Some here would no doubt take issue with nuclear powered vessels which are common throughout the American Fleet. The USN has powered all its submarine fleet with nuclear power as well as it's Aircraft carriers. Not sure things have changed to the point where the Canadian public would accept nuclear power. Remember decades ago when it was proposed Canada procure nuclear subs? Instead they got used British conventional ones.
There was no suggestion in that podcast that we should use nuclear for power but a point was made that when it's time to take the lead acid batteries out for replacement that we should re-purpose them as energy storage and not just send them to be recycled. They still had plenty of life left in them and were valuable as grid storage for renewables. How you got to nuclear power is a mystery to me....
Sorry to confuse you. Just pointing out in addition to battery recycling/re-purpose, the Green Fleet also uses alternative power (nuclear) as opposed to burning fossil fuels. Given the size and number of vessels that no longer need to burn fossil fuels that results in a massive reduction of their carbon footprint.
Some would argue the use of nuclear power in their entire submarine fleet as well as many major surface combatants, makes them greener than their battery recycling/ re-use does.
Now that I explained that, how did you get to battery recycling from "Tug and barge fuel shipments"?
It doesn't matter what plan they put through. world leading, world class, whatever they want to call it. it's all window dressing.
see AA's posts, 144 and 145.
they can't even contain a small fuel spill in calm conditions without the environment being destroyed.
Not to reignite our differences, but AA doesn't seem to see the difference between being well versed on a matter and being well read on his side of a matter.
no one's forcing you to read them... if you don't find the subject interesting why not find another subject to read rather than criticize? I'm sure the oil companies would like it to just go away also... nothing to see here. move along...
Watch for Justin's big announcement today on a Northern tanker ban. Basically nothing changes, as it will be a "crude" oil tanker ban. Easy to impose as it shuts nothing down and Enbridge already had too many obstacles to overcome. Read the fine print, LNG tankers will not be included in the ban.
Thanks AA .. maybe it's time to embed some tech in the control systems. Not sure if tugs are "fly by wire" but if we were to take the tech from the automotive industry that does auto braking that could stop a tug from grounding itself in shallow water. The control system would see that it was about to hit bottom and take a corrective action such as reverse course (stop) and sound and alarm.
Neat idea, but in my opinion impractical. We already have more alarms than you can shake a stick at in the wheelhouse. So much so that one becomes desensitized to them. What's interesting about our coast is that it is quite deep, even in many of our narrow channels. Radar proximity alarms become useless as one is often close enough to land to trigger them. For the same reason depth alarms would also fail to report something amiss until its way too late. Perhaps if Transport Canada gave us back the crew member compliments that have been stolen away over the years, there actually would be enough time for a second officer to continually adjust the equipment alarms as needed for different segments of the voyage.
Going astern before a collision/allision will help, but the shortest route to coming to a stop with big momentum and weight is to turn around. It can take miles to stop a ship, where it might have been turned around in 3/10 of a mile. We certainly can't have computers giving "hard over helm" orders if one is off track without someone assessing when and how to apply the turn. There are way too many factors like traffic, tide and weather and such that would need to be considered. I don't think artificial intelligence has come that far yet.
As for world class oil spill response, as far as I know even with the best of the best, a 50% recovery rate is about the best one could expect.
We need to concentrate on keeping it on the vessels, by the time it hits the water it's too late. Maybe it's time to retire old construction technology that still plys our coast and invest in proper equipment. Companies won't do it unless its mandated as it costs big bucks. Have the right people running these sensitive things and make them less suceptable to catastrophic failure. Then ENFORCE it. That would be a valuable announcement in my opinion. We'll see later today what "big" marine safety changes are coming.....
"Queen of the North II"... now playing on a coast near you... (The Enbridge movie: Nothing Can Go Wrong...Go Wrong...Go Wrong" flopped at the box office)
Watch for Justin's big announcement today on a Northern tanker ban. Basically nothing changes, as it will be a "crude" oil tanker ban. Easy to impose as it shuts nothing down and Enbridge already had too many obstacles to overcome. Read the fine print, LNG tankers will not be included in the ban.
That's why the Enbridge tanker PR think tank "width to channel width ratio" was a purposely misleading metric to gauge transit risk - the laden tanker turning radius (~2km) was the biggest risk they didn't want to talk about - especially through the twisty Whales Channel. Those tankers have to keep going at a certain minimum speed in order to keep their rudder functional - and shift that momentum. Not to mention that the effects of wind on light tankers (i.e. no cargo - big windage area) - and that the wind funnels and shears coming both along channels (esp. Douglas - @65+kts in the winter), but also up through mountain passes at higher velocities.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
