individual,
The subtropical high persists even when Lake Eyre is full. However much you expect Lake Eyre to cause uplift, the fact remains that it doesn't, and any plan that's based on your ignorance of meteorology is worthless.

Individual the Bradfield plan need only be part of what takes place but it proves we have thought about it for decades
In time cheap power better pumps will see micro schemes develop too
We will be better for it

Thanks Belly and Indi,
I'm not giving up, but said about as much as I think might be persuasive.
Can't figure out how topping-up of the Artesian Basin via aquifers can be done - as I also appreciate the Basin's accumulation (or that of so many, as I understand there are quite a few, over various parts of our fabulous land) have trickled in there over thousands and millions of years. Imagine, dinosaurs' pee diluted over millennia ending up in someone's tea in Perth! Yum.

The why's and wherefore's of that trickle-down, and of the basins' (and aquifers') susceptibilities to disruption, are in my view sufficient to chuck out any ideas of using 'fracking' in our beloved Oz. If oil and gas are running out (as indeed they must, sooner or later), then so be it. Grow oil-bearing algae, or find another way to do things. Electric vehicles, plasma energy, whatever.

I'm not familiar with the 'gravity-fed Bradfield scheme', Indi - perhaps a link? Though I've learned over time to accept what you have to say - something I am most reluctant to accord to many of the weirdos we seem to be getting on OLO lately. (Trump included, though he's too conceited and arrogant to go on OLO - and some of us might give him hell, and he don't fight fair.)

Oz has a vast land mass, and most (but not all) activity is restricted, or limited, to the coastal strip, whereas so much is begging for attention - as long as it doesn't interfere with 'culture' or sensitive spaces. So, fine, trek across country with camels and stumble over dinosaur bones, or maybe, just maybe there are great untapped potentials - and I don't mean just underground minerals/gems/coal/Uranium/iron-ore/bauxite ... Those are great, and I hope our First Peoples can get right in there with royalties, jobs, towns (of whatever style suits), healthcare, education, aged-care, the good old Aussie backyard and veggie patch (if it suits), and all the luck in the world. God knows (or maybe somebody) they have waited long enough.

I understand our inland used also be forest (after a sort-of inland sea - I think, though not sure on that), else where the hell do people think all that blessed coal came from? Like so much of the Sahara used be forest - but not sure if deforestation was to blame for rendering it to sand, sand, desert with an occasional oasis, or climate change (or some other blink in infinite space). So maybe inland Oz could be forest again.
(Ok, I know our coal seems to be mostly (or totally) nearer the coast, but it was a nice thought - and if the inland wasn't ever a forest, that doesn't mean it couldn't be, does it?)

With so much of the world's natural landscape being raped, pillaged and otherwise destroyed (sorry, converted to more economically attractive alternative-use) - and to hell with the Sumatran Tiger, the Orang, the dik dik deer, or equivalent, the stinging ants, Rhesus macaque, the Sun Bears, etc, etc), because Palm Oil makes her skin sooo soft, and your toothpaste sooo smooth - we can and must do better to restore some worthwhile splendour to our ancient planet, mustn't we?

Forests counter greenhouse, fight global warming (alias Climate Change), and build the biosphere, as a 'bonus', and can be both a medicine cabinet and a food locker. (And they harbour birds, insects, fungi and such, and are blessed attractive to boot!) So, where's the downside? Takes too long, I need my dummy now, Mummy!

One day will come a new environmentalist crusader who people will listen to, for such will come with promise of ginormous watermelons, comfy-cosy eco-friendly high-rises replete with jacuzzi, whirlpool bath, and forest views, and scrumptious oysters laid on by the bucket-load (and a blonde - M/F or who really knows these days - in the bedroom if you're lucky).

I can't wait.

Belly Just out of interest this "Bradfield plan" you talk about who has peer reviewed it and verified it is in fact something that can be done and is likely to succeed if done.

Also how many have peer reviewed it and said the opposite of what he suggests in other words it will not work?

Interesting topic. Well let's do some back of the envelope calculations.

Desalination has been a big provider of water to our major cities in many cases freeing supplies up for agriculture and environmental flows.

Take an average figure for desalination plant pressure 60 bar although as membrane technology improves this keeps coming down. That is the equivalent of a 600 mt pump head. So the question becomes can water be transported the 3000kms or so over hill and dale with less than 600 mts total vertical head?

Possibly. The Romans were able to move substantial amounts of water about using very shallow gradient.

“The gradient of the Pont du Gard is only 34 cm per km, descending only 17 m vertically in its entire length of 50 km (31 mi): it could transport up to 20,000 cubic metres a day.” Wikipedia

17 mts over 50 kms translates to 1020 mts and is over the 600mt cut off. One suspects that modern technology may be able to improve on the 1:3000 ratio.

But that aqueduct would have to be continuous from start to finish. Never mind the hills and valleys it would require a 600mt head at the start.

Now of course due to environmental initiatives solar technologies have improved dramatically. One could envisage solar pumps doing the work at various stages quite cheaply. No need for long high voltage powerlines supplying coal generated power from distant stations.

But it must however stack up against the power used by a desalination plant supplied by renewable energy.

So why does anyone think this is feasible again? Happy to tease it out though.