GOD, HOW HARD IS IT TO NORMALIZE YOUR AUDIO TRACK??? I can barely hear you. Otherwise good content, except for your Patreon talk as it is the same words in the exact same order every video, spice it up sometime?

Audio could use an upgrade, but I did enjoy this video. Growing up in Southern California during the '7th, I remember the idea being "tossed around" , but like y'all down under, desalination was considered more cost-effective. Cali is in a very similar situation, I believe, to Australia. A challenging few decades ahead of us both.

What a crap if there is a scientist who can show us a mountain of water, please come forward hahahaha

Forget Australia. I'd do it myself.

And that's how the drunkaroo evolved, which jumps in awkward directions.

And the alkoala, an always hungover cutie dosing off a dozen times a day.

let's move to Antarctica

A snowed kangaroo

What Australia needs is a ton of solar energy and desalination plants. That's cheaper and way more sustainable

@@unlink1649 a couple nuclear plants would probably be cheaper long term then solar.

If I am not wrong, aquifers go away for good, it is not a renewable source of water. I would expect them to bequite empty over there.

@@FlorinArjocu desalination should last indefinitely tho

@Rejected Alien That is the same solution, it still needs bringing them to shore.

Have you been watching Futurama?

Yes, but it was later dismissed because it was totally different from playing footy. Now the plan it to produce a giant tennis bat to deflect them.

If only I could do more.

If only you could harvest water from floods of puns.

@@Asianometry But you cold more which inhibited your punny ice capabilities If only

Pity. You don't have a visionary like Boyan Slat.

in that case just fill up at the Ord river .... you could green the whole country there is enough water there

Shinning One have you been there. Lake argyle isn’t big enough to water all of Australia. That’s a dumb thing to say and you obviously have no idea.

There's never a shortage of water on a planet with 75% surface water! Just because rain don't fall where man needs it doesn't mean there's a water shortage.

We don't have a couple of decades. Ice ages are the norm and we are going back to it.

@Andrei Salvaleon Just because it don't rain where man wants it to or needs it rain doesn't mean there a shortage of Water!

Not quite! Some islands on the Adriatic Sea get their water from mainland Croatia trough... water tankers of course! I have seen one such while on vacation there. Sure the distances to Aus are much greater, but than the tankers are ever bigger. Economy of scale! So I doubt your calculation that is cheaper to desalinate water! That maybe holds true for Dubai and similar oil reach countries, that dont give a damn about ecology and burn fosil fuels on massive scale for electricity/desalination.

Great point Or melt icebergs insitu and tank them to Oz.

@@stormtrooper9404 Save your enviro/greenie stuff for another video- Aus has operating desalination plants in all big cities built years ago.

Thank God for capitalism.

You enjoy drinking other people's wee ? Give me brown ice any day, at least I know penguins are disease free.

@@RemusKingOfRome ever heard of water treatment plant ?

If it’s good enough for the iss it’s good enough for me!

We do it here in San Jose! come get your nice glass of recycled sewage! No takers?

yeah, just like the fast trains the socialists love reviving each election.

Project Habakkuk's pykrete is an interesting material but it would have required *building* an iceberg, not just towing one.

(1) Hugely expensive .. end

Simply put large push propeller engines or windmills or sails and powered by solar panels and steer it to the port. no need for tugboats or fuel costs.

“Just” takes energy. Just? Australia gets most of its energy from coal.

1st law of thermodynamics. Research it. There's no such thing as clean energy. Period. Good luck.

@@terrysummerfield5863 "Clean" normally means it does not release CO2 or pollutants into the atmosphere, and there are various methods of power generation that accomplish that. What does the law of conservation of energy have to do with this? Maybe you meant "free" energy.

@@DFPercush All energy creates heat and all energy must be mined or refined in the continued fight against nature, and without our sembients in nature, we'll all be gone. We are now in what is being called THE 6th mass EXTINCTION. Our problem of abrupt irreversible climate change is a direct result of human overshoot. Meaning that we humans cannot stop consuming the resources of planet earth. It's called WETICA DISEASE by Sitting Bull. It's a condition in which the afflicted, ( now nearly all humans) are constantly desiring to posses material things. Everything mankind makes and builds ends up in the landfill, even your so called"clean energy materials and machines. God be with you.

@@terrysummerfield5863 I think this issue is better understood through the Second Law of Thermodynamics. All actions increase entropy. We’re trying to improve human existence with the least amount of increase.

Rather than pick up massive bergs and tow them back with large risks, I think the answer is in a purpose built ship. It would have to be a monstrous 200,000 ton twin hull vessel with a deployable conveyor belt that submerges ahead of the bow to scoop little bergs onboard. It may or may not have armaments to smash down larger icebergs. It could be nuclear powered, comparable in size to two US aircraft carriers merged as a catamaran. It would have cranes to launch and recover small tugs , used to herd bergs to it for processing. Plus helicopters for surveys and crew transfers. Nuclear power would direct heating to special splicing guns used to cut down larger blocks brought aboard. By the end most ice pieces would be the size of large house bricks. When full the ship would move north away from the ice fields to meet with transport ships. These transport ship would be little different to coal or petroleum tankers. Liquid would transfer via hose and ice bricks transferred by a conveyor arm (just like coal) into the hulls of receiving ships. The harvester would also refuel at sea and then return to the field to repeat. Meanwhile the water tankers sets course for customers. Grand Terre would probably be the meeting point to transfer at sea with some shelter from rough seas. Upon reaching unloading point the cargo would be entirely liquid, having naturally melted on the long voyages. Desalination plants simply need an offshore barge to pump the contents ashore. There the plant would test for any frozen bacteria or similar issues, and resolve before distributing via existing infrastructure into local water supplies.

**FARTS LOUD AF** to expensive for water. Melt it onsite with solar energy and lay a pipe down to mainland.

Well individual icebergs become unstable as the underside melts faster than the top and they become top heavy. So for your heroic sailing idea, you'd need to take three or four icebergs and form them into a raft by bridging across them with some other icebergs....

@@Graham_Wideman It just became orders of magnitude more crazy and heroic - I love it!

@@afriedli Exactly! Although at some point it's probably easier to tow Australia to Antarctica.

@@afriedli "About 7/8ths of an iceberg is below the water line." so the speed of that sailing iceberg will be on the super slow side... and yea because of all the melting caused by thewarm moving water of the ocean it would be melting and changing what side is on the top...

I chuckle at the idea of a super tanker having to cede way to a "bigger fish".

Why should they do that? It takes for ever to melt and its very heavy to tow. There are lots of water in the rivers of north WA and NT in Australia. Tankers can be loaded and deliver the water in a few days. Imagine if there was nuclear tankers and this would have been done for free.

Plus attached a propeller and rudder mechanism below the waterline

It won't work. You need a shaped keel to use sails. Even if you can find an iceberg of the right shape, the melt on the underwater part of the iceberg would cause the centre of mass of the iceberg to continually move. Eventually the iceberg would flip over and all your sails and infrastructure would be underwater, causing a total loss of the endeavour.

icebergs are buoyant bodies, they flip and rotate like a sphere every now and then

@@idonotconsent Heat is primarily lost in three ways. Radiation and physical transfer. This is the feeling of warmth from standing close to a fire and the cold from touching a handrail in the winter. In our case air and sea lose heat to bergs. At similar temperatures both air and sea will heat the berg roughly the same amount through radiation. Heating and cooling water takes a lot more energy than heating and cooling air. The consequence is that warm water melts ice much faster than warm air, especially if there isn't additional airflow (like in a hair dryer's exhaust). There's an easy way to test this. Prepare an oven at 100°C. Prepare a pot of not-quite boiling water. Put ice cubes into each. Which disappear first? The boiled ones, despite being in less warm of an environment. Icebergs flipping is pretty common as due to the above the melt is fairly uneven.

Its sf indeed, mountains of water or ice don’t exist

Was thinking the same thing…like what they thought about using in space.

it's going to run out and possibly cause other issues, e.g. quakes due to unstable ground