Theoretically could Australia have a fresh water inland sea?

Remove this Banner Ad

It would almost be the reverse of the Aral Sea, where temperatures have risen 2 to 6 degrees since the loss of the sea. An increase in precipitation could be expected.

As you say you won't turn desert into non desert, but you could expect slightly milder and moister conditions.

Now, who's for building the Himalayas in central Australia..........


Kalgoorlie is still some 1.5km above sea level and was once higher than the Himalayas. If only we could turn back time.
 
I would love that one day, to turn the desert into arable land but I am no expert on how it can be done. Still one day it will be possible and suddenly Australia is going to become a lot larger in terms of the amount of land people can realistically live on. I just can't help but think either cutting a river in Australia to make an inland ocean or one day pumping massive amounts of fresh water into the centre of Australia will be a step towards terraforming Australian deserts and potentially (because of changing weather patterns) making many Australian cities much less likely to be so affected by drought. Even an inland salt water ocean (creating a man made river from the coast of South Australia to the centre of the country) sounds like it might help with climate patterns.
Wouldn't it be better to come from Darwin instead? That way it's coming downhill.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

how is that coming down hill? Sea level is sea level, 0m AHD regardless where you are on the coast (albeit with some localised minor variations).

earth's spin would assist......like the water flushing in a toilet.

My guess is water wants to travel in a north western direction (against the spin and toward the equator) but I am sure others could correct me.
 
earth's spin would assist......like the water flushing in a toilet.

My guess is water wants to travel in a north western direction (against the spin and toward the equator) but I am sure others could correct me.

err no. Water will flow due to a gravity head or a static (pressure) head. simple rule water flows down hill unless pumped.
 
err no. Water will flow due to a gravity head or a static (pressure) head. simple rule water flows down hill unless pumped.

of course but given sea level in the north is the sea level in the south either would work.

Of course, in history our in land sea was fed from the north and down through the georgina basin.

however, in the absence of a high point the only other significant force which could effect a canal or other similar small feed would be the earth rotation
 
of course but given sea level in the north is the sea level in the south either would work.

Of course, in history our in land sea was fed from the north and down through the georgina basin.

however, in the absence of a high point the only other significant force which could effect a canal or other similar small feed would be the earth rotation

The coriolis effect has signifficant effects on large bodies of water, it's effect diminishes on small bodies, you got that one mixed up.

Why do you not think gravity isn't effecting the flows? What do you define as absence of a high point?
 
The coriolis effect has signifficant effects on large bodies of water, it's effect diminishes on small bodies, you got that one mixed up.

Why do you not think gravity isn't effecting the flows? What do you define as absence of a high point?

re gravity; if I read the post above correctly, it was suggesting the north should be the entry point because north is higher than the south (suggesting north has to be the high point because it is the top of a map).

In regards to the coriolis effect, I remember reading that a lot more pumping stations would be required on the ord perth canal because it was going against the force. Maybe it was just hype.

Thanks
 
I crunched the numbers on a Kimberly pipeline, gravity fed into central Australia and the tower had to be a kilometer high. How do you pump half a tone of water straight up a 100mm pipe with enough throughput to be worthwhile at the other end?

I like the idea of a fresh water reserve, a huge one to irrigate the desert and make food exports our greatest economic influence. The value of the water project would eclipse it's cost in short time. Would 40 billion do it?
 
re gravity; if I read the post above correctly, it was suggesting the north should be the entry point because north is higher than the south (suggesting north has to be the high point because it is the top of a map).

In regards to the coriolis effect, I remember reading that a lot more pumping stations would be required on the ord perth canal because it was going against the force. Maybe it was just hype.

Thanks

channel flow is goverened by gravity its the the differences in head that determine the hydraulic grade line and the direction of flow, irrespective of what the bed slope is doing although it will have an effect on velocity.

the initial post did claim that north was higher than south, which is flawed, ignoring localised effects, they have the same reduced level for sea level.

Not familiar with that canal, but there are many reasons why pump stations can be needed. Most likeley it would be topography.
 
Lets try geo-engineering at a smaller scale first. For one thing i'd like to see the Swan and Canning rivers have desalinated water injected into the system up steam to improve it's health while we try to reforest a swath of the south west to improve rain fall.
 
I like the idea of a fresh water reserve, a huge one to irrigate the desert and make food exports our greatest economic influence. The value of the water project would eclipse it's cost in short time. Would 40 billion do it?

Yeah, I think it would be a fantastic investment.
 
Lets try geo-engineering at a smaller scale first. For one thing i'd like to see the Swan and Canning rivers have desalinated water injected into the system up steam to improve it's health while we try to reforest a swath of the south west to improve rain fall.

Dream big! Shoot for the stars!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

If you were going to pump fresh water anywhere it would be into the great artesian basin. At least it won't evaporate.
 
I don't know why we don't just build a batch of these: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/a-turbine-that-makes-water-from-the-desert-air/

They produce 1000 litres of water a day and 30 kW of power which can run a pump system. Sure, 1k litres per day per turbine isn't going to make a lake but there is no point pouring tons of fresh water on salty arid land, it will be as useful as being on the coast, it will be too salty to be of any use.

These turbines would allow to create enough water in arid regions to re-fertilise arid land. Once you have reclaimed the land so it is fertile you can think about creating an inland fresh water lake/sea, having a viable ecosystem around the lake would lower the temperate a bit and slow the speed of evaporation.
 
I don't know why we don't just build a batch of these: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/a-turbine-that-makes-water-from-the-desert-air/

They produce 1000 litres of water a day and 30 kW of power which can run a pump system. Sure, 1k litres per day per turbine isn't going to make a lake but there is no point pouring tons of fresh water on salty arid land, it will be as useful as being on the coast, it will be too salty to be of any use.

These turbines would allow to create enough water in arid regions to re-fertilise arid land. Once you have reclaimed the land so it is fertile you can think about creating an inland fresh water lake/sea, having a viable ecosystem around the lake would lower the temperate a bit and slow the speed of evaporation.

just use water more wisely and utilise uban catchments is much simpler. Only 8% of potable water is used for drinking. Using potable water for toilet flushing and industry isnt efficient use of water resources.

urban catchments arent used enough, can easily be cleaned up enough for non potable uses at the source with minimal cost, storage and distributation is where the cost is. also this untreated urban water is clogging waterways and contributing to flooding events in peak flows.
 
just use water more wisely and utilise uban catchments is much simpler. Only 8% of potable water is used for drinking. Using potable water for toilet flushing and industry isnt efficient use of water resources.

urban catchments arent used enough, can easily be cleaned up enough for non potable uses at the source with minimal cost, storage and distributation is where the cost is. also this untreated urban water is clogging waterways and contributing to flooding events in peak flows.


I wasn't really talking about urban water management. It was about transforming the vast majority of our nation from an arid or semi-arid wasteland into more useful land. If the bulk of the unused land was transformed into forests, even commercially utilised forests, it would improve the quality of the soil, put a lot of the carbon that exists in the atmosphere into trees or wood products, would help to clean the air and would give us a valuable commodity.

We know how to convert small areas of land from arid land into fertile land, we have the resources to do that on a much larger scale.
 
I wasn't really talking about urban water management. It was about transforming the vast majority of our nation from an arid or semi-arid wasteland into more useful land. If the bulk of the unused land was transformed into forests, even commercially utilised forests, it would improve the quality of the soil, put a lot of the carbon that exists in the atmosphere into trees or wood products, would help to clean the air and would give us a valuable commodity.

We know how to convert small areas of land from arid land into fertile land, we have the resources to do that on a much larger scale.

Add water to dirt that has few nutrients and you still wont grow much of anything.

Yeah, it would 'naturally' improve in time with more water - plants grow bigger, then feed more bird/animals, leaving more 'fertiliser' and gradually the system grows, but we're talking decades, if not centuries (depending on just how nutrient deprived the land is when you start) before you get any major improvements (enough to take significant amounts of nutrients away - AKA farm produce).

Very much a LONG TERM project.
 
Add water to dirt that has few nutrients and you still wont grow much of anything.

Yeah, it would 'naturally' improve in time with more water - plants grow bigger, then feed more bird/animals, leaving more 'fertiliser' and gradually the system grows, but we're talking decades, if not centuries (depending on just how nutrient deprived the land is when you start) before you get any major improvements (enough to take significant amounts of nutrients away - AKA farm produce).

Very much a LONG TERM project.


There is a video linked earlier about an aussie who is turning arid land in Jordan into fertile land, his projects aren't on a massive scale but what he has been doing can be done on a larger scale.

I think it would take decades or even centures only because nobody is going to do it to the entire country at the same time. But his results were pretty impressive over a short period of time.
 
Dream big! Shoot for the stars!

I think my idea is radical enough. People would hate the idea of wasting energy and water by injecting it into a river system only to be flushed out into the sea, it would be reliant on improved desalination technologies increasing the energy efficiency of desal.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top