Are these feasible? Which would be for the greater good?A solar Australia would allow for continued mining of its rich resources in the areas that would otherwise be flooded as well as a massive amount of energy for industry. An Australian inland sea would teem with life and increase humidity boosting nature and agriculture, it sounds like a classic "Ferngully" debate between industry and nature, but remember many Australian aboriginal lands would be flooded.
Sorry, but sounds too expensive. Instead we should cut our STEM funding & pothole filling budgets by another 25% and invest what we saved into subsidising Larry's thirteenth investment propery
Sounds nice, but how would they deal with the inevitable rise of roozillas?
why would the water stay there if the desert is that hot, you are literally doing zero work, pump in water, water evaporates faster than you can use it, there probably won't even be rainfall since it depends on long established wind masses, it will be another ecological disaster of magnificent proportions
Why not both? You can always add floating solar panels if you need all that energy, it will be a calm sea so it'll be easy.
>>17014119You already made a thread about this tweet. There should be 0 threads about this tweet so that's 2 too many.
>>17014169It is not about the tweet specifically. This is about the future of an entire continent, it's a big question and one overlooked. Maybe I'll use another image next time.
>>17014129Isn't some of Australia under sea level? Don't pump an inland sea, just build a canal. Continual inflow of seawater == free energy for all southeast AUS.You do have to figure out what to do with the brine admittedly.
>>17015466A tiny area in Lake Eyre
