Modify Australia climate

[Baron von Richthofen (Vaclav)]

Who is in favor of flooding the center of Australia to modify our climate, this is not a new idler, it was contemplated by the government in the 1950th

[pgc hunter]

Only if Sea Surface Temps are 32C so there'll be fuel for hot humid heat and huge storms.

[marki]

How do you propose we get the water into the middle Vars?

Mark

[DavidU (Dave)]

Maybe re channel the Darling ? Are you serious about the Govt had plans?

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by DavidU

Maybe re channel the Darling ? Are you serious about the Govt had plans?

They had plans and ideas to do this since about the late 19th Century. During the 20's, Bradfield had proposed diverting most of the large northern rivers inland to flood the centre. Most of the water would've ended up in Lake Eyre, Frome and Gairdner, but they'd have had a lot of water in them... their surface would've been at sea level at least. Probably had over 100,000sqkm of water or more. What's more, it'd be permanent water.

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Lake Eyre is below sea level. Dig a canal from the St Vincent and/or Spencer Gulf.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by mithrandir

Lake Eyre is below sea level. Dig a canal from the St Vincent and/or Spencer Gulf.

Yes it is, but to dig a canal from either gulf would entail going uphill several hundred metres before you got to the lake area. You'd have to pump water uphill and then let it flow back down...or put through a series of pipes about 10 times larger than the Snowy Scheme.

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Yes it is, but to dig a canal from either gulf would entail going uphill several hundred metres before you got to the lake area. You'd have to pump water uphill and then let it flow back down...or put through a series of pipes about 10 times larger than the Snowy Scheme.

When did I say it would be cheap? Kev seems to have deep pockets.

[Enchilada]

Originally Posted by Vars191

Who is in favor of flooding the center of Australia to modify our climate, this is not a new idler, it was contemplated by the government in the 1950th

They sure did. The plan was to blow up a series of nuclear weapons across the continent from northern Western Australia and roughly on a line towards Alice Springs. This would make an irrigation channel to feed the inland with water.
It didn't come to fruition because of the cost of the plutonium required, and of course the pumped radioactivity directly in the ground water - which was overly polluted for near eternity with radioactivity by the stinking British twits, who rather contaminate Australia than do it in their own backyard! (During the cold war, the British thought it better, as first choice in Antarctica!! )

However, there is a great article on other more sensible alternative Australian water proposals, which you can download as a pdf.

http://www.farmhand.org.au/downloads...er_Part_10.pdf

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by mithrandir

When did I say it would be cheap? Kev seems to have deep pockets.

True...he could do it as one of his "Nation Building" schemes. Put people to work for a goodly length of time too. Take at least 10 years to complete.

[Talyn]

Originally Posted by Enchilada

... eternity with radioactivity by the stinking British twits, who rather contaminate Australia than do it in their own backyard! (During the cold war, the British thought it better, as first choice in Antarctica!! )

As a Brit, I can't let that pop at us go. While I don't agree with the testing of nuclear weapons at all, I would point out that the UK detonated those weapons - presumably - with the consent of the Australian government of the time. In that case the stinking Australian twits were just as guilty as the stinking British ones.

The British were wrong to test nuclear weapons in Australia, indeed anywhere for that matter, and so were the Australian government of the day for letting them.

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by marki

How do you propose we get the water into the middle Vars?

Mark

As Lake Eyre basin is below sea level fill it with sea water. I think this was also proposed once.

What Australia misses is a giant Central Massive to bring rain.

Baz

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

As Lake Eyre basin is below sea level fill it with sea water. I think this was also proposed once.

What Australia misses is a giant Central Massive to bring rain.

Baz

If central Australia is under sea level then all you need is to get the water there. Build a couple of nuclear plants on the WA coast to generate energy to pump sea water in land. The water flow will cool the reactors in the transit and once it's started it'll keep going. They might even want to plug a couple of desalination plants in there too for local water usage as there would be plenty of spare power. And Australia had plenty of Uranium so the fuel is not an issue.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by Talyn

The British were wrong to test nuclear weapons in Australia, indeed anywhere for that matter, and so were the Australian government of the day for letting them.

True, too true.

And, as far as I know, neither in Britian nor Australia were any voices raised in protest. That movement didn't develop for about a decade.

[marki]

Originally Posted by multiweb

If central Australia is under sea level then all you need is to get the water there. Build a couple of nuclear plants on the WA coast to generate energy to pump sea water in land. The water flow will cool the reactors in the transit and once it's started it'll keep going. They might even want to plug a couple of desalination plants in there too for local water usage as there would be plenty of spare power. And Australia had plenty of Uranium so the fuel is not an issue.

I don't think the reactors should be built in WA, I think they should be built in Hinchinbrook myself .

Mark

[AstralTraveller (David)]

I suppose I could start by commenting that if the govt was considering it then it must be a hair-brain scheme. Some problems to consider.

1) How to get the water to the lakes and keep it there?

Naturals flows rarely make it to Lake Eyre. The water just soaks into the sand. Diverting the Darling R won't work because (a) the water will soak into the sand, (b) most of the water entering the Darling is consumed by human activity anyway and (c) the environmental vandalism wouldn't be tolerated. Flooding with sea-water requires at least a few hundred km of channel to connect St Vincents Gulf with Lake Torrens and then Lake Torrens with Lake Eyre. Once the water is in the lakes how do you plan to stop evaporation causing it to become hyper-saline. Unless you can flush it out regularly it would be like the Dead Sea.

2) What possible difference would it make?

Australia already has a basically maritime climate. The flat topography means that maritime air masses can move across the whole continent. What difference could adding a few thousand square km of evaporating area make to a continent surrounded by ocean? I think not much at all.

[Enchilada]

Originally Posted by Talyn

As a Brit, I can't let that pop at us go. While I don't agree with the testing of nuclear weapons at all, I would point out that the UK detonated those weapons - presumably - with the consent of the Australian government of the time. In that case the stinking Australian twits were just as guilty as the stinking British ones.

The British were wrong to test nuclear weapons in Australia, indeed anywhere for that matter, and so were the Australian government of the day for letting them.

As this site is so ultra-sensitive to criticism or controversy, political or otherwise, I can only recommend you read some of the links below.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...17-401,00.html or
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/s...0-2682,00.html

As to the cover-up, read the BBC view (and associated linked articles on this page) at; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1324771.stm

Naivety is one thing, the facts are another. As they say;

"Satire is the magic word that wipes away any culpability."

[stephenb (Stephen)]

Sorry, I must have missed the bigger picture here. Not wanting to sound sarcastic, but after we flood the inland with sea water, then what? Tourism? Desalination plants? What is the point of this??

Bob Hawke's "Multifunction Polis" had more merit.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by marki

I don't think the reactors should be built in WA, I think they should be built in Hinchinbrook myself .

Mark

Doesn't matter. I grew up next to one. I don't have 3 eyes and my name's not blinky. I also live within 20m of a high voltage power line. "Oooh! Watch out for those electro-magnetic fields". You're gonna wake up with two heads one morning People have to start realising that properly managed nuclear energy is the cleanest source of energy. Looks like it's going to take a couple of generations down under still

[marki]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Doesn't matter. I grew up next to one. I don't have 3 eyes and my name's not blinky. I also live within 20m of a high voltage power line. "Oooh! Watch out for those electro-magnetic fields". You're gonna wake up with two heads one morning People have to start realising that properly managed nuclear energy is the cleanest source of energy. Looks like it's going to take a couple of generations down under still

Marc where I grew up we were not far from the Monte bello Islands. So far my sister has had leukaemia, my mother had cancer and I was sick with an unexplainable illness when I was a kid. Yes they have got better at building in safety features to nuclear power stations but would I want one within several thousands miles of where I live? Hell no, we haven't got that much fuel in any case. If it was going to be in the NW of West oz why not use solar? The sun is about at least 14 hrs a day 365 days a year (excepting cyclones) and on a cold day it may get to 25 degrees Celsius.

Mark