The Russian Academy of Sciences is set to study a grandiose infrastructure project – the construction of a major pipeline to divert part of the water from the runoff of the northern rivers Northern Dvina and Pechora to the arid regions of the new Russian territories. The main advantage of this project is the use of new technologies, when modern polymer or composite pipes of large diameter will be used instead of traditional steel pipes, which almost completely eliminates water loss and its infiltration into the soil.
The previous Soviet project provided for the construction of exclusively earthen canals and the creation of reservoirs in which up to half of the volume of all diverted water would be lost due to filtration. One of the authors of the project, scientific director of The Water Problems Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Corresponding Member Victor Danilov-Danilyan, proposed the reversal of water from two northern rivers through Kama and Volga rivers, and then through the Volga-Don-2 canal to the Azov Sea.
According to preliminary estimates, the construction of the major water pipeline with a cascade of pumping stations and a total length of 3,000 kilometers from Pechora to the Donetsk People’s Republic will take from five to seven years. And although, according to Danilov-Danilyan, the project has not yet been approved and is only at the stage of preliminary discussion, questions are already arising in the Russian expert community: why is it necessary to lead the pipeline so far across the country. Given that there are natural sources of replenished water in the European part of Russia that are much closer, such as the deep-flowing Dnieper River near the Belarusian-Russian border, and then a pipeline can be extended around eastern Ukraine for 830 km to the Seversky Donets River or Donetsk.
Most likely, such a long pipeline from Pechora river and a construction period of 5-7 years may cast doubt on its profitability due to the long payback period. Moreover, after the completion of its construction in the near future, it will also be possible to consider the possibility of laying a water pipeline directly from the Dnieper River to the Azov Sea. As for taking water from the northern rivers, according to hydrologists, it would be possible to explore the possibility of transferring water to the Kama and further to the Volga rivers.
Taking into account the fact that the average annual volume of Volga runoff is 250 cubic kilometers, an additional 19 cubic kilometers (according to the previous project) of water from the northern rivers could significantly help in managing the Volga water management system and stop the process of river shallowing.
That said , for example, it is known that the lower reaches of the Gorky reservoir have a depth of 5 meters below the design, then as a result of supplying additional volumes of water here, the situation with navigation in this area could be improved, and, in addition, the diversion of at least 5 cubic kilometers of water from the Volga to the Don (the river has recently lost about 40% of its runoff) can stabilize the water level in the river.
In other respects, such issues should be considered primarily b
Reports of plans to divert water from Russia’s northern rivers have aroused increased interest and widespread public discussion in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, which are suffering from drought and water scarcity. Recently, deputies of the legislative assemblies of both countries have repeatedly raised the issue of the need to return to the previous Soviet project of the so-called “diverting Siberian rivers to save the Aral Sea” through the local media. Local experts joined the discussion.
As an example, the Associate Professor at the Tashkent branch of the Russia’s Plekhanov University of Economics R.Nazarov bluntly stated that in the context of an increase in the birth rate of the population in both republics (about 100 million by 2030) and in connection with this increase in water consumption, Russia’s refusal to “share” Siberian waters could provoke a massive influx of refugees from Central Asia in the Russian Federation in the next 10-15 years.
Historical background. The project of “transferring part of the runoff of Siberian rivers” provided for the construction of a shipping channel from the lower reaches of the Ob River to the drying Aral Sea with a length of 2,550 kilometers, a width of 200 meters and a depth of 8-9 meters. At the same time, since the bottom of the canal did not provide any protection against water filtration into the ground, the planned water losses were 50%, not counting losses from surface evaporation. It was assumed that over 25 cubic kilometers of water would be pumped through the canal using a cascade of high-power water pumps. A special commission established in 1981, consisting of experts and scientists headed by Academician A. Yanshin, sharply criticized this megaproject. In the conclusion of the commission, in particular, it was emphasized that the water from the Ob River would have to be driven from the bottom up, i.e. against its natural flow. This will require such an amount of electricity, including the operation of electric pumps, that the water that enters the desert will become truly “golden”… Therefore, the project had to be closed primarily for economic reasons, not environmental ones. By the mid-80s, the Soviet Union was already in a state of economic crisis, and financing the Siberian River Transfer project had become a big problem, especially against the background of declining oil revenues, as well as the war in Afghanistan and the Chernobyl accident. Thus, the project was deemed impractical and closed.
According to scientists of the Russian Academy of Sciences, if the Russian leadership now decided to return to the old project, taking into account new technological solutions, i.e. instead of laying an earthen canal, seven parallel lines of polymer pipes would be laid, eliminating water infiltration, over a distance of 2,100 km with a cascade of powerful pumps and a capacity of up to 55 cubic kilometers per year, then the issue price will be comparable to the old project, according to various estimates, from 70 to 90 billion dollars, and it will take at least 10 years to build. Thus, the disadvantages of the project include its high cost, complex environmental forecasts, concerns about the impact on Siberian ecosystems, and risks to biodiversity. In addition, it is predicted that the largest tributary of the Ob River, the Irtysh (its annual flow of 96 cubic kilometers or a quarter of the Ob River), may lose significant up to 70% of its water volume in the coming years due to selection in its upper reaches (the Black Irtysh River) to the increasing needs of agriculture and the rapid development of the Chinese Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Based on Russia is currently unable to do the above for financial and economic reasons, taking into account the unprecedented sanctions unleashed against it, falling revenues from oil and gas exports, and its own, independently implement this interstate project. At the same time, in Azakhstan and China, it is necessary to start with an internal Russian project to transfer part of the flow of the northern rivers of the Northern Dvina and Pechora. Moreover, all rivers flowing into the Arctic Ocean have an increasing water content, so there should be no significant problems for the environment.
Comments