What are the energy costs of automating the burrowing of these tunnels to connect,say a small city like Boston? The Boston Sewer network is ~1500 miles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Water_and_Sewer_Commissi...) and I am guessing this would have a comparable edge length.
And then, how do you deal with breakdowns, logistically and financially? It will have more complicated machinery than mere plumbing, with finite half-lives that'll require switch-outs.
The Boston Sewer Commission charges 60 dollars per month per family unit, and I am guessing a significant fraction goes into upkeep.
Will anyone want to spend that kind of money for the slim marginal benefit of getting things a bit faster than Amazon?
seriously? Boston would be one of the more difficult cities to connect. Boston is old, has a very established infrastructure, and a pretty expansive underground infrastructure already. I would say doing this in a place like Minneapolis might be easier because its newer (more documented, less underground infrastructure) of course then you have weather problems.
True,Boston may be a bad example for those reasons, but I wanted an example mainly to get a handle on the numbers. Minneapolis might be a better fit, but will the tubing mileage needed and the problems change?
What are the energy costs of automating the burrowing of these tunnels to connect,say a small city like Boston? The Boston Sewer network is ~1500 miles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Water_and_Sewer_Commissi...) and I am guessing this would have a comparable edge length.
And then, how do you deal with breakdowns, logistically and financially? It will have more complicated machinery than mere plumbing, with finite half-lives that'll require switch-outs.
The Boston Sewer Commission charges 60 dollars per month per family unit, and I am guessing a significant fraction goes into upkeep.
Will anyone want to spend that kind of money for the slim marginal benefit of getting things a bit faster than Amazon?