An aqueduct, like the Roman aqueducts ?
ie an open structure with a continuous fall ?
Wouldn't a pipeline be better, no evaporation loss.
With a pipe small depressions could be followed and not need aqueduct bridges.
No pumps needed ?
Seems like a good idea if friction enabled a good flow.
There are companies that could do the job as just another pipeline job.

However, having gone back and read more of the posts and reread the
original post I can see that it is all doomed to failure as nowhere except one poster remarked on getting it all done before energy becomes
unaffordable. These projects are all very energy demanding and will be
the highest cost item in the whole project.
We are already seeing the effect of rising energy costs and it can only
get worse as the net energy availability falls.

Perhaps those administering the MDG should reset their priorities to
the least energy intense projects or projects that require much sooner
completion.

JF Aus, you wouldn't be as Green by any chance would you?

I don't believe anyone but a Green could put such an unmitigated pile of garbage into a post. It is such rubbish it is not worth discussing.

Hasbeen,

If you know what you are talking about then describe what you claim is rubbish instead of just saying so.
I am not a green or greenie. I expected they might be critical of the idea. Are you one of them?
But never mind if you are, just explain and justify the rubbish as you see it. If you can.
Or are you just talking rubbish yourself?
I wondered when knockers would start knocking.
Come on let's hear your reasoning if you have any.

Wouldn't a pipeline be better, no evaporation loss.
Bazz,
Not very smart to start with a system that's already got holes at each end :-)

I am not a green or greenie.
JF Aus,
who's talking about "a" or "or" ?