SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the look-upon-my-works-ye-mighty dept.
David Barboza has an interesting article in the NYT about China's engineering megaprojects like the world’s longest underwater tunnel that will run twice the length of the one under the English Channel, and bore deep into one of Asia’s active earthquake zones, creating a rail link between two northern port cities, Dalian and Yantai. Throughout China, equally ambitious projects with multibillion-dollar price tags are already underway. The world’s largest bridge. The biggest airport. The longest gas pipeline. Such enormous infrastructure projects are a Chinese tradition. From the Great Wall to the Grand Canal and the Three Gorges Dam, this nation for centuries has used colossal public-works projects to showcase its engineering prowess and project its economic might. In November, for example, the powerful National Development and Reform Commission approved plans to spend nearly $115 billion on 21 supersize infrastructure projects, including new airports and high-speed rail lines. “Clearly, China’s cost advantages are going to shrink somewhat over the longer-term and prices for projects are only going to rise," says Victor Chuan Chen. "I think the government has done an admirable job in getting many of these projects off the ground while the economics were still very favorable.” China is pushing the boundaries of infrastructure-building, with ever bolder proposals. The Dalian tunnel looks small compared with the latest idea to build an “international railway” that would link China to the United States by burrowing under the Bering Strait and creating a tunnel between Russia and Alaska.
But whether China really needs this much big infrastructure — or can even afford it — is a contentious issue. Some economists worry that China might eventually be mired in enormous debt (PDF) and many experts say such projects also exact a heavy toll on local communities and the environment, as builders displace people, clear forests, reroute rivers and erect dams. “It makes sense to accelerate infrastructure spending during a downturn, when capital and labor are underemployed,” says David Dollar. But “if the growth rate is propped up through building unnecessary infrastructure, eventually there could be a sharp slowdown that reveals that the infrastructure was really not needed at all.”
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday January 14 2015, @12:35PM
Will these projects pay back on a national basis?
Building connections that aren't used enough is a giant waste.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 14 2015, @02:01PM
I believe the goal of the tunnel is PR or practice for building the tunnel to Taiwan.
"So you won't sign this trade agreement because you think we can't invade, having no real navy, well, take a look at this big ass tunnel and tell me again that we can never send our army to your island"
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Wednesday January 14 2015, @02:51PM
One 12 Bravo (or equivalent sapper/pioneer trooper) with a 1 kg C4 charge solves the tunnel problem. Cheaper and more fun than a nuclear torpedo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @04:49PM
Fun fact 12B became 21B.
It actually happened for me somewhere between basic and my first assignment. It threw me off graduating as a 12B and then being told I was actually a 21B.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday January 14 2015, @04:36PM
Like the CA bullet train, these are long-term investments.
Properly maintained "big" transport infrastructure is a major need for advanced countries with big populations. The barrel isn't going to stay down very long.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 14 2015, @04:57PM
They've got a lot of money from other countries. And some countries didn't want to sell them valuable stuff (mines, ports, etc).
So this is one way to invest it. Not all of it will be a good investment but it's still probably better than buying US bonds (the USA has proven itself too willing to create USD).
They are building a lot of nuclear power stations too. If they don't screw up too badly and the inevitable earthquakes don't become huge nuclear disasters, then the move to nuclear power might be a good thing for China and the rest of the world - otherwise they would still be very reliant on coal (which is very bad for them and bad for everyone else).
If they figure out how to build cheap and safe (proven to survive earthquakes, Chinese grade maintenance etc) nuclear power stations I'm sure a number of countries would be happy to buy Chinese nuclear power stations. Could be 15-30 years before that happens - depending on when they get big earthquakes near the stations. But they do think a bit more long term.
The Chinese are already getting contracts to build other stuff like bridges, buildings, train/rail projects.