Icebreaker saved by fossil fuels. Nuclear might have been better
Just before Christmas 2013, a diesel-powered, ice-capable Russian research vessel named MV Akademik Shokalskiy, which was carrying scientists studying climate change, got stuck in the Antarctic ice. The scientists on the ship were not in any immediate risk or suffering any hardship conditions; they had plenty of fuel and supplies. The scientists have been evacuated from the ship via helicopter; the ship’s crew remained on board to continue efforts to free the ship.
Several climate change skeptics have been poking fun at the plight of the researchers. Some find it amusingly ironic that a group of people who are venturing to the polar regions in a ship powered by diesel engines to study global warming have been stranded by packed ice.
According to P. J. Gladnick, the fact that he has not seen headlines like “GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS TRAPPED IN ANTARCTIC ICE” in major news outlets indicates a liberal media bias and a reluctance to note the inconvenient truth that the Antarctic remains the home of great deal of ice and frequent stormy weather conditions.
A commentary in the Wall Street Journal titled Carbon to the Rescue: Fossil fuels power retrieval of trapped climate scientists contained the following quote.
In an earlier age, explorers who so badly underestimated the expanse of polar ice would surely have perished. But the 74 passengers and crew of the Akademik Shokalskiy are thriving. An expedition spokesman reports that, “Surprisingly, all the passengers seem to be considering it the adventure of a lifetime.”
And why not? The rich abundance of our carbon-based economy has not only provided the means to sustain their lives, but even to post a cheerful sing-along on Youtube. And the helicopters and ships participating in the next rescue attempt aren’t powered by renewable-energy credits.
I agree with the Journal editors that the real life saver in this situation has been fossil fuel and the raw power that it provides humans to adapt to even the harshest weather the planet can throw at us. Internal combustion engines can turn voyages that were nearly impossible using muscle or animal power into routine events.
However, the event stimulated me to a different line of thinking, showing how the lenses with which we view the world are changed by experience.
Liquid hydrocarbons are a wonderful fuel that continue to serve human energy needs; but they are not the only energy source that provides reliable energy for transportation or heat. In fact, they are not even the best, cleanest or most capable option available for the task of providing the concentrated power that can make life at the ends of the earth both possible and reasonably comfortable.
I have a 1995 VHS tape with an A&E documentary titled Icebreaker to the North Pole. That film documents a July-August 1994 journey undertaken by the two most powerful Canadian and American icebreakers available at the time. The passengers on that trip were also scientists, many of whom were studying the long term effects of human emissions of CO2.
The documentary story line is full of drama and a shared sense of breaking new ground; there several times where the ships have to struggle to push through the ice. The video jacket summary of the story uses words like “treacherous” , “dangerous” and “thrilling” to describe the voyage. The scientists and crew members indicate that they feel like true pioneers on a challenging mission.
Along the way, the American ship breaks a propeller, losing one of the three blades and causing that shaft to be unusable. Fortunately the ship was equipped with three propulsion shafts and was not put completely out of commission.
Just as the two North American ships approach their final destination, they become aware that they are not alone at the pole. They learn that the Yamal, a privately owned Russian nuclear icebreaker is carrying passengers, including than 40 school-aged entertainers and their parents. When the Yamal reaches the pole the child entertainers go out onto the ice to perform a show of singing, dancing and musical instruments. The production was filmed for Russian television; it made the trip to the North Pole seem quite casual and routine.
In contrast to the careful plodding of the smaller diesel powered vessels, the Yamal shows off that it is able to tear through ice up to ten feet thick while maintaining a speed in excess of 12 knots.
Since the ship is nuclear powered, it is also able to remain in the Arctic indefinitely. It can carry plenty of food and has no need to refuel. The scientists and the coast guard officers are impressed by the capabilities. One of the coast guard officers says he would love to take the Yamal for a spin and is amazed that that it is able to churn through the ice, turning it into “soup”. Here is a quote from the film:
Wayne Grady (Narrator): Meeting up with the Yamal could have some interesting repercussions, not only for its Russian owners who are eager to spread the word that their ship is for hire but also to the North American scientists who, like Dan Lugen can’t help speculating about a science platform as large and capable as the Yamal.
Did you look at the Yamal as a platform for science?
Dan Lugen (climate scientist): I think all of the scientists have thought about that. There is just an enormous amount you could do if you could be up here indefinitely.
Kathy Ellis: When we arrived at the North Pole, measuring these trace levels of radioactivity in the Arctic Ocean, I initially was terrified that all of a sudden all of my samples would be contaminated with the ship. I did collect a few samples around the Yamal just to verify that we weren’t tracing the Yamal through the Arctic and we weren’t able to detect any effluent from the ship.
There is another memorable scene in the film where the senior officers of the North American ships visit the Yamal to share a meal with its officers and passengers. The children are given the opportunity to ask some questions; one of the Russian officers serves as the translator. The first question is “Are your ice breakers the most powerful in your countries?” Both the Canadian and the American captains say “Yes.” The second question is “Then why do you move so slowly in the ice?”
After all three ships have completed their scheduled tasks in at the pole, the Yamal leads the way out of the packed ice, maintaining a slower than normal speed so that the North American ships can stay in its relatively ice free wake.
Unfortunately, I do not yet have sharable clips from the documentary, but here is a video that someone else has posted on YouTube with footage and information about the capabilities of one of the Yamal’s sister ships.
Note: In case you had a question about the numbers mentioned in the above video, it is useful to know that nuclear reactors on board ships are often described using their thermal power rating. That helps to explain why there is one part that claims that the ship has two reactors that produce 175 MW each and then explains that the ship produces about 75,000 shaft horsepower.
It’s a shame that the Russian nuclear icebreakers seem to have been unavailable to attempt a rescue of the MV Akademik Shokalskiy. It would have been a great time for some positive nuclear energy PR while the world was paying attention.
Additional Reading
Andrew Revkin, New York Times (December 31, 2013) Rescue Efforts for Trapped Antarctic Voyage Disrupt Serious Science
Christine Hauser, New York Times (January 3, 2014) Stranded Antarctic Ship Story, Like the Ice, Will Not Let Go
One Congress Man who’s name éludes me says that the world should cough up And pay the US for keeping the océans safe in the mid East for oil transit.
Well Russia should also be paid for keeping commercial artic routes opened for all with their Nuke Ice breakers.
Rod,
Russia innovated with their Nuke Ice breakers.
For the first Time ever, the Olympic flame was taken from a northern Russia port to the North Pôle in Record Time.
It was a first for a North pôle Olympic flame combo.
Since you own the VHS tape, you have a right to copy that to a different medium, like DVD. It can be done with a special analog-to-digital converter device (mine has an RCA coax plug on one end and a USB on the other end). Or, I’m sure you could get it done commercially.
@Keith Pickering
True, but once I have a digital version, I am not sure that I have the legal right to distribute clips on the internet. There is a certain amount of leeway provided by “fair use” principles, but the clips have to be quite short in order for that to be legitimately used. (BTW – I have an A/D converter and have produced a digital version of the documentary for private use.)
Rod – Good point! They should have used a nuclear-powered Russian icebreaker, which could have torn through that ice like a hot knife through butter and proven to the world that the southern icecap is melting(!!) and we’re all going to die(!!) unless we all repent to Mother Earth and submit to a life powered by windmills and solar cells.
By the way, why do you refer to these people as “scientists”? Only a third of them could lay any claim to the title “scientist”; the rest were either journalists or eco-tourists, some of them children. Of the third who could presumptuously call themselves “scientists,” I consider them scientists only in the loosest possible definition of the term.
A “Ship of Fools” is a more honest and accurate description.
A shame? Yeah, great … so that RT (short for “Pravda Today”) would have (yet another) opportunity to point out how backwards the nuclear technology of the West is and how Russian technology is so much superior. No thanks. They have been doing that enough already with their coverage of Fukushima over the past three years. That’s exactly the kind of PR you would have gotten.
Of course, I guess I’ll end up changing my tune, once EL’s dearest wish is finally fulfilled and the nuclear industries in the US and Western Europe are finally put out of their misery via death by regulation, and I end up working for a company that subcontracts to the Russian nuclear industry.
I did mention that I studied Russian in college, didn’t I?
Now behave. Climate change and acidification are serious issues. I would have a more aggressive response, but seeing as the concern was mainly eco-journo-tourists, you know, not so much. BTW in a stranded antarctic expedition scenario there is your best dining option.
Then why are these people trivializing it with what can only be called a stunt, and a rather stupid stunt at that? In my opinion, this news story has garnered far more attention than it ever deserved, but then again, many people do enjoy a good farce.
Do not ask me these questions. I dont know. Its easy, highly visible and supports their other beliefs in political matters is my best guess.
They are “doing something while the rest of you sit around posting in blogs.” Never mind if the something they are doing is altogether a negative fraud. You have to keep busy.
@Brian Mays
The fact that there are a small number of people who “trivialize” an issue and the fact that there are greedy groups who expect to make money by selling “solutions” to the issue does not invalidate the reality of the issue.
There are many charlatans that promise cancer cures and many others that do not know how to respond when someone they love is diagnosed. Neither of those responses makes the disease less critical for the victim.
Rod – The fact that foolish people keep repeating the same thing over and over and over does not validate the reality of the issue either (cf. Caldicott and the “millions” killed by Chernobyl). Nor does it make it a genuine “serious issue.”
Whatever reality is, it’s clear that this stunt backfired. This ship of fools has done more harm to their cause than good. Climate change desperately needs some more intelligent fanatics.
Report calls Northwest’s lone nuclear plant a money drain
“losing the Northwest’s lone nuclear power plant could save taxpayers $1.7 billion over the next 17 years, according to a new report commissioned by the Oregon and Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility. ”
http://portlandtribune.com/sl/203876-report-calls-northwests-lone-nuclear-plant-a-money-drain
The socialist grifters are killing off nuclear. Nearly all of them are “highly educated” too.
I wonder if there would be a cost advantage to a nuke icebreaker on big Lake Superior. I would think the icebreaker goes through a lot of fuel. The Navy uses nuclear powered ships so why can’t the Coast Guard?
Commercial ships burn bunker fuel which seems like it would be environmentally unfriendly. I wonder how long it will be before they are somehow internationally regulated. The title of the article in this link is, “Just 15 of the world’s biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world’s 750 million cars. Container ships and maybe even oil tankers may be converted some day. (It’s from Tree Hugger.)
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304591604579292611684898656
@Eino
Ship emission regulations are in effect and being made more stringent.
http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Default.aspx
Who owns the specs of the Savannah And does the design makes sense in today’s world ?
@Daniel
The design did not make any sense from a commercial point of view when the Savannah was built. It was, however, a really pretty concept ship.
https://atomicinsights.com/cover-story-why-did-savannah-fail/
Pretty indeed. One of the prettiest ships ever made in my opinion.
Sorry wrong link.
http://www.treehugger.com/cars/just-15-of-the-worlds-biggest-ships-may-now-emit-as-much-pollution-as-all-the-worlds-760m-cars.html
Isn’t it summer down there? Why hasn’t anyone remarked that in this time of “global warming”, oh yeah, read that “climate change”, a summer time freeze of that magnitude still seems somewhat out of place. Is it just an inconvenient piece of data?
RB
3 years ago in 2010, the warming has broken a large piece of the Mertz glacier. This has the consequence that the area where the ship is currently now tends to accumulate an abnormal amount of ice, and therefore growths a much thicker sea ice than is usual.
At the Dumont-d’Urville base, French scientists (seriously upset that the Astrolabe ship was diverted for the rescue operation when it has only a very short date range available to resupply them, and it’s even worse for the Australian ship) report that on the 1srt of January, the temperature was 6 degrees Celsius, and it was raining.
This means water warm enough to fall in liquid form at a latitude where this normally never happens.
Tks JM – so probably there was excessive fresh water and ice in the area, add a cool snap and instant ice trap.
Now that Japan has shut down its nuclear power plants, they are getting natural gas shipments from Europe. The shortest route is via the Arctic Sea, and the LNG ships need to follow Russian nuclear icebreakers through the northern ice.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/the-shortest-route-russia-ships-gas-to-japan-via-arctic/
So, nuclear power is being used to help supply LNG to a nation that recently shut down its nuclear power plants. That must make the fossil fuel company executives laugh.
Some information on the net reports that the nuclear reactors of the Arktika class ice-breakers have not been conceived to be safely cooled when navigating into warm water, so can not cross the tropics to go to the arctics. They probably already would have been used if this wasn’t the case.
However they are reports that a Russian ice-breaker could be used to rescue the ship (passengers are gone, but she’s still there with the ), maybe the Vaygach that has a diesel turbine in addition to the nuclear engine can be sent there. But the Vaygach is intended rather for coastal route, so I’m not fully sure if it can go to the antartic or not.
I am guessing the problem would be high backpressure in the turbine. I would think they could run reduced power and not trip the turbine, but hard to say without knowing specifics of the condenser.
Ok here we go :
This shows the map of where the ship was. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25573096 )
Here are last month’s anomalies. ( http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_ERSST_1200km_Anom11_2013_2013_1951_1980_POL/nmaps.pdf )
So off the bat there is a cool anomaly there this year. Of course in the antarctic over the last decades there has been less cooling ( http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_ERSST_1200km_Anom0112_1960_2012_1951_1980_POL/nmaps.pdf ) because of a noted increase in the westerlies ( http://www.scar.org/treaty/atcmxxx/Atcm30_ip005_e.pdf ) most likely related to climate change itself.
There are a few positive feedbacks in a warming antarctic that would increase sea ice : Increased freshwater from melt, ice from glacial calving, waves, wind and snow (varied effects) and obviously it being the antarctic its going to always be comparably “cold.”
I just posted on the heatwave in Argentina ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/seven-people-die-in-the-worst-heat-wave-ever-recorded-in-argentina-9032202.html ) and Australia just had its hottest year ever recorded and trends in New Zealand show continued warming :
2013 confirmed as Australia’s hottest year on record ( http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/2013-confirmed-as-australias-hottest-year-on-record-20140103-308ek.html )
NZ temperature record ( https://www.niwa.co.nz/climate/nz-temperature-record )
So climate change likely hasn’t “gone away” in the southern hemisphere.
Oh, of course nothing can ever work right for me. Those PDF images had expiration times. Here are permanent illustrations:
November anomaly map polar projection ( http://imageshack.us/a/img163/9333/ulfz.gif )
1960 -2012 anomaly map polar projection ( http://imageshack.us/a/img208/2568/kj7k.gif )
Made from GISS Surface Temperature Analysis ( http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ )
“…the fact that he has not seen headlines like “GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS TRAPPED IN ANTARCTIC ICE” in major news outlets indicates a liberal media bias,,,”
100% correct. ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and NBC, NPR and PBS, as well as most major newspapers like the NY Times.
PS, they are also anti-nuclear in their reporting, and cheer-leaders for the narcissist President.
@Paul W Primavera
Have you seen Andy Revkin’s coverage of the issue in the New York Times?
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/rescue-effort-for-trapped-antarctic-voyage-disrupts-serious-science/
Question about commercial Nuke ships:
When US nuke plants were first built, it didn’t take very many people to run them. Over the years, rules changed and staffs got much much bigger making some of the original little plants non cost competitive.
What extra people would be needed on a commercial nuke ship? Would you need a guard force for Ninja attackers? Would you need 24 hour Health Physics guys? Would you need a full time guy just to deal with the license? Would someone be stuck in a berth calculating the probabilistic risk of parts on the ship failing? What ports would this ship be allowed to dock at?
@Eino
Short answer is that any nuclear ship operator would be far more assertive than utility plant operators in resisting imposition of non value added regulations and positions.
For a variety of reasons, nuclear plant operators have been pretty wimpy in resisting the ratcheting of regulations. There have been some successes, but the die was cast in the era of rate regulated utilities who initially operated under the assumption that their public utility commissions would allow them to pass the cost of federally imposed regulations onto their customers without any questions.
Now, even merchant generators have apparently decided that it is easier to say “how high” when the NRC says “jump”, probably because the NRC can shut them down with only the slightest of justifications.
In the merchant ship world, there would not be a regulatory monopoly. Other countries would probably offer sensible regulatory services if any one country’s regulators got out of hand.
Before anyone jumps on me as advocating something akin to Liberian ship registration, that is NOT what I am talking about. Reasonable regulations are as beneficial as reasonable rules and capable referees on a football field. Unreasonable regulations aimed at increasing costs to benefit competitors need to be resisted.
U.S. Coast Guard hopes to break ice surrounding ships off Antarctica
The Coast Guard Cutter Polar Star had been heading to that area anyway, having left its home port of Seattle early last month to eventually break through sea ice and refuel the U.S. Antarctic Program’s McMurdo Station on Ross Island.
Now the icebreaker is retooling its mission to help the Russian ship Akademik Shokalskiy and China’s Xue Long, the Coast Guard said Saturday in a statement. ( http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/04/world/antarctica-ships-stuck/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 )
I bet this thing can burn some fuel!!:
POLAR STAR’s three shafts are turned by either a diesel-electric or gas turbine power plant. Each shaft is connected to a 16-foot(4.9-meter) diameter, four-bladed, controllable-pitch propeller. The diesel-electric plant can produce 18,000 shaft horsepower(13,425 kilowatts) and the gas turbine plant a total of 75,000shaft horsepower (55,925 kilowatts). Along with POLAR STAR’s sister ship POLAR SEA, she is one of the largest ships in the US Coast Guard and the world’s most powerful non-nuclear ships.
POLAR STAR has other unique engineering features designed to aid in icebreaking. An installed heeling system can rock the ship to prevent getting stuck in the ice. The system consists of three pairs of connected tanks on opposite sides of the ship. Pumps transfer a tank’s contents (35,000 gallons, 133 kiloliters) to an opposing tank in 50 seconds and generate 24,000 foot-tons (64,800 kilowatt-seconds) of torque on the ship. That goes a long way in rocking POLAR STAR loose from any tight spots. ( http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/cgcPolarStar/History.asp )
I think the US clearly needs to invest in some Nuclear Icebreakers. This kind of thing as well as shipping, border security and exploration issues are only going to intensify.
Im surprised they are not already being built.