Nicaragua Gives Chinese Firm Contract To Build Alternative To Panama Canal 323
McGruber writes with this news from late last week: "The Guardian is reporting that Nicaragua has awarded a Chinese company a 100-year concession to build an alternative to the Panama Canal, in a step that looks set to have profound geopolitical ramifications. The new route will be a higher-capacity alternative to the 99-year-old Panama Canal, which is currently being widened at the cost of $5.2bn. Last year, the Nicaraguan government noted that the new canal should be able to allow passage for mega-container ships with a dead weight of up to 250,000 tonnes. This is more than double the size of the vessels that will be able to pass through the Panama Canal after its expansion, it said."
Finally (Score:5, Informative)
I've been waiting to hear about this for years. It should be quite a project. Wikipedia has a map [wikipedia.org] for those interested.
Re:Short on details (Score:4, Informative)
... could potentially be a sea-level canal...
No it couldn't. the surface of Lake Nicaragua [wikipedia.org] is 32.7 meters above sea level. Its maximum depth is 26 meters. If you connect it to the sea without locks, it will empty out entirely.
The only way to make this work is to use locks, same as with the Panama canal.
The advantage here is that you will not need to accommodate any traffic during construction.
Re:Short on details (Score:5, Informative)
which would radically alter the Lake
Indeed since it is a freshwater lake, the ecosystem would undergo quite a change but currently it's being "attacked" by tons of sewage pumped into it each day. Lake Nicaragua [wikipedia.org]
Re:Finally (Score:4, Informative)
I think the USSR did something similar. Made a really pretty lake, if I recall, but they could never keep it stocked with fish. But I can’t find a link so it might be my imagination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Chagan [wikipedia.org]
Re:it's too wide (Score:3, Informative)
Multiple comments...
As fustakrakich says, no pumps needed. Need more water in the lock, get it from the higher water level side. Need less, give it to the lower water level side. As a kid, we went to a fishing camp along the Trent Waterway system in Ontario, Ca. I've had the now-rare experience of walking in circles, pushing the handles that operated the valves and doors of the locks. At that time it was fully manual, these days it's all electric. As for technology, I've also been on and to the Peterborough lift-locks, where the boats ride in pans on hydraulic rams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_Lift_Lock [wikipedia.org] But the thing I hope to see someday is the Falkirk Wheel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkirk_Wheel [wikipedia.org]
Yes, I'm a bit of a lock-junkie.
As for "succeed", China is embarking on a massive "manifest destiny" kick of their own, right now. I'll be curious to see what "Internet Time" does to that, as well as their changing demographics and internal tendency to corruption. It will be interesting to see how well they can keep their long-term focus with those other factors at work. (I'll agree that without them, China has been pretty good at long-term.)
Re:it's too wide (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Competition (Score:5, Informative)
So who's going to go ballistic over the loss of a monopoly?
Let's wait and see how long it takes them to actually build the damn thing, and at what cost. Go look at a map.
If you take that look, be sure to look closely. The plan is to utilize Lake Nicaragua and the San Juan River, which connects it to the Caribbean. That leaves only 10 km of completely new canal (from Lake Nicaragua to the Pacific), although the San Juan River also needs upgrades to make it navigable for larger ships. This is not a new idea, nor an implausible one - see the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org].
Re:Short on details (Score:5, Informative)
Rubbish. Melting all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica would raise the global sea level a few inches at best.
Woah, that's definitely not true. Melting all the arctic ice would not change the global sea level, because it's all floating. But melting Greenland ice would change the sea levels by 20 feet, because the ice is all supported by land. Same with Antarctica (which holds 70% of the world's fresh water): it's supported by land, so if it all melted, ocean levels would rise 60 meters.
The only reason no one worries about this scenario (they used to, see Waterworld), is because it's extremely unlikely Antarctica will melt completely. Same with Greenland, but if either one begins to melt due to global warming, you can be sure the remaining contrarian scientists will hop on board with a program to stop CO2 emissions. Lomborg will change his opinion quickly.
Re:Short on details (Score:4, Informative)
Google rails to trails. It is a good project for rail lines that were not worth the upkeep to the railroads. This is not some sort of conspiracy to reduce rail capacity like your post implies.
Re:Short on details (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, but Greenland IS melting, and lots of people haven't changed their ideas. Of course, it's a long way from a complete melt, and perhaps it won't. Similarly, Antartica is melting, as in losing tons of water every year. But there are a lot of tons to go through, and parts of it probably won't melt within the next few centuries. (IIRC, there are parts of Antartica where the ice is getting thicker, but those are a minority, and the average is less ice with each succeeding year.)
But note that these effects aren't ones that people can see directly, so they tend to discount them. Also, people have a hard time thinking about processes, so they tend not to.