The project may have been blessed by some official at the Kremlin, but no doubt it would need to be approved -- and even partly financed -- by the US and Alaskan governments to actually happen. It would be nice if reporters even bothered to ask if anyone in office on this side of the ocean had even heard of the Kremlin's renewed interest in this.
That doesn't sound too surprising based on the typical price of construction materials between then and now, (oil for example has increased by about 35% since then). There may have also been project changes and/or additions that also contributed to the higher estimate.
The second hard part, as alluded to in the article, is that there is essentially no infrastructure (highways, railroads) within 2000 miles of the Russian terminus, and the Alaskan side is not exactly a thriving metropolis either.
Also I don't have the numbers in front of me so it would be cool if anyone can back this up, but I believe transport by ship is cheaper per container-mile than both rail and highway transport. Is there a reason that balance would drastically change in the near future?
Rail is faster than sea and truck but can't do last-mile like trucks and is more expensive than sea. Sea is the cheapest, slowest form and obviously only works port to port. Truck is fast and flexible but most expensive.
Not sure how the math works out if you have to ship stuff across Siberia, Alaska, and Canada.
There's no land rail connection from Alaska to the more populated parts of North America, so really the choices are ship and road--- the rail connection from Alaska to the rest of the US/Canada happens via a rail barge between Whittier (near Anchorage) and Seattle. But if you're going to send it by sea to Seattle anyway, why not just load up the ships in Russia and not bother with the tunnel?
Might change if the long-proposed connection between the Alaskan rail network and the main North American network were ever built.
Harder to transmit electricity and data with ships (not that you need a road for that either though, but the article seemed to hit on the non-transport benefits quite a bit).
Undersea cable technology is fairly mature for data transmission, and rapidly advancing for power transmission (HVDC). You don't need a tunnel for either of those. That leaves the oil pipeline - which I am having trouble understanding the benefits of, because both Russia and Alaska+Canada have oil reserves, as well as more ready access to large oil markets (Europe and the continental US, respectively) that do not first require piping the oil across each other's territory.
There is a pending battle over oil rights under the arctic shelf, russia's stake is potentially trillions of barrels of natural gas and billions of oil in that section of the world. As cold weather and deep sea drilling options expand, they will have to build out more stuff in this section of Siberia.
Absolutely crazy idea. I lived there in Siberia, there not even a railways available. The reasonable-price logistics is only possible 2 month a year. This idea is a political hype. Such kind of idiotic projects appear shortly before elections and pass away shortly after.
Seems one can make a decent living from proposing mega-projects with price tags so vast and political inspiration so great it's not hard to to convince someone to commission a multi-year "study" at a "paltry" cost big enough to keep a small team living comfortably.
Another example project was construction of a billion-dollar indoor ski resort near Atlanta. Somebody was making a good buck "studying" that one ... until the nearby lake, proximity chosen to supply water for making snow, dried up.
A lot of commenters are mentioning that the distance is greater than the distance by sea -- but the difference isn't as much as you might think.
Look at the shortest route between LA and Beijing and you'll see that you already go over Siberia and the coast of Alaska. http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=LAX-PEK
Let me guess - some people don't understand cartographic projections? The shortest distance between two points is not a strait line on a map[1], especially when you are a long way from the equator.
Russia's biggest problem is centralized major cities: Moscow and St Petersburg, everything else is a "province".
US major cities are spread geographically: Boston, NYC, DC, Miami, Chicago, Seattle, SF, LA.
Seattle was the gateway to Alaska.
What's a gateway to Siberia? Vladivostok?
Does Vladivostok has something comparable to Amazon, Microsoft and Boeing?
Given Russia's history in high-tech construction (and particularly tunnels, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lefortovo_tunnel) I'm surprised that an oligarch-financed tunnel would get a positive response from the US.
The plan alone worries me greatly for the wildlife in Alaska, it's one of the world's last refuges for untouched nature and the last thing we need is to send any sort of human traffic in that direction.
If I were the richest person in the world I would probably buy up as much land as possible and keep civilization away from it. Keep it wild for future generations.
A road or railway can impact quite a large area, due to fringe effects. It can cut migration paths. The most valuable nature reserves are the ones that are completely untouched, and a long way from any human activity. On the other hand little islands urban forest are just a waste of real estate (and a great source of wild animals on roads). Wildlife "corridors" may be a useless waste of space, or incredibly useful ... I'm not too sure. I guess it depends on how the animals use them.
Hopefully won't do too much damage, though. As you say, Alaska is really big.
There is no such thing as "untouched nature". Humans have been almost everywhere on the planet since the late 19th century (exploration of polar regions, deserts and submarines). There are hundreds of thousands of native Alaskans who have a problem with your idea that no one ever lived there.
True. But native Alaskans don't pave everything over with malls and parking lots.
=========
Also you can't have a rail line that goes on for thousands of miles without any maintanance stations, rest stops, etc... I'm worried that small towns will pop up along the route, as more trade occurs along the route the towns will grow and then the shit hits the fan from there.
I thought you had noble intentions when you said "... last refuges for untouched nature and the last thing we need is to send any sort of human traffic in that direction.".
but when you mentioned "...for future generations.", turned out not.
Yes I meant to save the wildlife for future generations to admire not to bulldozer and pave over. In the US we have 30% federal owned land reserved for things like parks and wild life areas but a lot of it is areas that no one really wanted (desert) or areas where there aren't any people anyway.
Future generations shouldn't have to travel to another state to get to a nature reserve.
This is also a very smart long-term strategic move to run a pipeline from Canada to Eurasia and Africa
This is what I don't get. Isn't there plenty of oil in Eurasia? And plenty of demand for oil in the Americas? Do the Russians really expect that in the future the flow of oil will go in that direction?
Oil is obviously a finite resource, and very soon, (when oil becomes much more scarce than it is now) whoever controls the oil will control a large portion of the world's economy.
If Russia (I assume you're talking about Siberian oil here?) has a ton of oil, it would make sense for them to sit on it and wait for the rest of the world to deplete their own supplies before drilling.
If some university somehow invents batteries that have the same weight/energy ratio and charge time as a diesel engine system (accounting for the energy efficiency difference), wouldn't most of the oil dependence go away?
Taking engine weight into account for automobiles, electric cars have much lighter motors and the extra volume/weight can be used for batteries.
Consider 30l fuel capacity = 30kg of battery. Petrol engine is about 300kg, Electric motor about 30kg. So that's 270kg that could be used for batteries (and is in the Tesla). And since the batteries can be anywhere in the vehicle, there's a benefit to that too!
Also take into account that the transfer of energy is less efficient for diesel than for chemical batteries (more wasted as heat). So it's not quite as bad as the energy density would suggest, but still pretty bad.
Of course not, electricity is not a source of energy and petroleum is so much more than just a source of energy.
Take some time to think about how much stuff is actually made from petroleum these days... it's mind boggling.
For example, your electric batteries would possibly power a wheeled vehicle? What would those wheels be resting on? Conventional tires are made of petroleum!
For oil dependence to go away, mankind either needs to give up the energy and things which are derived from petroleum or find suitable replacements, and that is a monumental challenge at this stage in the game.
For oil dependence to go away, mankind either needs to give up the energy and things which are derived from petroleum or find suitable replacements, and that is a monumental challenge at this stage in the game
It's pretty easy to get oil in the quantities needed for the plastics industries without digging it up from the ground. Canola, peanuts, whales... longish-chain hydrocarbons aren't that difficult to come up with if you're willing to pay a highish price for them.
There's only plenty of oil in Russia, in central and western Europe the supply is much smaller, and most of it is under North Sea. Many Europe countries strive for diversity of oil and gas sources, so that they're not dependent on Russia in their fuel needs. However I don't think that ridiculously long pipeline from Canada (which would surely go through Russia anyway) would be very satisfactory.
If I wanted to send a container of stuff from (say) China to the US, would it be cheaper to send it in a ship, or go round the long way through a Bering Strait tunnel (assuming such a thing actually already existed)?
freight cost is tricky to compare, but considering Trans-Siberian Railway is competing with the long-way sea route, and is mainly winning on speed and safety thanks to pirates. *
I think shipping via ship is going to be way cheaper than the to-be-built tunnel, unless, maybe if you are shipping from Siberia to Alaska?
You don't built it underground, you build it floating in the water (anchored to the sea floor). Build stretch into the tunnel, and then expand it every $foo years as needed.
Earthquake resistance, yes. But building a tunnel right across the middle of a spreading mid-oceanic ridge? Nobody has ever done that before and it seems problematic.
Interesting! As someone who lives in the Pacific Northwest, this sounds really cool. Maintained, it could really open up some economic expansion in that part of the world.
This is AWESOME. Well, at a naive and fleeting glance it is. I'm sure it has political, environmental, etc. etc. implications. And it got the green light. I'm wondering how big the tunnel is. I would assume it would have to fit many many trains at once, I mean one or two tracks would probably be a waste...
