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."
Short on details (Score:5, Interesting)
The story is short on details, the Spanish language op ed referred to in TFA indicates the canal would run through Lake Nicaragua. This route has been considered since before the US-dug canal through Panama. I could potentially be a sea-level canal, which would be a major plus, but which would radically alter the Lake. Either way, it'd be a big deal for shipping and save thousands of miles and tons of fuel for ships bigger than whatever they're calling the latest "Panamax." It seems to me the ports of New Orleans and Mobile in the US would benefit, perhaps also Atlantic ports in Europe.
Re:Short on details (Score:4, Funny)
I could potentially be a sea-level canal
So, lose some weight? I guess?
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: (Score:2)
except that just a quick look at google maps, Panama is slight more than 20 miles across, even with the lake Nicaragua would have to dig more than 60 miles of canal to get across.
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)
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.
Fictional Science (Score:3)
The only reason no one worries about this scenario (they used to, see Waterworld)
Sorry but in Waterworld there was no land except for the peak of Mount Everest. This represents a sea level rise of ~8km which is two orders of magnitude more than the effect of melting all the ice on the planet (~80m). This is not a scenario that anyone with even the loosest of ties to reality has ever considered a real possibility.
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:Short on details (Score:4, Insightful)
currently it's being "attacked" by tons of sewage pumped into it each day.
How can such a Friend Of The Workers, Friend Of Human Rights And Hater Of Capitalism like Daniel Ortega allow such a thing to happen?
Re: (Score:3)
The story is short on details, the Spanish language op ed referred to in TFA indicates the canal would run through Lake Nicaragua. This route has been considered since before the US-dug canal through Panama. I could potentially be a sea-level canal, which would be a major plus, but which would radically alter the Lake. Either way, it'd be a big deal for shipping and save thousands of miles and tons of fuel for ships bigger than whatever they're calling the latest "Panamax." It seems to me the ports of New Orleans and Mobile in the US would benefit, perhaps also Atlantic ports in Europe.
Shipping from Asia, to the Southeast US doesn't make a lot of economical sense when you can transfer cargo containers on the West Coast of the US or even Mexico and transfer them by rail. Assuming the transfer operation takes the same time regardless of the port, the rail travel is comparable to sea and more fuel efficient. In addition, since regardless of the port in question (West or East coast), the port is not the final destination and often the goods are transferred by rail or truck a substantial dist
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Short on details (Score:5, Insightful)
The US rail infrastructure could not remotely handle the amount of cargo that has to move. We are dependent on big trucks for cross country shipping because of it. Getting a country like nicaragua to approve the canal is orders of magnitude easier than convincing every local govt in the US to let you run new rails through it (on the east coast lots of rail lines are being torn up for bike paths)
Then we are in a world of hurt, because there are not enough highways and more importantly drivers for big trucks. To expand rail capacity does not require local govt approval. The railroads already own the right of away. Convincing them to spend billions of dollars without a taxpayer subsidy like trucking and shipping gets (who builds those highways and ports?), now that is a different story. Where local govt comes in is when cities expand to where the railroad is and they want the railroad to move. But that is a little bit like people who build housing near an airport and complain about the noise.
Studies have shown that the most efficient land based cargo transport is rail for long distance with truck for the last 250 miles. That would mean the train stops only every 500 miles or so. If you notice what the railroads have been doing post-regulation, that is exactly what they have been working towards for the past 40 years. Modern railroading is not what our parents and grand parents grew up with.
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: (Score:3)
the rail travel is comparable to sea and more fuel efficient.
Wrong. Container transport by ship is about 2.5 times as efficient as rail, according to these people in the shipping industry:
http://www.worldshipping.org/about-the-industry/liner-ships/container-ship-design [worldshipping.org]
I think the cargo ship math is off. It states the ship transports 11,000 20 foot containers. Well an 80 foot well car for containers will hold three of those and they are double stacked, so that means six per 80 foot car. That would require 1,833 cars for an approximate total length around 26 miles. Most stack trains are between 1.25 and 2 miles long in the US, meaning a cargo ship would require 13 to 20 trains to move all of the cargo (versus 5,500 trucks). That is assuming, of course, that those contain
Re: (Score:3)
theoretically, a cargo ship is more efficient than a train assuming you are only using hypothetical efficiencies and not real world scenarios
Then why does so much Chinese freight get shipped directly to NY harbor? http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120805/TRANSPORTATION/308059971 [crainsnewyork.com]
Just because something happens someway doesn't mean it is the most efficient way. Driving 55mph is far more efficient than 70mph (or the 80mph or 90mph that many people drive), and yet the speed limit on the interstate is usually 70mph. Maybe there are outside influences such as labor agreements or port fees or tariffs? Maybe the ship is then used to pick up containers at NY and transport to Europe? Maybe LA and San Diego or too crowded? Or maybe keeping the containers on the ship is cheaper than paying th
Re: (Score:3)
Back in the 1960s and 70s, Edward Teller [wikipedia.org] (the so-called "father of the hydrogen bomb") advocated using nuclear exposives to undertake massive civil works projects, called Operation Plowshare [wikipedia.org]. One of the blue-sky thoughts was blasting a sea-level canal clear across the Central America.
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: (Score:3)
I wonder if they will resurrect the idea of “Pan-Atomic Canal”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_canal [wikipedia.org]
Basically, you just need a few atomic devices to carve out a new canal. I assume China has a few laying around and that the who thing would only take a few months to construct.
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Replying to my own post – I copied OP link, not Operation Plowshare’s link. Here it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was a planned test to dig a harbor (which is kind of like a big hole) in Alaska but it never happened. Ergo all objections are theoretical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chariot_(1958) [wikipedia.org]
(I might have to take that back. 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.)
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: (Score:2)
It appears I should not have posed it as a rhetorical question since that appears to be too subtle for readers here, which is fair enough reading it casually late at night or something.
Re: (Score:3)
(I might have to take that back. 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.)
You are thinking of Lake Chagan, [wikipedia.org] part of the "Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy" [wikipedia.org] project that Russia did.
It does seem to be quite pretty. [staticflickr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No. It would have happened in the early 1960s, but was canceled over strong local opposition and no real economic need for a port at Cape Thompson.
What really happened.... (Score:3, Funny)
From the Wiki: ... Project Chariot, which would have used several hydrogen bombs to create an artificial harbor at Cape Thompson, Alaska. It was never carried out due to concerns for the native populations and the fact that there was little potential use for the harbor to justify its risk and expense....
Government Man: "We're going to build a new harbor for you!"
Inuit: "No want harbor. Want seals"
GM: "Look, this harbor will be really neat. It will be a big hole in the ground next to the sea where ships can
Re: (Score:2)
NO.
That was a stupid idea of Dr. Edward Teller and others. This paper is a fascinating look at how stupid of a plan it was and although they didn't do full scale nuclear testing, they did import fallout into Alaska from Nevada. [uconn.edu]
Edward Teller toured the territory of Alaska in the summer of 1958 to promote his dream of "engaging in the great art of geographic engineering, to reshape the earth to your pleasure." He told the curious Alaskans that they were "the most reasonable people," that the atomic scientists had "looked at the whole world" for just the right location to test their technology. He flattered them, saying that "Anything new that is big needs big people in order to get going..., and big people are found in big states ." He boasted that the Atomic Energy Commission (the predecessor to the Energy Research and Development Administration, and now the Department of Energy) could "dig a harbor in the shape of a polar bear, if required." He further boasted that "If your mountain is not in the right place, just drop us a card." (Coates, 1989).
It's no small wonder that Kubrik patterned Dr. Strangelove after Teller. One quote sums it up by Isador Rabi [aps.org]about Teller as well:
"He is a danger to all that is important. I do think it would have been a better world without Teller. I think he is an enemy of humanity."
We did have the Sedan shot which was part of Plowshare but it made a nice big hole in Nevada.
The Soviets with their Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (PNE) d
it's too wide (Score:2)
Re:it's too wide (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure that Panama didn't consider that either when they started their current project to widen the existing Panama canal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:it's too wide (Score:5, Insightful)
not to mention how stupid it is to completely cut your country in half.
Yeah, that MIssisippi river forces people to ride thousands of miles further to take their horses from Mississippi to Texas. Oh wait, they've been building bridges and fording rivers since before the colonial era?
Sure, it is a longer route than Panama, but I suspect the shipping volumes are large enough that it might be profitable. China is likely viewing this strategically - they've been taking the long view far more than the US in recent years, with the exceptions of their environmental policy and the US willingness to invest in blowing things up.
Re: (Score:2)
China manages its people like property, like a herd, thats why they take the long view. The US, in theory, is just a group of people who choose to live together.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:it's too wide (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So China is the good guy for previously giving nothing, then giving something. But the U.S. is the bad guy for previously giving something, but considering giving less?
Your problem is you're as
Re: (Score:3)
It will work as well for them as it did for their predecessors.
The west is more or less done dumping money into corrupt 3rd world hell holes. China will also get its fingers burned, they will learn. Africa is like the old Steve Jackson game 'Illuminati', future deals are not enforceable. They've all learned the; Revolution! All deals are off. Shuffle.
China didn't have any capital to invest when the rest of the worlds capital learned that the only thing worth owning in Africa is a government. Even then,
Re:it's too wide (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at a map of Nicaragua. It's at least twice if not 3x as wide as Panama at its thinnest point. What an unbelievably stupid idea, not to mention how stupid it is to completely cut your country in half.
In the US, our country is "completely cut in half" by a naturally occurring canal, if you will. We've used a technologies known as the "bridge" and "ferry" to deal with that. Nicaragua could probably do the same.
Also note that part of that distance through Nicaragua is already water: Lake Nicaragua. Every plan ever for a canal through that region -- going back to the 19th century -- has included the lake in the route.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:it's too wide (Score:4, Interesting)
Nicaragua apparently doesn't even have a paved road that stretches from one coast to the other. I'm not sure how much of an issue it would be to build a $40b canal that has a few tall bridges, or those new fangled draw bridges every so often to handle what must be a huge amount of traffic in the area.
Re: (Score:2)
Might be cheaper to do cut and cover tunnels while you are actually constructing the canal.
Re: (Score:3)
Most countries don't have paved roads (certainly not larger than a 2 lane country road) that run their length or width. Manaus, a major Brazilian port is only accessible by air and sea for most of the year (rainy season). The concept of a national highway system outside of the US and Europe is virtually unknown.
I missed my plane out of Colombia last year due to a mudslide on the largest road between the two largest cities (8 million and 3 million) in the country, it was one lane in each direction. T
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the area this canal would be built through is jungle with no roads anyway, there would only be a need for a few bridges on the east coast and a few bridges on the west coast.
Re:it's too wide (Score:4, Interesting)
And as for cutting one's country in half, that's what bridges and tunnels are for.
I don't think that the Chinese will succeed for the same reasons why the French and other European nations didn't succeed initially in Panama. The Panama canal took a national interest to construct, not a corporate interest, and was driven in large part by our nation having two coasts with a whole lot of distance in between, and by our "Manifest Destiny" doctrine. Simple economic interests operated by a corporation may not be able to pull it off, especially if that corporation is there only for that purpose, as problems along the way will make it very hard to raise capital when investors don't think that their investment will pay off.
If they do manage to pull it off, great! There will be uses for the Panama Canal even if it receives less traffic than the new one, decades from now when it's finished.
Re: (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 Peterb
Re: (Score:2)
Re:it's too wide (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Look at a map of Nicaragua.
You first, since it's clear you didn't actually look at a detailed map.
If you look at an actual map of Nicaragua, what you will see is that there is a gigantic body of water called Lake Nicaragua that covers about half the width of the country. Look a little harder and you'll see a series of major rivers connecting Lake Nicaragua (which sits mostly on the western part of the country) with the Caribbean Sea to the east. As a result, any of the canals that have ever been proposed in Nicaragua make use of the
Good luck with that (Score:5, Funny)
100 years for china... (Score:2)
Isnt that much...we spent a trillion dollars on the war in iraq we spent another trillion on stimulus. Imagine if we had spent a trillion rebuilding all our roads, rails, schools, hospitals and ports. Efficiency in infrastructure adds to long term economic growth which increases tax revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
"We spent no where near 1 trillion dollars on stimulus. "
The federal government cranked up spending by 18% between 2008 and 2009. This was to "stimulate" the economy after the housing crash. This wasn't a one time thing where they immediately cut spending back to previous levels. That spending has continued year after year right up to the present. We've spent several trillion on "stimulus" and it hasn't worked.
Re: (Score:2)
That and creating nations to allow you to build your canal. First you find a bunch of mal-contents, arm them and then when they revolt you recognize their little area as an independent nation. They then sign a treaty giving you perpetual control and you can start digging. [millercenter.org]
In 1901, the United States negotiated with Britain for the support of an American-controlled canal that would be constructed either in Nicaragua or through a strip of land—Panama—owned by Colombia. In a flourish of closed-door maneuvers, the Senate approved a route through Panama, contingent upon Colombian approval. When Colombia balked at the terms of the agreement, the United States supported a Panamanian revolution with money and a naval blockade, the latter of which prevented Colombian troops from landing in Panama. In 1903, the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty with Panama gave the United States perpetual control of the canal for a price of $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000.
Out of curiosity... (Score:2)
Apparently, there is a sea-level discrepancy of ~20cm between the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Panama Canal. That's largely irrelevant; because it isn't a sea-level canal.
If one were to build a sea-level canal across the area(or nearby), what would the effect be? Some initial flow quickly reaching equilibrium? A more-or-less-permanent(for human purposes, let's say a few centuries at least) flow? Would the erosive effects be substantial enough that part of the canal could dig itself, if an initial cut w
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the water was that keen to level out, wouldn't it have already piled round the open flank between Patagonia and Antarctica, i.e. round whichever cape it is?
but but but.... (Score:2)
Re:but but but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Since the lake is more than 100 feet above today's sea level, if it ever floods with salt water, there are not going to be many people left to worry about its ecology.
Now hitchhiker organisms riding on the bottoms of the ships or in their ballast tanks are a reasonable concern. We can assume that inspection and cleaning facilities will be set up on both sides of the Nicaragua canal, since this kind of contamination is a well known problem. I expect that the Panama Canal has been retrofitted by now-- although maybe it is being treated as a lost cause.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Costa Rica (Score:5, Funny)
You realise if the pull this off technically Costa Rica will become an island.
This could be good news (Score:5, Interesting)
A china that is committed to trading with the world is not waging war. This is about shipping routes from China to Europe bypassing unstable africa and an even more unstable middle east. Its also about ships such as the maersk Triple E class 165,000 tons which is too big for any US port to handle but can be easily handled by ports in china and europe. This would shock americans but the Chinese of 700 years had ships bigger than any in Europe that could travel farther and were more advanced with magnetic compasses and watertight compartments.
uh (Score:3, Funny)
David Lee Roth is confused.
And this is the thanks we get in the U.S. (Score:3)
We go to all that trouble to attempt an overthrow of the Nicaraguan government all through the 80's, and THIS is how they say thanks!
Do you have any idea how much money we spent sending your people to college [wikipedia.org], you ungrateful bastards?
China needs busywork (Score:2)
When you have 100s of millions of unemployed single males, you have a problem. They need busy work. It would be best for them if they shipped them all over with shovels and hand-dug the canal. They also need more countries enslaved to their cheap products in order to keep their factories going, again, because if you have 100s of millions of unemployed single males, you have a problem.
CHINA NEEDS WOMEN (Score:2)
100s of millions of unemployed single males...you have a problem
Uhhhh, JERBS are the least of their problems.
Unless they're going to work them 24/7, they need 100s of millions of wimmins . And these idiots keep aborting females. Unless China has the plans for the gay bomb. It's going to take a world war the likes we haven't seen to burn off that many unattached bachelors. Sexbots and VR porn only fulfill the basest needs and will only serve as a stopgap. (but what a market opportunity!!!)
One volcano can spoil your whole weekend (Score:2)
Aside from it being a longer route, I thought one of the reasons they decided not to dig there was volcanism.
Infrastructure (Score:2)
I hope it materialises (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
There is a funny story about when the Panamanians took over the Canal they had a meeting with the Army to discuss revenue and in that meeting discovered that the tolls on the Canal barely covered the cost of operating the canal and that the entire military presence that maintained and administered the canal was supported by US taxpayers.
To this date it is my understanding that even with the toll increases Panama makes very little money on the canal. The increases in tolls are to pay for the canal expansion.
Re:Competition (Score:4, Interesting)
China is already losing manufacturing jobs
Africa and the middle east is going to be the new frontier for low cost manufacturing
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Competition (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it might be time for you to invest in my subprime factories! On a larger scale, you can actually tolerate a steady stream of factories blowing up, as long as enough of them turn a constant rent... And the children there will work for a carrot a day!
Re: (Score:2)
What's to stop Costa Rica or Columbia joining in?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
According to the developer's website, it will not use the San Juan River.
Lake Nicaragua is freshwater, though. I can't see using it without dramatic environmental impact on that lake.
Re:Competition (Score:5, Interesting)
What's to stop Costa Rica or Columbia joining in?
1. Mountains
2. Water to operate the locks to get over those mountains.
Panama and Nicaragua both have relatively low hills/mountains, and large lakes at sufficient altitude to supply water for the locks.
Costa Rica and Colombia do not.
A little over three decades ago, I was a young Marine, and spent several months in Panama. We provided security for the Gatun dam and locks. It was very interesting to watch the ships step up and down through the locks. We conducted patrols in the surrounding rainforest. It was the most beautiful forest I have ever seen. There were trees almost as big as sequoias, and spots where the canopy were so dense that it was almost dark on the forest floor. The birds, butterflies and flowers all had dazzling colors. But it seemed like everything had thorns or some goo that would blister skin, and there were lots of mosquitoes, leeches, and other bloodsucking bugs.
Re: (Score:3)
The plan is on the BORDER of nicaragua and costa rica. The full story is far more interesting. Nicaragua invaded costa rica in 2010 for the sole reason of capturing a portion of the river that is going to be used for the canal. Because it is on the border, I fully expect Costa Rica will also reap benefits from this project. * I have lived in Nicaragua and Costa Rica for past five years.
Uh, no. Nicaragua didn't invade anything. Costa Rica threw a fist when Nicaragua started dredging operations on the San Juan River, over which Nicaragua has full sovereign from border to border (that is sovereignty over the totality of the surface area) as per the Cañas-Jerez Treaty of 1858 (with Costa Rica having only commercial navigation rights.)
There is a lot more the story than what you have been implying here. For example Costa Rica for a while insisted in sending armed police and patrol up and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well as far as the Atlantic coast's concerned, DC's about as close to Lake Erie as you can get in US territory, and it hardly seems a good idea to go via Lake Ontario and mess up the tourist trade at Niagara. But that leaves a huge expanse of dry land to cross between Lake Superior and Seattle.
How about instead we suggest to the ultraneocons that a canal along the Mexican border, would provide an easily defended barrier against illegal immigration.
Then we'd all get to laugh when it was revealed that the co
Re: (Score:3)
The Chinese have to build it within 6 years or they lose the concession. The route they are using is the same as the original route that the US was going to use way back when, before the French decided they had lost too many workers to malaria in Panama and the US started funding Panamanian rebels.
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Like iOS, they get to set the price to move the goods around.
I'm pretty sure that you can just 'sideload' through the Strait of Magellan if you feel like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Like iOS, they get to set the price to move the goods around.
I'm pretty sure that you can just 'sideload' through the Strait of Magellan if you feel like it.
It's not like they're closing the Panama Canal once the Chinese build this. The new canal costs too much, people will just keep going through the old canal (tough luck for those who invested in ships too large to go through the old canal, but doing all those thousands of km through the end of South America isn't less expensive either).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Like iOS, they get to set the price to move the goods around.
I'm pretty sure that you can just 'sideload' through the Strait of Magellan if you feel like it.
It's not like they're closing the Panama Canal once the Chinese build this. The new canal costs too much, people will just keep going through the old canal (tough luck for those who invested in ships too large to go through the old canal, but doing all those thousands of km through the end of South America isn't less expensive either).
I don't think the significance of this development is so much commercial as it is geo-political. Not that long ago, if the Soviets had done this, it would have caused a major shit-storm. This is a subtle but deliberate and clever provocation on part of the Chinese since they are effectively invading what the USA has regarded as it's 'sphere of influence' for about 200 years without firing carrying a single gun but still doing something of considerable military significance. I'm not sure what the PRC is tryi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have not even RTFA yet, but I believe I've put more thought into this issue than you have. I've been to Panama and watched the canal operate, and I have some thoughts on this issue which have persisted since. First, the Panama canal is driven by fresh water which is then thrown away. The redesign reuses a portion of the water (a third, I think) so that they can make more runs per day, not so that they can save any water. There are literally people dying on this planet for lack of fresh water and this is j
Re: (Score:2)
There are literally people dying on this planet for lack of fresh water and this is just used as hydraulic fluid and then thrown into the ocean while ships pass by. Everything is wrong with this.
Have you ever considered the cost involved transporting fresh water to those who need it?
It's cheaper to dig a canal than to widen one, because you're going to be digging through a bunch of dry land with no special engineering issues. Then you knock the ends out. It's cheaper still if they import a bunch of Chinese slave labor.
Even cheaper when you use local Nicaraguan slave labor.
Water (Score:2)
There are literally people dying on this planet for lack of fresh water and this is just used as hydraulic fluid and then thrown into the ocean while ships pass by. Everything is wrong with this.
Are there people dying in Panama for lack of water? Are you proposing to transport water from Panama to the Sudan? Sounds like an amazingly good idea since it's super efficient to transport water large distances... Also, news flash, this new canal will be using fresh water -- from Lake Nicaragua -- in the same way as the Panama canal!
Re: (Score:2)
Are there people dying in Panama for lack of water?
If not, there will be soon. Clean water is a major problem even in parts of Panama.
Are you proposing to transport water from Panama to the Sudan?
It's a major shipping hub and the water goes through ports from which it could feasibly be collected. At least a portion of it could go somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
And Panama is 0wned by the USA. Has been since 1989.
Uhhhhh, arresting Noriega in his own country merely made the 0wning obvious. The US has 0wned Panama since we built the canal.
Re: (Score:3)
All the water used for the locks was heading towards the ocean to start with. They dammed the Chagras River (which empties into the ocean) to form Gatun Lake, and they release the water from there as needed. They aren't 'wasting' water, the are just delaying it's trip to the ocean. Or is your view that every undammed waterway on the planet is a 'waste' of water?
Need to think in more than 2D (Score:2)
Just like GITMO is owned by Cuba?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A dollar wasted on this boondoggle is a dollar not spent on their military.
I don't know if the signal that they are building this is a good thing or a bad thing. That is an awful lot of money to spend on a project that you cannot currently, and will not be able to for the forseeable future, protect.
Does it mean that they don't feel they need to...or that by the time it is done they will be able to?
Re: (Score:3)