, far cheaper to simply pay inland farmers from water-intensive industries to move to the north where rain is plentiful, or to subsidise investment in water-efficient technologies.

Second - simply moving water to the interior won't make trees grow. There would need to be massive fertilisation of the soil as well, which would also need to be controlled to prevent runoff pollution. Again, given the scale required, it would run into the hundreds of billions.

As for population, Australia is the fastest growing first world country on Earth, with a pop growth rate 8x that of Germany. To reach a target of 90 million people by, say 2050, we would need to quadruple of current growth rate. the infrastructure costs alone would run into the hundreds of billions. Even if you could find enough water for everyone.

Ultimately there are simply far more productive uses for that money then trying to cover the desert in water.

I agree that farming would be more possible in the North. But this is only a temporary solution given the speed of Australian growth and still leaves you with an enormous amount of wasted space

Also think you are overestimating the costs and especially if the step by step approach I suggested is taken.

Australia is not a poor country and could achieve a geoengineering project of this sort if it set its mind to it. This about vision and will. If this is lacking then it will not happen. The Bradfield calculations were made decades ago but technolgies like reverse osmosis and cheap solar have changed what is possible

Look at Australia from space and you can see a natural basin in the centre of the country where lakes appear naturally 4 times a century. I am simply saying make this permanent. The blooms of life that follow natural rainfalls show what the land is capable of. With permanent water the land would become self fertlising as plants died and were replaced by new ones

 

[mindlight]

The number of pumping stations to transfer the water over vast distances, would be an astronomical cost.

Water is very heavy and requires enormous power to pump water through the pipes.

I think a large dam anywhere in the middle of Australia would be impractical and very expensive.

Parts of Lake Eyre are below sea level. If the romans can build aqueducts that stood for thousands of years why not the Australians.

My proposal was to pump a flow of water the size of the Danube some 200 meters uphill.Gravity could work for muchf the way. The pipes themselves could be covered in solar panels generating the required electricity. They could be switched off over night or use stored hydro power to run 24-7.

Again if the vision is there this is possible and would utterly transform Australia and reduce global warming by sucking in more CO2 and reducing the magnifying effects of deserts on temperature