Comments by "Andy Dee" (@AndyViant) on "American Reacts to Australia’s insane plan to green the Outback" video.

This is also a viable solution, cutting or even running pipes from the Great Australian Bight to one or more of the Salt Lakes. You could get flow inland, spinning turbines as water evaporated and needed to be replaced, and collect mineral salts. But overall, the benefits of fresh water throughout 1500 kms through QLD and NSW to SA over salt water from SA to 130 km inland of SA are orders of magnitude greater and it's actually less of an engineering challenge.
2
Even if we harvested 20% that would still be a massive change to the outback without noticeable impact to the Burdekin region. A significant amount of water would be able to get used, or sink into the ground and help replenish the great artesian basin, the lifeblood of the outback, which is currently losing masses of water and making survival out there less and less viable. Even if there is huge evaporative losses? Well, that's gonna fall as rainfall somewhere, and it's also going to take heat energy out of the outback system, reducing temperatures and other evaporation. Green energy, fighting the impacts of global warming, increased food production, rural job opportunities, better quality of rural life... what's the negatives?
2
The problem is no one wants to work in these regional areas. We need massive incentives to get a base population there, and then when the jobs and cheaper housing are there then people WILL go. Sadly, this requires the government getting away from the property developers who just want to see centralization and rising property prices. This has to be driven federally, since it's the state governments that make most of the money due to property taxes.
1
we can run freight to every single state on standard gauge. It can't go past Brisbane in QLD, nor go to many places in regional victoria, south australia or western australia that are not on the designated interstate lines. But transhipment from one train to another parked next to it is probably still much more efficient than investing hundreds of billions in standardisation of rail gauges when multimodal freight is a thing.
1
@rowanbrecknell4021 absolutely, which is why it's incredibly stupid that we keep importing people via immigration to work and live in already overcrowded cities.
1
@rowanbrecknell4021 When I took on a new career mid life it required a lot of planning, investment into skills and mental preparation. People given the same opportunities as me at the same time failed, not because they were not given the same opportunities, but because they didn't prepare themselves psychologically and make an accurate assessment of their willingness to do the sacrifices required. Exact same skillset, same opportunities - different pathways chosen and different outcomes. Because how they prepared themselves (or not) and whether they had an attitude of whether it would all fall into their lap or it would take five years of pain starting at the bottom and working their way up again. People are brilliant at cognitive dissonance, change is hard. Really really hard. I've seen people offered changes in lifestyle from unemployment to being straight to the top 10% of wage earners. They say they want to do it, but when it comes to the crunch they just won't change their lives. The sad thing is for most the excuses are to blame everyone else. Even accepting that they're not ready yet to make that change would be a big step forward. Sadly, this seems part of human nature, and large businesses and even whole governments seem to fall into the same traps. Short term thinking. Hoping that even the smallest effort suddenly sees money falling from the sky, and giving up in frustration and resentment when it doesn't. In the end, it's all about unwillingness to make difficult changes permanent for long term good. I've got a Kodak Digital Camera that I've kept that sums the whole thing up perfectly. Yet, we do see successes. There are people who are willing to uproot their lives to the other side of the world just for an opportunity. I'm sure a great deal of good could come from the Ord River Scheme if it was effectively managed. I just doubt there is the political will to let that happen from either side of politics.
1
Agreed. There are ways to improve soil, but I cannot see our current flavour of government allowing the decades of gradual improvements required. They'll just hand the water and land to their mates for the quickest profit.
1
Nah, there's plenty of land in SA to bypass population.
1
The Bradfield Scheme was created by one of our greatest engineers. It has lots of potential benefit... but the likelihood is that the water will be taken (either as return for political donations or just plain stolen) before it gets very far down stream. Even if it doesn't, water alone doesn't convert a region of sand and iron oxide into arable soil. You'd need organic material. Decades of growth from nitrogen fixing plants, their decay, then eventually low density animal husbandry and the dung. Their are nations who have achieved this - Israel and India immediately come to mind. As does the differences in their economic systems, their governance, their corporate behaviour, their people's willingness to live in regional, desert areas, holding down agrarian lifestyles. The there's the environmental ethics of destroying one ecosystem to create profits for farming. The political will to turn land from mining use only to mixed use. Australia tried something similar in the 1970's called the Ord River Scheme. It was an engineering triumph but a total economic failure. Pity, this IS a good idea. We should have done it in the 1930's or 1940's.
1
Hmmm. RAAF Tindal says hi. As does Learmonth, Darwin, Townsville, Scherger, and Curtin. Want to go through the Naval and Army bases too?
1
@70chevs Probably not. But since we love throwing 5 billion and 5 years out the window to generate nothing on the sub department, paid far too much for the can't fly in electrical storms f35, maybe we need a change of government to clear out those imbeciles procuring our military equipment at far too much money for too little capacity?
1