Explanation of advantages— Science Diplomacy



Download 1.36 Mb.
Page22/32
Date18.10.2016
Size1.36 Mb.
#1704
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   ...   32

Misc

Nuclear Shipping

Arctic shipping lanes aren’t commercially viable year-round – sea ice blocks


Borgerson et al 14

Scott Borgerson - CEO, CargoMetrics and Cofounder, Arctic Circle; Lawson Brigham - Distinguished Professor of Geography and Arctic Policy, University of Alaska Fairbanks; Michael Byers - Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia; Heather Conley - Senior Fellow and Director of the Europe Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Marlene Laruelle - Research Professor of International Affairs, George Washington University, Council on Foreign Relations, 3/25/14, (“The Emerging Arctic”, http://www.cfr.org/arctic/emerging-arctic/p32620#!/)//AW



As Arctic sea ice retreats, shipping lanes are opening that many trading nations hope could compete with or complement conventional routes during summer months. The Northeast Passage—a roughly three-thousand-mile shipping lane across the top of Eurasia connecting the Atlantic to the Pacific—first became ice-free for a short period in the summer of 2007, and gained international attention as a seasonal shipping route between the two oceans. Russia’s Northern Sea Route (NSR), which runs from the Kara Gate to the Bering Strait, was also open for the same period. For instance, a voyage from Shanghai to Hamburg via the NSR shaves roughly 30 percent of the distance off a similar trip via the Suez Canal and avoids the heavily pirated Strait of Malacca and waters off the Horn of Africa. Operators can either arrive at their destinations earlier or use the extra time for super-slow sailing, reducing fuel costs and emissions. Most NSR journeys are destinational (carrying natural resources out of the Arctic to global markets) and point-to-point (cabotage) trips in the Russian Arctic, but trans-Arctic shipping is slowly growing. However, these distance savings on Arctic voyages are only possible if there is minimal or no sea ice. Only five cargo vessels transited the route in 2009, but this number jumped to seventy-one in 2013. That is tiny traffic compared to the seventeen thousand ships that pass through the Suez Canal annually, but with countries like Russia investing tens of billions of dollars in their northern infrastructure, including the construction of new ports of call and nuclear-powered icebreakers, some planners hope the region will emerge as a “Suez of the north.” But industry executives and analysts cite a number of challenges for shipping along the NSR. Even during the summer, unpredictable weather and ice floes make navigation difficult. Ships often require an icebreaker escort, which can cost some $400,000, and additional insurance that offsets some of the route’s potential savings. Moreover, Moscow’s control of the NSR and the attendant icebreaking fleet is troubling for some shipping executives, who fear the Kremlin could abruptly hike fees. Finally, while the NSR may provide a viable alternative for shipping bulk cargo such as oil, coal, and ore in the near future, it may be of limited value for container shipping, which operates on a tight delivery schedule. Many analysts say it will take at least another ten years of warming before shipping along the NSR is practical. There is also modest anticipation for an uptick in shipping along the Northwest Passage, the legendary sea route atop North America that runs some nine hundred miles from Alaska through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. The pathway can cut several days off a traditional voyage through the Panama Canal if there is minimal or no sea ice present. The Danish-operated Nordic Orion became the first bulk carrier to traverse the Northwest Passage in September 2013, reportedly saving about $80,000 in fuel. But experts believe the commercial potential of the seasonal shortcut is much less than that of the NSR. Lastly, the 2,100-mile mid-ocean corridor stretching across the North Pole, known as the Transpolar Sea Route, could provide the most direct shipping lanes for some maritime traffic and supplement other Arctic routes. However, sea ice remains a considerable challenge for most of the season, and analysts believe its commercial viability is likely decades away.

Nuclear powered ice-breaking ships are civilian and solve efficient travel across the arctic


Boyle 10

(Rebecca, journalist for Popular Science and science writer, focusing on astronomy, medicine, genetic engineering, robotics, oceanography and physics, “Nuclear-Powered Ice-Breaking Merchant Ships Could Ply the Northwest Passage” pg online at http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-09/nuclear-power-could-be-future-merchant-ships//sd)

Nuclear-powered civilian ships could be powerful enough to smash through Arctic ice on their own, potentially using the Northeast Passage to travel from Asia to Europe and reducing time and carbon emissions for international shipping lines. Nuclear propulsion might therefore be a cheaper option for ships on long voyages, the Register reports. For ships traveling from the far east to Europe, it would be a lot faster to take the Northeast Passage than the usual route, through the Suez Canal. But until the Arctic melts permanently, the trip requires escort by ice-breaking ships, which are limited in number. While nuclear merchant ships would be costly, they'd have enough thrust to break their own ice, and they would also travel faster than gas-powered ships. As of now, Russia is the only country with nuclear-powered civilian ships, the Register says. A few were built in the 1960s and 1970s, but they were too expensive to compete with those powered by traditional fuel. But with oil prices expected to continue rising — and the possibility of carbon-emission restrictions — nuclear ships could become cost-effective. The British shipping firm Babcock Marine says shipping lines could save money by switching to nuclear propulsion, especially for tankers carrying liquefied natural gas, the Register says. The paper reports that COSCO, the huge Chinese shipping firm, is interested in the type of requirements the UK might impose on visiting nuclear ships. The U.S. has several nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, which travel quickly to help increase winds on deck, helping aircraft take off. Nuclear-powered commercial ships would be fast, too, but the real advantage is thrust, as the Register explains — it would help ships ram through sea ice. Combined with high fuel prices, this innate icebreaking ability could make nuclear-powered merchant ships a worthy investment, the Register says. Then all we would have to do is secure all our ports.

Russia –not the US—has nuclear powered icebreakers and is building more


Mead 11

(Derek, editor of Motherboard and science writer, “Mammoths On Ice: The Magnificent Beauty of Russian Nuclear-Powered Icebreakers” pg online at http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/nuclear-icebreakers-smash-shit-take-names//sd)

In 1957, the U.S.S.R. launched NS Lenin, both the world’s first nuclear-powered icebreaker and first nuclear-powered civilian ship. It seemed a logical move: Nuclear-powered vessels would be more powerful and less fuel-dependent than their Diesel counterparts, thus offering both strategic and commercial advantages. They’re a perfect microcosm of Soviet-era technological development: massive, expensive, uninhibited, mildly crazy and prone to breaking down. It’s a testament to the hard logicality of the Russians that their fleet is the only one on Earth. Even in the depths of the Cold War, it’s a project that the U.S. thought twice about and ultimately decided wasn’t worthwhile. NS Lenin, 1957 The Lenin is Russia’s first nuclear icebreaker. She had a pair of nuclear accidents, one in 1965 and another in 1967, that led to her early reactor design being decommissioned and replaced with a newer design. That new reactor powered her all the way until 1989 when she was taken out of service. The Lenin is now a museum piece, outfitted with all the soviet era comforts of wood paneled stairs, minimalist clocks, steel medical contraptions and something called an anteroom decorated with maps and ships carved out of brass. All at the brilliantly named Atomflot nuclear icebreaker base. NS Arktika, 1975 The Arktika represented a new class of nuclear icebreaker, and in 1977 was the first ship to ever smash its way to the North Pole. It was taken out of service in 2008, but until then was manned by a crew of 150. It’s powerplants produed a total of 75,000 horsepower. NS Sibir, 1977 The Sibir was the second Arktika-class icebreaker. It didn’t have as illustrious a service life as its predecessor, and was defueled and decomissioned in 1992. This undated photo shows it’s been more or less neglected ever since. NS Rossiya, 1985 Arktika-class icebreakers are double hulled. The outer hull is nearly five centimeters thick in ice breaking areas and 2.5 centimeters thick elsewhere. Interestingly, a water ballast system fits in between the hulls to help add weight (and extra ice-crushing ability) to locations on demand. The maximum ice thickness that Arktika-class ships can break is 2.8 meters, or over nine feet. Sevmorput, 1988 Sevmorput isn’t an icebreaker exactly. Instead, it’s a giant cargo ship with icebreaking capabilities. It happens to be one of just four nuclear-powered cargo ships ever built, and the only one left that still runs on nuclear power. The other ones have all been shut down or converted to Diesel, which suggests nuclear cargo ships might not be the greatest choice. NS Taymyr, 1989 The Taymyr introduced a new eponymous class of icebreakers specifically designed for river duties. The Taymyr class has a shallower draft (it can move in shallower water), is smaller and less powerful than the Arktika class. In the spring of this year the Taymyr sprung a leak of 6,000 liters of coolant fluid from its reactor. NS Vaygach, 1990 The Vaygach is the other Taymyr-class river icebreaker. The two are essential for creating shipping lanes for Russia’s northernmost ports. You can also see the cool Russian nuclear logo clearly emblazoned on the side of the ship. While nuclear icebreakers can be a useful tool, sending a nuclear-powered smashing machine to other countries can make people nervous. In early 2011, the Vaygach was sent to the Gulf of FInland to free 58 vessels trapped by ice — a move that was warily observed by the Finnish government. NS Yamal, 1993 The Yamal is the fifth Arktika-class ship, following the launch of NS Sovjetskij Sojuz in 1990. It’s also arguably the most famous of the class thanks to its extremely kick-ass jaw artwork on its bow. In 2009, the Yamal collided with a tanker ship, which received a 9.5 meter crack in its deck. The Yamal was unscathed. NS 50 Let Pobedy, 2007 The 50 Let Pobedy is the youngest ship in the nuclear icebreaker fleet, although construction started on her in 1989. It’s original name was Ural, but changed to Fiftieth Anniversary of Victory to celebrate an expected commission date of 1995, fifty years after Victory Day marked the end of World War II. Unfortunately, money had run out in 1994, and construction didn’t restart until 2003. She is the largest and most advanced of the Arktika-class. She is the last of the line: Russia has announced plans to develop and built a new class of nuclear icebreakers by 2015.


Download 1.36 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   ...   32



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
national science foundation
only thing that
scientific committee
annual meetings
immediate effect