Undersea Tunnels, Electric Vehicles, and Ship Emissions

[Meredith Poor + 884]

The 'Chunnel' is around 30 miles long. This is only used for trains - cars and trucks are driven onto carriers and hauled through the tunnel without their engines running.

A number of other undersea tunnels might make economic sense - Ireland to the UK, Japan to South Korea, Gibraltar to Morocco, Florida to the Bahamas and perhaps even eventually to Cuba. Such tunnels would reduce ship traffic between these ports, which would in turn reduce pollution from ships. This doesn't matter much if the conveyance through the tunnels is equally polluting.

One fairly obvious problem is ventilating tunnels containing fuel burning vehicles. Once cars and trucks are purely electric, this concern is significantly diminished. The electric vehicles, in turn, displace emissions by ships. Presumably. This doesn't mean much if the power generated to charge the vehicles comes from fossil fuels.

While nothing is completely predictable, in general offshore wind is faster and steadier, so situating wind turbines near these tunnels would be desirable. While this might not result in a completely emissions-free electric charge, it would would come close.

The other issue, of course, is the belligerence of the neighbors. Japan and South Korea barely tolerate each other. Spain is fighting with the UK over Gibraltar. A lot of Americans would rather not have another port of entry from yet another country.

These tunnels would shape the urban landscape in the immediate vicinity - the terminus on either side would end up being places to put warehouses, hotels, and 'attractions' for capturing coins from tourists. Some of this would appear fairly degenerate. However, it's likely that trade would blossom, given how much simpler it would be. Since such a tunnel would be in use 'forever' once it was built, the tolls would be a source of revenue for the respective governments for quite some time. It's likely that the tunnels could pay for themselves fairly easily.