SpencerGulfCanal
m |
m |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
'''In an environmentally sound planet, this idea is insane, as it fundamentally will alter the climate if Australia's dry interior. However, in these times of global climate change, might we assume that this interior climate will change regardless. Therefore that reason for dismissing ideas such as this are no longer valid. Should we reconsider?''' ...discuss |
'''In an environmentally sound planet, this idea is insane, as it fundamentally will alter the climate if Australia's dry interior. However, in these times of global climate change, might we assume that this interior climate will change regardless. Therefore that reason for dismissing ideas such as this are no longer valid. Should we reconsider?''' ...discuss |
||
| − | === For === |
+ | === What === |
| + | The basic idea is a canal to Lake Torrens which is approximately 100km overland from sea. Lake Torrens has been naturally dry for all but one of the last 150 years of white settlement in the area. This lake, if filled, would then provide vast amounts of water (saline, but evaporation/precipitation would bring clean water) to the area. A further canal to Lake Eyre would easily fill this below-sea-level lake to become permenantly full. (currently it has water approximately one year in three) |
||
| + | |||
| + | === Places === |
||
| + | |||
| + | ;Lake Torrens: Unknown elevation |
||
| + | ;Lake Eyre: Below sea level |
||
| + | |||
| + | === How === |
||
| + | * A 'sea canal' from the top of Spencer Gulf would link sea waters to Lake Torrens. Approximately 50km in length. |
||
| + | * A 'lakes canal' to link Lake Torrens to Lake Eyre. Approximately 80km in length. |
||
| + | |||
| + | This would be an engineering work in the same magnitude as the Panama and Suez canals. |
||
| + | |||
| + | === Arguments For === |
||
* Extra water in Australia's interior will vastly increase the possible land use |
* Extra water in Australia's interior will vastly increase the possible land use |
||
** evaporation -> clouds -> rainfall on the western dividing range |
** evaporation -> clouds -> rainfall on the western dividing range |
||
| − | === Against === |
+ | === Arguments Against === |
* Haven't we done enough damage? |
* Haven't we done enough damage? |
||
* unpredictable outcome |
* unpredictable outcome |
||
Revision as of 14:11, 15 February 2008
Spencer Gulf is the South Australian gulf which faces Lake Eyre (famously dry and below sea level)
There have been proposals in the past (by nutters) to build a canal from Spencer Gulf to permenantly fill Lake Eyre and Lake Torrens.
This page is for brainstorming this idea, with an eye towards the following rational to do so.
In an environmentally sound planet, this idea is insane, as it fundamentally will alter the climate if Australia's dry interior. However, in these times of global climate change, might we assume that this interior climate will change regardless. Therefore that reason for dismissing ideas such as this are no longer valid. Should we reconsider? ...discuss
Contents |
What
The basic idea is a canal to Lake Torrens which is approximately 100km overland from sea. Lake Torrens has been naturally dry for all but one of the last 150 years of white settlement in the area. This lake, if filled, would then provide vast amounts of water (saline, but evaporation/precipitation would bring clean water) to the area. A further canal to Lake Eyre would easily fill this below-sea-level lake to become permenantly full. (currently it has water approximately one year in three)
Places
- Lake Torrens
- Unknown elevation
- Lake Eyre
- Below sea level
How
- A 'sea canal' from the top of Spencer Gulf would link sea waters to Lake Torrens. Approximately 50km in length.
- A 'lakes canal' to link Lake Torrens to Lake Eyre. Approximately 80km in length.
This would be an engineering work in the same magnitude as the Panama and Suez canals.
Arguments For
- Extra water in Australia's interior will vastly increase the possible land use
- evaporation -> clouds -> rainfall on the western dividing range
Arguments Against
- Haven't we done enough damage?
- unpredictable outcome
- massive money spent
- extra water in the Australian interior does not nescessarily make the land any more fertile.
