Daily Challenge Day 37

So I’ve mentioned before Australia is akin to a remote mining colony on Mars. And South Australia is something of a backwater to that colony. Don’t believe me, just search the internet and check out national companies, they cater for: Perth, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. When there are national seminars and touring events, then Adelaide is typically ignored.  The middle chunk of Australia, comprising of South Australia and the Northern territory seems to be ignored. Something to do with history or geography? What would happen if the centre of Australia was to be developed?

Given South Australia is the driest state in the driest continent on earth, is it actually possible or practical to develop the region? What does it actually mean to be developed? As mentioned in a previous post, the newly industrialised countries are not so. The country is not industrialised, just a single city to which the population has been displaced. For the country to be industrialised the country,the land has to be developed. Further I indicated that the land needs to be occupied. For the land to be occupied the land needs dividing into cells 5km in diameter, and each cell occupied by at least one person. For the land to be developed, each of these has to be capable of being supplied with similar resources. It should be possible to get from one cell to another, and to get resources from one cell to the other. From previous post, South Australia has 50,088 cells, and therefore requires population of similar magnitude. Whilst the Yorke Peninsula council area has 297 such cells.

The primary resources to distribute between these cells are food and water. Does this mean we need infrastructure in the form of pipelines to get water to these cells? Given that there have been two international “decades of water” and the world population still doesn’t have a reliable and secure water supply system, I would suggest that grandiose schemes involving dammed reservoirs and pipelines are not part of the solution. Pipelines have to be filled with water, and as a consequence water is lost from usage inside the pipe. Therefore transporting large quantities of water large distances is only practical using a pipeline if there is a large and stable volume of water at the point of origin. If not then transporting the water in discrete tanks is more practical.

The problem then becomes one of stockpiling, and warehousing. An inventory management and logistics problem. So assuming average of 100 L/person per day to 900 L/person per day. Then given a typical storage container holds 20 L, would need 5 to 45 containers per person each day. That is a lot of containers to be shifting each day for one person, hence typical preference for pipelines. But considering that people in developing world may have to walk 5 km to collect 10 L to 20 L from a river, the water demands of people in the industrialised world seem extreme. It seems need to drink at least 2 L of water each day, therefore barring any other need for water, a 20 L container would last 10 days. Or if use tankers then could deliver around 27,000 L per truck, and more if road trains permitted.

I guess I was going somewhere but alludes me at the moment. [time 23:36]