“We actually jumped the gun, it’s been a financial disaster really.
Philip S,
Well, how many less educated had input in that decision-making ?
Desalination is too demanding on power, too polluting & too costly to provide cities with freshwater.
Water storage is the answer to all this both above & below ground level. Flooding Lake Eyre permanently would prove to be an environmental & economic success.
Let less educated people make the decisions. No academic experts involved would guarantee a success.

individual,
"One thing it does show is that, flooding Lake Eyre would be beneficial all round."
Exactly how does it show that?

"Seawater or freshwater."
You think making Lake Eyre hypersaline would be beneficial?

"High water demand industry must be seriously discouraged"
Shouldn't that depend on how much water is available?

"Population will continue to blow out for as long as religion is allowed to dictate against the environment & against common sense"
Possibly, but it's dubious - antienvironmentalism is not usually driven by religion.

"Our education system should also change its direction & focus on opening peoples' eyes & include common sense in the curriculum. It would make us a more cohesive society free of the yoke of Superstition."
They won't be able to do so, as there's no common sense of what constitutes common sense!

"Desalination is too demanding on power, too polluting & too costly to provide cities with freshwater."
No it isn't. Though it does have high power usage, that's less of a problem than it used to be - renewables have reached the stage where we don't have to rely on fossil fuels any more. And evolving technology is reducing the amount of power needed. The cost is comparable to other water sources - generally higher, but worth it when the certainty is taken into account.

"Flooding Lake Eyre permanently would prove to be an environmental & economic success. "
Disaster rather than success!

"Let less educated people make the decisions."
And watch money be wasted on superstitions! [see my 10pm Sunday post]

I agree with Individual that a skilled mechanic often gives better results than a qualified engineer. In "the army" a young officer does themselves a favour listening closely to their sergeant.

In regards to the unused desal plants...

It seems that the only ones benefiting from the plants are the construction engineers and perhaps the contract project teams working for the governments. Maybe the ones making the decisions really don't ask the correct questions- they get an idea into their heads and make a decision without fully understanding the implications.

The community cannot afford to invest in projects that make them weaker.

Those working in contemporary government are under pressure to consider the public benefit so perhaps more pressure is not going to give better results than the ones seen with desal plants and other government projects. The call for more privatization driven solutions doesn't seem to offer better results for the community either- just see the failure of privatization to reduce utility prices.

I would like to see more family sized solutions to some of these problems. This means that utilities such as electricity, telecoms, water, sewage are managed within the family with the help of simple powerful technology. This also means that government will become smaller and less taxing.

It seems that some are advocating pumping water inland- to better utilize our land- to grow more crops- to boost trade and productivity- to increase Australian wealth. There may be other reasons for this strategy. Overall it appears to be a policy to benefit the insatiable growth appetites of the business community and the small l liberals.

To me one of the best ways to increase per capita wealth is decrease the number of people- but the small l's wouldn't be happy with that- neither would the lefties. We should ban selling of land to foreign interests.
I'll have to research some of the quoted solutions to "water the desert"

Aidan,
Are you one of those Academics ? You certainly debate like one ! The questions you ask me have already been answered throughout this thread.
1; flooding the basin would raise the freshwater level
2; measured doses would aid maintaining the surface water level to make up for evaporation
3; that is a typical opportunist mentality.
4; it's not driven by religion, religion is the prime cause of out-of-hand populations.
5; again the non-comprehension of the meaning of the word is standard academic ignorance.
6; brine, antiscalent, backwash, cleaning chemicals, membrane production etc are polluting.
7; wildlife & a greening around a huge lake would be beneficial & would also take environmental pressure due to human habitation away from the coastal area.
8; How would you know ? Less educated pragmatists have never been inducted in the decision-making circles hence the evidence of waste due to "educated" people's mismanagement.
As you don't show any evidence in contributing to find solutions I'll ignore your questions
from now on until you provide useful & constructive posts.

individual,
>Are you one of those Academics ? You certainly debate like one !
Logically?
(FWIW I've never been employed in academia.)

>The questions you ask me have already been answered throughout this thread.
>1; flooding the basin would raise the freshwater level
It may have escaped your attention, but saltwater and freshwater mix. So unless you're referring to raising the level of the tributaries of Lake Eyre, which could more easily be done by damming though there's no point in doing so, you are wrong on this point.

>2; measured doses would aid maintaining the surface water level to make up for evaporation
No use maintaining the surface water level if the ecosystem's being poisoned by excess salt!

>3; that is a typical opportunist mentality.
Is there anything wrong with taking opportunities when they arise?

>4; it's not driven by religion, religion is the prime cause of out-of-hand populations.
No, religion is very much a secondary cause, and most religions aren't the cause at all. The primary cause of out of hand populations is people not being confident that their children will survive long enough to have children of their own. And when that's the case, they tend to overcompensate by having lots of children.

>5; again the non-comprehension of the meaning of the word is standard academic ignorance.
Firstly that's absurd; academics are far more likely to comprehend what words mean.
Secondly, you seem not to understand the problem. People often regard what they think they know as "common sense" even when they're totally wrong.

>6; brine, antiscalent, backwash, cleaning chemicals, membrane production etc are polluting.
Brine, when disposed of at sea, is (in the Australian context at least) heavily diluted to ensure it isn't a problem. Backwash is a process not a substance. And have you any evidence at all of environmental problems caused by antiscalents and cleaning chemicals from desalination plants?

(TBC)

individual (continued)

>7; wildlife & a greening around a huge lake would be beneficial
A huge hypersaline lake wouldn't result in much greening around it, and would not be beneficial for wildlife.

>& would also take environmental pressure due to human habitation away from the coastal area.
Not really - the reasons people want to live on the coast would continue to be as strong as ever. People already have the opportunity to move to remote areas, but choose not to.

>8; How would you know ? Less educated pragmatists have never been inducted in the decision-making circles
That is simply false.

>hence the evidence of waste due to "educated" people's mismanagement.
Mismanagement is mismanagement regardless of education levels.

I don't know if the point you're trying to make is that the people with experience on the ground should be involved in the decision making process. If it is, I agree (and I'd go further, encouraging crowdsourcing of ideas).

But all you seem to be doing is dissing education. You seem unaware of the fact that although education doesn't completely eliminate the false assumptions that costly decisions are based on, it does make them much less likely.

>As you don't show any evidence in contributing to find solutions I'll ignore your questions
>from now on until you provide useful & constructive posts.
Wasn't my link to the GAB atlas a useful post? You thought so, but you responded with the lie that it supported your position.
What do you think constructive posts are? Do you think a yes man, agreeing with you even when he knows you're wrong, is constructive?
When I suggested more farming near the Gulf of Carpentaria, taking advantage of the ample water supply of the northern GAB, was that not evidence in contributing to find solutions?