faul_sname comments on Crazy Ideas Thread, Aug. 2015 - Less Wrong

7 Post author: polymathwannabe 11 August 2015 01:24PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (240)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Thomas 12 August 2015 12:37:27PM 2 points [-]

Not only the rivers. But also huge tunnels from the sea to the interior cities. like Denver or Munich.

Large container ships may bring goodies deep inside the continents. A whole network of such underground channels would be nice.

Comment author: faul_sname 13 August 2015 08:19:15AM 0 points [-]

Why tunnels, not canals? Particularly in the case of Denver, you've got a huge elevation gain, so you'd need the locks anyway, and digging tunnels is expensive (and buying farmland to put your canal through is relatively cheap).

Comment author: Thomas 13 August 2015 09:28:39AM 1 point [-]

To avoid the elevation to say Denver, you have to have a "basement" about 1600 meters down. And the port in the basement.

No such a big problem, you have some deeper mines in the world.

Comment author: Pentashagon 14 August 2015 06:13:02AM 0 points [-]

You save energy not lifting a cargo ship 1600 meters, but you spend energy lifting the cargo itself. If there are rivers that can be turned into systems of locks it may be cheaper to let water flowing downhill do the lifting for you. Denver is an extreme example, perhaps.

Comment author: Tem42 14 August 2015 06:32:48AM 1 point [-]

If Denver ships out as much as it imports, weight-wise, pulleys could do much of the work of lifting. If there is a deficit in export weight, you could use the same water you were going to use as downhill flow to weigh down the counterweight.

Comment author: Thomas 14 August 2015 06:26:56PM *  0 points [-]

According to Wikipedia:

Emma Maersk uses a Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C, which consumes 163 g/kW·h and 13,000 kg/h. If it carries 13,000 containers then 1 kg fuel transports one container for one hour over a distance of 45 km.

You already have to elevate each of those containers (with the train or truck from the coast). An electric elevator would be much more energy efficient than the current solutions are. A litter or so of diesel fuel of electricity per container. Less than 100 kilometers of shipping. Much less than 1000 kilometers of trucking.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 13 August 2015 10:48:41AM 0 points [-]

Tentatively-- in hot dry country, a tunnel loses less water to evaporation.