The discussion revolves around the feasibility and practicality of constructing a tunnel connecting the United States and Russia through the Bering Strait. Participants explore various aspects including potential demand, economic viability, geopolitical implications, and environmental concerns. The conversation touches on both theoretical and practical considerations regarding the project.
Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the feasibility or desirability of the tunnel project. Some see potential benefits while others highlight significant obstacles and risks. The discussion remains unresolved with competing perspectives on the project's viability.
Limitations include the absence of detailed studies or data to support claims made by participants, as well as unresolved questions about the economic and environmental implications of the project.
The tunnel wouldn't only carry passengers. See, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=home&sid=a0bsMii8oKXwArcanaNoir said:First of all, US citizens would have to travel through a lot of Canada to get there, Canadians would have to go through the US, and, who the heck lives in that part of Russia anyway?
It would have the capacity to carry some 100 million tons of goods and materials. Energy links would be created. And, not only are Russia and America interested in the project. There's Korea, Japan, China, and Canada.Nor do I see commercial use as a practical means, the volume of traffic would have to be quite large, and thus the tunnel would have to be quite large.
Russia and the U.S. may each eventually take 25 percent stakes, with private investors and international finance agencies as other shareholders, Razbegin said. ``The governments will act as guarantors for private money,'' he said.
I have yet to see any response on the US's part regarding this. It seems the interest Korea, Japan, etc... have is in bidding on the building of the tunnel.Willowz said:The tunnel wouldn't only carry passengers. See, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=home&sid=a0bsMii8oKXw
It would have the capacity to carry some 100 million tons of goods and materials. Energy links would be created. And, not only are Russia and America interested in the project. There's Korea, Japan, China, and Canada.
Can you post a link to that?Willowz said:Well a couple of benefits that I have read out were mostly reducing energy security concerns and closer ties with Korea, Japan and Russia.
Well, that's just from the Russian's sales pitch "we'll power the tunnel" and then maybe there's something left over. I don't see anything that shows any US interest.Willowz said:It's in that old link, "The project envisions building high-voltage power lines with a capacity of up to 15 gigawatts to supply the new rail links and also export to North America."
Umm. It's not like the investment will pay off in one year or so. Any, I find it odd that you just happen not to see any benefits for America. Can you elaborate or at least try and justify your position a little more?Evo said:Well, that's just from the Russian's sales pitch "we'll power the tunnel" and then maybe there's something left over. I don't see anything that shows any US interest.
There are no quantified benefits for the US, only vague isinuations, what actual studies have been presented? Show me studies and actual data. You're asking me to prove that you don't have an invisible purple elephant on top of your head. If you want to claim that there are real benefits to the US, then the onus is on you to furnish the data to back your claims up.Willowz said:Umm. It's not like the investment will pay off in one year or so. Any, I find it odd that you just happen not to see any benefits for America. Can you elaborate or at least try and justify your position a little more?
turbo said:Then there is the little matter of seismic activity in the region.
Like I said it's all up in the air. And studies would be conducted once there is some agreement on both sides as to the benefit for this undertaking. I just mentioned the idea.Evo said:There are no quantified benefits for the US, only vague isinuations, what actual studies have been presented?
Umm, I seriously doubt the US would become energy dependent on Russia overnight or even after a decade. If anything the US would further diversify its dependency on middle eastern oil.Proton Soup said:becoming dependent on russia for an energy source seems a little questionable. certainly explains investing in pipelines that aways, tho. and might explain some of that environmental crap about not drilling in alaska, too.
otoh, if we could buy cheap land in siberia, maybe have a summer dacha there...
And great migrations!Pythagorean said:bring back the land bridge!
DoggerDan said:The Chunnel connects two nearby regions of high commerce and tourism. It makes good economic sense given the heavy traffic, particular as the English Channel is rife with shipping traffic (bridges and heavy shipping - not a good combo).