Detecting relevant signals in the environment is a crucial function in biological systems. For humans, language is a critical, if not the defining, species-specific environmental signal to detect. As such, it is not surprising that the human auditory system is specialised for speech processing [e.g., 1,2].
The changes in the global ocean are directly tied to the changes in the environment as a whole, many of which are the result of increased consumption of fossil fuels for power generation and transportation. In this paper, we assess the potential of the Aleutian Islands as a location for tidal power, a viable solution to the long-standing issue of high energy costs caused by the use of diesel fuel for the power generation. The towns and villages of the Aleutian Islands, including False Pass and Unalaska, which are highlighted in this paper, are reliant on diesel power, which must be transported by barge to their communities, resulting in a cost of power that is significantly higher than the average costs for Alaska and the United States. Tidal power has the potential to provide sustainable power to these communities, while lowering the extreme cost of living currently endured by the region’s residents. The method on which we focus, in-stream tidal power generation, captures the kinetic energy of tidal currents with turbines installed directly on the seabed, eliminating disturbance of the surrounding ecosystems caused by systems requiring damming. However, further research is needed to determine the exact ecological impacts before a project could be permitted
and implemented. A proposed project at False Pass can be used as a reference to identify other sites for tidal power, such as Unalaska, the largest town in the region. Despite the large investment required to put tidal power generation in place, tidal power is economically feasible in the Aleutians as a long-term solution due to the lower recurring costs. Initial costs, including purchasing and installing the turbines, could be shouldered by for-profit or non-profit Alaska Native organizations that strive to protect traditional Native culture, which is threatened by the high living costs that drive individuals away from villages. Tidal power and other alternative energy sources will improve the quality of life of residents of the Aleutian Islands, protect the cultural heritage of Alaska Natives, and reduce the harm to the environment and the oceans caused by the use and transportation of fossil fuels for power generation.
The global dependence on fossil fuels and non-renewable resources poses a serious threat to the ocean and the ecosystems it supports. Pollution from shipping and spills, and the acidification of the ocean due to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere are all consequences of energy consumption through unsustainable means. Use of alternative energy sources is one key step towards the prevention of continued ocean disturbance. The communities of the Aleutian Islands represent a region where alternatives for fossil fuels are especially needed. Currently, all Aleutian cities and villages are dependent on diesel and other fossil fuels for heat and power for their communities (James Fitch, pers. comm.). However, many of these towns have the potential for alternative energy that can reduce their cost of living and impact on the environment.
The high cost of living in the small villages of Alaska is a concern to those interested in cultural heritage and the preservation of the traditional Alaska Native way of life, as inhabitants of small villages are pressured to leave by unbearably high energy costs and the limited economy within rural villages. Individuals in rural areas of Alaska report that up to half of their monthly income goes to energy costs and heating their home. Dependence on fossil fuels is not only environmentally unsustainable; it is also expensive to the point of crippling their way of life (http://energy.gov/article s/helping-alaska-native- communities-reduce-their-energy-costs).
We propose that tidal power is a means by which clean, sustainable energy can be provided to small communities in the Aleutians. Tidal power generation reduces power costs, eliminates the need to transport fossil fuels for power generation and the associated potential for environmentally damaging spills, and does not contribute to the environmental damage of burning fossil fuels, such as ocean acidification. One location in the Aleutians that has been previously identified as a potential site for tidal energy is False Pass, a town of roughly thirty-five people on Isanotski Strait (Figure 1) (Doug Johnson, pers. comm., http://factfinder2.census. gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml). Using False Pass as a reference, we can identify other sites in Alaska that might benefit from tidal power, such as Unalaska, the largest community in the Aleutians, with the largest power demand and fossil fuel consumption
Figure 1. Location and tidal power potential of False Pass and Unalaska. Created using map data from
Google Earth (http://google.com/earth/) and Haas et al. (http://www.tidalstreampower.gatech.edu/).
The Aleutian Island chain, an island arc in Southwest Alaska spanning over 1,000 miles, was formed by the ongoing subduction of the Pacific plate under the North American plate, and is one of the most geologically active island chains in the world. It is composed of 14 large and approximately 55 small islands, as well as hundreds of small islets. The maritime climate is cool, wet, and windy, with frequent storms, especially in the winter (Hunt, 2005).
Three ocean currents flow past the Aleutians: The Alaska Coastal Current, the Alaskan Stream, and the Aleutian North Slope Current (Figure 2). The Alaska Coastal Current, driven by winds and freshwater input, and the Alaskan Stream, a western boundary current of the North Pacific sub-Arctic gyre, both flow westward on the south side of the islands. The Aleutian North Slope Current flows eastward on the
north side of the archipelago. The Alaska Coastal Current splits at Unimak Pass; the less saline, inshore portion turns northward, while the saltier offshore portion continues west to Samalga Pass, where it joins the Aleutian North Slope Current. West of Samalga Pass, the Alaskan Stream is the predominant current south of the archipelago. The differences in source water result in different physical and chemical conditions in the passes between the islands. The flow of water through the passes is dominated by the tides. In smaller, shallower passes, the tidal currents mix the entire water column. In larger passes, there is a two-way flow, to the south on the west side of the pass and northward on the east side. However, in all of the passes except Kamchatka Strait, net water flow is to the north (Hunt, 2005). In addition, the Islands of the Aleutian region all experience mixed tides, which are predominantly semidiurnal (Huang et al., 2011).
Figure 2. Ocean currents in the Aleutian region (based on Stabneo et al., 2005).
The Aleutian region is sparsely populated, with only 8,702 residents reported in the 2010 census (http:// factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml). The Aleut, also called Unangan, are indigenous to the Aleutians, and have inhabited the area for 6,000 years, coming as part of a second wave of migration, likely traveling by boat rather than over the Bering land bridge. The Aleut people traditionally lived in small villages, and subsisted primarily on sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) and various species of whale. The extreme lack of wood on the islands led to innovations and lifestyle changes including eating raw food and living in partially subterranean homes with grass roofs (Veltre and Veltre, 1982). Traditional Aleut values include respect for the Creator, knowledge of one’s family and ancestors, regard for the land and sea, and maintenance of balance in life (http://www.firstalaskans.org/index.cfm?section=Census– Information-Center&page=Regional-Fact-Sheets&viewpost=2&ContentId=602).
The Russians were the first people from the old world to visit the Aleutians, in 1741. They became interested in the islands for the valuable fur of seals and sea otters (Enhydra lutris). The Aleut people were forced to hunt fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) and sea otters under the rule of the promyshlenniki, the Russian fur traders. The Russian government’s limited control over the traders resulted in a dramatic decline in the Native population until the creation of the Russian-American Company in 1799. The traditional way of life was entirely disrupted by 1830 despite attempts to salvage it (Haycox and Mangusso, 1996).
Caucasian settlers in the Aleutians were scarce, even after Alaska was purchased by the United States in 1867. The population was primarily Native until the beginning of World War II, when military bases were constructed throughout the Aleutians to guard against a potential attack by the Japanese, which did occur on Adak and Attu Islands. In addition to military expansion, the federal government evacuated most of the Natives to Southeast Alaska, where many died due to poor living conditions in the internment camps and canneries where they were housed. Upon returning to their homes, many Aleuts were shocked to find their houses and churches had been destroyed or ransacked by soldiers (Haycox and Mangusso, 1996).
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 created for-profit Native corporations on regional and local levels. Twelve regional corporations were each granted a portion of almost one billion dollars and forty million acres of land, to be utilized in a manner most beneficial to the shareholders of each corporation, the indigenous peoples of the area (http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/Curriculum/ANCSA/ane.html). The Aleut Corporation, the regional corporation for the Aleutian region, last reported a net income of over twenty million dollars, before taxes, in 2010, and experienced growth between 2008 and 2010, despite the nationwide recession (http://www.aleutcorp.com/images/stories/11263%20aleut2010annualreport_lowres).
Today, much of the non-Aleut population throughout the Aleutians, especially within the city of Unalaska, is of Asian descent, primarily because Asian workers were recruited for jobs in fish-processing plants. According to the 2010 census, the population of Unalaska is 30.6% Caucasian, 31.4% Asian, 19.9% American Indian and Alaska Native, and the remaining portion is divided between people of multiple races and other categories (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/c ommunity_facts.xhtml).
Tidal power is an alternative energy source that uses the kinetic energy from the tidal motion of seawater to generate power. Tidal power is regarded as a clean energy source; the power generation methods are sustainable and do not cause lasting damage to the environment (Polagye et al., 2011). Tidal power is also reliable and predictable, as unlike wind or solar, the tidal pattern of an area is regular and does not vary greatly with weather or other variables. In this paper, we focus on in-stream or tidal current turbines, as opposed to tidal barrages. Tidal barrages are large dam structures that block the entrance to an estuary or other partially-enclosed area, and employ turbines much like hydroelectric dams to harness the energy of the tidal outflow. Unlike hydroelectric dams, tidal barrages allow water to flow in both directions to create a power potential; however, energy is generated only during ebb tides. Tidal barrages often harness a greater amount of energy than in-stream turbines, but result in much greater environmental damage because of the damming required to generate power. Barrages have been found to change the salinity ranges of estuaries, and also reduce the amount of intertidal habitat available to organisms and change both bottom water properties and current patterns within and outside the enclosed area (Pelc and Fujita, 2002).
In-stream turbines generate electricity as tidal currents pass through them in a manner similar to the method of generating power from wind energy. The turbines are installed on the seafloor, and generate energy from currents and tidal movement, without blocking an estuary mouth or otherwise altering the surrounding region. Narrow straits produce swift currents because of the large volumes of water moving between landmasses, and therefore create the most desirable locations for in-stream tidal generation. Many such locations with strong currents exist, including those in the Aleutian Islands (O’Rourke et al., 2010).
The amount of power generated is dependent on the area of water intercepted by the device, the cube of the water velocity, and how efficient the device is at converting the kinetic energy into electrical energy. The power generated by the turbine can be expressed in the equation P=(1/2)nV3Ae, where P is the power generated by the turbine, n is the density of the seawater , v is the velocity of the tidal current, A is the area of water of water intercepted by the device, and e is the efficiency of the device. The efficiency and cross- sectional area change for turbines designed by different companies (Polagye, 2010).
The proposed project at False Pass would use the TidGen Power System (Figure 3), an in-stream turbine system designed by Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC). This system was implemented in the first commercial tidal power operation connected to a local utility grid in North America. The installation of one TidGen system in Cobscook Bay, Maine, in 2012, has generated enough energy to power 25 to 30 homes, and the project will be expanded over the next three years to generate a total of 5 megawatts, enough for up to 300 residences or businesses (http://science.energy.gov/sbir/highlights/2013/sbir-2013-01-e/).
Throughout this paper, we refer specifically to the TidGen system, not because it is definitively the best or most cost-effective method of tidal power generation available, but because the TidGen system is the only method that has been seriously proposed so far in the Aleutians, and is the only system that currently operates within the United States. Other devices and implements for in-stream tidal generation exist, and may be more efficient or economically viable than ORPC’s TidGen system, however, none of these options have been presented within the Aleutian region thus far.
Because in-stream turbine installation does not require the damming or other blocking of estuaries or other marine areas, sediment disturbance or current pattern changes are typically not significant concerns (Pelc and Fujita, 2002). Frid et al. (2011) indicate that the sediment disturbance caused by the installation of turbines has not posed any significant threat, as most areas with enough tidal power potential to support a tidal generator have strong enough currents that the sediment is disturbed naturally more than by the turbines. However, this effect may not be negated by natural currents as the number and size of turbines in an area is increased. The sediment disturbance is a threat to benthic organisms that rely on nutrients from and the habitat of ocean floor sediments, potentially resulting in a change in benthic community compositions if sediment disturbance is prolonged (Polagye, 2010).
Figure 3. The TidGen Power System. Courtesy of Ocean Renewable Power Company.
The primary concern arising from the installation of in-stream turbines is the potential for negative effects on marine organisms. Conclusions on the potential for interactions between nekton and in-stream turbines are mixed. Reports indicate high mortality rates from direct contact between fish and turbines, but other sources have also reported that small to medium fish are often able to swim through turbines and remain unharmed (Frid et al., 2011). Additional studies have reported that marine mammals and diving birds generally avoid rotors, the chances of them being hit by a blade are low, and any contact that were to occur would be glancing and not seriously harmful (Fraenkel, 2006). Reports on the TidGen system installed in Maine suggest the turbines do not have negative effects on marine life, but each site is unique, so these findings may not be generally applicable. Because False Pass and Unalaska both have marine mammals and endangered species, including Steller sea lions, gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), killer whales (Orcinus orca), we feel that further research and monitoring of the interactions between marine mammals and in-stream turbines would need to be, and should be, conducted.
While other renewable sources have been considered as potentials for reducing energy costs in the Aleutians, tidal power stands out primarily because of its reliability (Bruce Wright, pers. comm.). Unlike wind and solar power, tidal power is not dependent on the weather conditions and can operate at all times of the day, excepting the period of time when the area experiences slack tide. The two locations highlighted in this paper do not have sea ice present at any time of year, so tidal power turbines would be operable throughout the winter months (Doug Johnson, pers. comm.).
False Pass is a small community located on the eastern shore of Unimak Island with a population of approximately 35 individuals. The city is a port on Isanotski Strait, which is used by thousands of vessels traveling between the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea every year. The location was identified as a potential tidal power site by local mariners, who observed an exceptionally high current velocity, and in the summer of 2013 a study was conducted by ORPC to confirm the tidal potential that had been reported anecdotally (ftp://ftp.aidea.org/White-McMahon/862False%20Pass%20Tidal%20Energy%20Study/False%20Pass%20Tidal%20RE%20Rd%20V%20App.pdf). Funding for the study was provided by the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA), the tribal organization of Alaska’s Aleut peoples, through a tribal energy grant from the US Department of Energy (http://www.uaf.edu/files/acep/2013_REC_False%20Pass%20Assessment_Monty%20Worthington.pdf). ORPC hopes to have the TidGen turbine unit in the water in the fall of 2014, however APIA doesn’t believe the permitting process will be completed by that date (Bruce Wright, pers. comm.). Additional, extensive bathymetric surveys are needed before this can occur. Throughout the process, ORPC will be monitoring in conjunction with the relevant agencies for any environmental impacts that might occur. Underwater video monitoring will be used to determine safe placement for the turbine (Doug Johnson, pers. comm.).
Currently, the city of False Pass generates electricity by burning diesel fuel. The proposed single TidGen unit at False Pass would supply at least 30% of the electrical and heating needs of the community; enough power to save 37,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually. It would also cut the high energy costs caused by the high cost of fuel and the expense of transporting it (City of False Pass Electric Utility, 2011). The residents of False Pass pay between 15 and 42 cents per kWh for electricity, depending on whether they receive the Power Cost Equalization subsidy from the State of Alaska. The Power Cost Equalization program lowers the cost of energy for residents of rural communities where energy costs are potentially as high as three to five times the statewide average (http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/PCEProgramGuide_Augu st13.pdf). This program relies on appropriations from the Alaska State Legislature and the expenditures for the 2012 fiscal year – the most recent data available – totaled $39.1 million (http://www.akenergyauthority. org/PDF%20files/pcereports%5CFY12statisticalrptbyuty.pdf). Residents of the City of Unalaska received $1,065,287 of the subsidies, while residents of the City of False Pass received $22,176 (Alaska Energy Authority, 2013). Even with the subsidy, the cost of electricity is much higher than the national average of 12.51 cents per kWh. Electricity costs the City of False Pass $187,060 per year, and this is expected to increase as fuel prices continue to rise. In contrast, the estimated operating and maintenance costs for the TidGen system would be $35,750 per year, according to ORPC (ftp://ftp.aidea.org/White-McMahon/862False%20Pass%20Tidal%20Energy%20Study/False%20Pass%20Tidal%20RE%20Rd%20V%20App.pdf).
A challenge posed by the use of tides for power generation is their intermittent nature. Power can only be generated while water is flowing, either in or out. Slack water leaves a recurring gap in power output. ORPC is looking at several energy storage technologies for use at False Pass that would alleviate this issue. Batteries, particularly liquid metal ones, and compressed air are both possibilities for storage. The production of ammonia or hydrogen while the tide is flowing is an option, which would later be combusted to provide energy. Water could also be pumped into an elevated reservoir onshore to be used for traditional hydroelectric power generation during slack tides. Furthermore, constant power output over the period of the tide may not be necessary for False Pass. Much of the power usage in False Pass goes to the production of ice for use by local fish processors. By making additional ice when energy is available, it would be possible to reduce power demand when energy is scarce (Doug Johnson, pers. comm.).
Unalaska is the largest community in the Aleutian Islands, with a population of 4,376 reported in the 2010 census (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml). Like many towns in the Aleutians and other regions of Alaska, the population varies with the time of year and the profitability of the fisheries, sometimes reaching as high as ten thousand. Unalaska, along with all other communities in the Aleutians, relies on diesel generators for power. The municipal power utility provides power for the entirety
of the town except the four major fish processors, all of which have separate diesel generators. Alyeska Seafoods and Westward Seafoods share power generation of 6,200 kW for their Unalaska processing plants (Stuart Law, pers. comm.). Unisea Inc generates 7,000-8,000 kW during the peak fish processing season (February through March and September through December) and 2,000 kW throughout the off- season (Todd Shoup, pers. comm.). Bering Fisheries reports a 32 kW power generator, which is primarily used to make ice (Fred Cecena, pers. comm.). One small-scale fish processing plant, operated by Copper River Seafoods, relies on power provided by the city. The majority of the city’s power generation goes to the shipping industry, which is one of the largest components of Unalaska’s economy after commercial fishing. On average, the City of Unalaska generates 9,000 kW of power, and roughly 2,000 kW of that power goes to households, with the remainder going to various shipping companies (James Fitch, pers. comm.).
Power provided by the municipal electrical utility costs 51 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh). For the customers eligible for the Alaska Energy Authority’s Power Cost Equalization subsidy, the cost is reduced to roughly 27 cents per kWh (James Fitch, pers. Comm.). Residents of the City of Unalaska received $1,065,287 of the subsidies in 2012 (AEA, 2013). The cost is still greater than the state average of 18.71 cents per kWh, and significantly higher than the national average of 12.51 cents per kWh (http://www.eia.go v/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a). Unalaska’s high cost of energy is attributed to both the rising cost of fuel and the cost of transportation (James Fitch, pers. comm.).
Three passes near Unalaska, including Unalga Pass, located between Unalaska and Unalga Islands approximately 20 km (13 mi) from the City of Unalaska over land, and Baby and Akutan Passes, located on the opposite side of the 7 km (4 mi) wide Unalga Island, have tidal power generation potentials of 75,000 kW, 26,000 kW, and 114,000 kW, respectively (http://www.google.com/earth/index.html, http://www.tidalstre ampower.gatech.edu/Final_Report_tidal_v2.pdf). The partial exploitation of the nearest, at Unalga Pass, would be sufficient to cover the power needs of the entire community of Unalaska, including the fish processors operating within the city. In conjunction with a switch from home heating oil to electric heating, the dependence of the community on transported fossil fuels would be greatly reduced.
Tidal potential in Unalaska was not studied by ORPC due to the perceived low current velocities in the area. With APIA, ORPC has also been investigating other kinds of renewable energy in the Aleutian Islands, including wave energy. ORPC is also looking at developing tidal power as an energy source in other areas of Alaska, including the south end of Prince of Wales Island (Doug Johnson, pers. comm.).
Cobscook Bay, part of the Bay of Fundy located near Eastport, Maine, was the site of the first grid- connected tidal power operation in North America when one of ORPC’s TidGen systems was installed in the summer of 2012. It currently generates enough energy to power 25 to 30 homes, and over the next three years, the project will expand to generate a total of 5 mW, enough to power up to 1,200 residences or businesses (Table 1) (http://science.energy.gov/sbir/highlights/2013/sbir-2013-01-e/).
The Cobscook Bay project received $10 million in funding from the U.S. Department of Energy for research and installation costs. Since 2007, the project has brought more than $21 million in revenue to Maine’s economy, including $5 million spent locally on several contractors and goods and services. Over 100 jobs are attributed to the project (http://science.energy.gov/sbir/highlights/2013/sbir-2013-01-e/).
In addition to the preliminary studies conducted during the development of the project, ORPC is facilitating ongoing monitoring of impacts to the local environment. They are assessing the physical environment, the benthic habitat, marine mammals, fish, and birds through several monitoring plans. So far, results indicate that the TidGen system in Cobscook Bay does not have any significant adverse effects on the environment. However, data collection was difficult due to the highly dynamic environment of the bay and other circumstances. Benthic disturbance and biofouling were minimal. Observations of marine mammals indicate that there were no population or behavioral changes during construction, operation, and maintenance, and there is no evidence of any marine mammal strikes. Seabird populations and behaviors were not significantly affected . (http://www.orpc.co/permitting_doc/environmentalreport_Mar2013.pdf)
Table 1. Tidal power potentials of three locations
(http://www.tidalstreampower.gatech.edu/Final_Report_tidal_v2.pdf).
The greatest costs associated with tidal power are the initial startup costs, including the research and permitting process, and the acquisition and installation of the equipment required. In the case of Unalaska, additional funds would also be required for purchasing and installing power transmission cables to get the power from Unalga Pass to Unalaska. However, all of these costs are one-time occurrences, which would likely be incurred by one or more organizations, and slowly paid off by the consumers. The cost of power for the consumer after the switch to tidal power would be lower than the current cost, by a variable amount, depending on the cost of diesel at the time.
The project at Cobscook Bay, Maine cost approximately $15 million by the time the first turbine was installed in the water (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/14/1st-tidal-power-delivered-to-us-power-grid-off-maine/). According to Bruce Wright, of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, the tidal power project at False Pass will cost on the order of $10 million (pers. comm.). As the technology develops, and the interactions between the turbines and animal species are better understood, the initial investment of turbine installation and research required should continue to decrease.
Outside of the cost and complexity of turbine installation for a project at Unalga Pass, the provision of power to Unalaska would be complicated by the need to transmit it over approximately 20 km (13 mi) of Unalaska Island (http://www.google.com/earth/index.html). The relatively large distance between the pass and the city would increase costs significantly. The cost of installation for a 69 kV overhead power transmission cable is approximately $285,000 per mile, leading to a total cost of over $3.7 million just for transportation of power (Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, 2011). This cost could potentially be higher, because of the cost of transportation of supplies to Unalaska and the additional costs related to the absence of roads, but at this time additional information is mot available. However, this cost, similar to the cost of procuring and installing the turbines, is a one-time expenditure.
Other cities in Alaska that rely on renewable power resources, such as Juneau, have similar systems with significant distances between the power generation site and the city. The Snettisham hydroelectric power plant, which provides the majority of power for the City and Borough of Juneau, is located 28 miles away from the city, power is transported by 44 miles of overhead and undersea power transmission cables that run through multiple avalanche chutes and under the Taku River (http://www.aelp.com/history/ electric.htm).
Table 2. Current energy costs and consumption of False Pass and Unalaska, compared to Alaska and nationwide averages.
The tidal power provided in Cobscook Bay costs customers $0.215 per kWh (https://bangordailynews.co m/2013/08/13/news/down-east/tidal-power-project-headed-for-next-stage/). If a similar price could be achieved in Unalaska, it would provide enormous cost savings to commercial entities that are not eligible for Power Cost Equalization. During times of peak power usage by the four fish processors, they would save an estimated $81,881 per day by using such tidal power (assuming similar generation costs, neglecting line loss, as those reported by the Alaska Energy Authority (http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/ pcereports/fy12statisticalrptcomt.pdf)). While residential customers covered by PCE might not see a significant short-term change, tidal power could keep down costs in the long term (Table 2). State oil production has been declining, and is expected to continue to do so. With it, the oil tax revenues that fund the state government, including the Power Cost Equalization Program, are declining (http://www.alaskanomics.com/ 2013/04/states-new-oil-production-forecast-model-less-rosy-too-early-to-tell- if-it-is-more-accurate.html).
As with other tidal power installations, one near Unalaska would require a mechanism to stabilize the power output and provide power during slack tides. As with the project at False Pass, additional research would need to be done into the benefits of various technologies. The production of extra ice for use by fish processors during slack tides could be one component of a more comprehensive solution, but it alone would not satisfy the needs of residential customers and other businesses. Such a solution should be developed in cooperation with the fish processors to better satisfy the power needs of the whole community.
The rising cost of living in the Aleutians, driven by fuel prices and the dependence on diesel for energy generation, is one of many factors contributing to the decline off the Aleut culture. These factors cause small communities in rural Alaska to shrink and decay, and the cultural heritage diminishes as well. In a survey of people moving from rural Alaska, 65% of respondents replied that “nothing could make me return/village is dying,” (http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/B/237133779.pdf). Maintaining the traditional way of life in small villages is a necessary component of preserving Alaska Native cultural heritage, which includes subsistence, a strong sense of community, and ties to both family and one’s village.
One method of improving the quality of life in rural areas and lowering the cost of living is transitioning from diesel-generated power to cheaper, sustainable tidal power. This effort would result in a long-term decrease in energy costs to residences and businesses and prevent high living costs from driving residents away from village life. In addition, the construction required to install tidal generators and the associated infrastructure would bring skilled workers to the area, benefitting the local economy through increased demand for goods and services. Jobs maintaining the turbines and doing other work associated with the support of a tidal power system would help to replace the jobs lost from the transition to tidal power.
Tidal power has the potential to help preserve Native traditions and heritage by decreasing further emigration from villages due to extremely high living costs. As such, both non-profit and for-profit Native organizations, including APIA and the Aleut Corporation, should have a strong incentive to support and fund the development of tidal power in the region. APIA’s mission states that it exists as a non-profit corporation “to provide self-sufficiency and independence of the Unangan/Unangas by advocacy, training, technical assistance and economic enhancement; to assist in meeting the health, safety and well-being needs of each Unangan/Unangas community…” (http://www.apiai.com/about.asp?page=about). APIA has previously demonstrated its commitment to develop tidal power, as well as other renewable power opportunities in the Aleutian region, by funding a study of the potential for tidal power generation at False Pass, along with research into other possible energy sources, including solar, geothermal and wave energy technologies (Bruce Wright, pers. comm.). The use of tidal power, or other renewable energy sources, is consistent with traditional Aleut values, which include holding respect for the natural world (http://www.firstalaskans.org/ind ex.cfm?section=Census-Information-Center&page=Regional-Fact-Sheets&viewpost=2&ContentId=602). Decreasing the cost of electricity and therefore the overall cost of living in the Aleutians is a demonstrable economic enhancement and also contributes to meeting the well-being needs of the Unangan peoples.
Turbine operation and resultant power distribution at the False Pass project would likely be a cooperative effort by ORPC, APIA, and the False Pass Electric Utility, although details of ownership and each entity’s role in operation of the turbine has not yet been finalized (Bruce Wright, pers. comm.). A project at Unalga Pass, powering Unalaska, could be either wholly owned by the Unalaska Power Utility, with the TidGen system purchased from ORPC, or jointly owned by ORPC, Unalaska Power Utility, APIA, Ounalashka Corporation (the local for-profit Native corporation for Unalaska), Aleut Corporation (the for-profit Native corporation of the Aleutian region), a separate organization, or any combination of the above. Participation by Aleut Corporation would be a direct benefit to the Unangan peoples, of both Unalaska and other parts of Alaska, as the profit from selling power to the businesses and homes of Unalaska would be passed on to the shareholders of the corporation, the Aleut people. Involvement by Ounalashka Corporation would also benefit the indigenous peoples of Unalaska, but not of other communities in the Aleutians or other regions
of Alaska. Ounalashka Corporation’s mission states that it exists “[t]o continue as a prosperous corporation through excellence in education and management, to benefit Shareholders thereby strengthening Unangan culture, and to become the premier village corporation,” a mission that aligns with the goals of a tidal power project (http://www.ounalashka.com/about/). Ownership of the turbine by the Unalaska Power Utility would likely result in the lowest cost to the consumers, as the city generating a profit from the sale of power to individuals within Unalaska is unlikely. However, in the instance of the power utility owning and operating the turbines, the Aleut peoples wouldn’t receive monetary benefits from the energy sales through shareholder dividends. Any single entity or combination of entities owning and operating tidal power generation turbines in the Aleutians would be a benefit to the peoples there, through a significant reduction in energy costs and also potentially through dividends to Alaska Native shareholders.
The use of tidal power and other renewable energy sources is essential in reducing of further damage to the environment as a whole, and the oceans specifically. The Aleutian Islands are well suited for the
development of tidal power due to the high current velocities in passes near communities that are currently utilizing unsustainable power generation sources. False Pass, a location previously established as a potential site for tidal power, should be used as a pilot project to test the feasibility and identify other areas in which tidal power could be developed, including other communities in the Aleutians such as Unalaska.
The benefits of tidal power far outweigh the nominal risks of ecosystem damage and the high costs of initial analysis and installation. However, to ensure the preservation of the Aleutian region’s unique ecosystem and the culture that depends on it, monitoring of the impacts of turbines on marine mammals, various species of fish, and benthic habitats is necessary. In addition to reducing CO2 emissions, from burning and transporting fossil fuels and lowering the potential for harmful spills, the development of alternative energy sources in the Aleutians would benefit its residents by reducing the high cost of living. This growing problem threatens the traditional way of life for Alaska Natives in small villages, therefore, transitioning to more sustainable and economically viable energy sources is a demonstrable benefit to the individuals of the Aleutians and the preservation of their cultural heritage. Further research should be conducted into specific locations within the Aleutians, including Unalga Pass, to determine feasibility of tidal power opportunities that have the potential to provide sustainable, cost-effective power for this region.
With the recent opening of the Northwest Passage above the Arctic Coast of the United States and Canada, increased ship traffic from shipping, research, and tourism will increase risk of ships running aground or becoming trapped within the ice in the Arctic Sea. We recognize this risk and propose that a heavy class be built for the United States Coast Guard, because our
current ice breaker fleet is small, consisting of only the medium icebreaker Healy and the recently refurbished heavy icebreaker Polar Star. A new icebreaker is necessary if the United States is to respond to emergencies in the Northwest Passage.
In recent years, the sea ice in the Arctic has been receding. As of September 2012, the amount of sea ice in the Arctic in terms of thickness and extent was at an all-time low, dropping from 4.5 million square kilometers to 3.5 million (Figure 1). This change in melting sea ice presents both disadvantages and advantages to the territories around the area. There are multiple disadvantages of the decrease in Arctic sea ice, one being that as the Arctic Sea ice level drops, habitats for species also drop. However, the melting sea ice can provide benefits to many countries that have coastlines in the Arctic such as Russia, Canada, and the U.S. As the sea ice melts, many Arctic shipping routes open—one of which is known as the Northwest Passage (Figure 2; Roach). The Northwest Passage could increase shipping opportunities along Arctic coastlines and serve as a faster, more efficient route by which ships can travel.
Shipping and tourism vessels must be able to navigate shifting sea ice safely. However, on the fringes of the Arctic ice cap, there are many icebergs and ice floes that pose danger to these ships. The primary threat to ships is the mobile ice, which could cause these ships to become trapped. An icebreaker would be needed to provide service to ships in need.
An icebreaker is a ship with the ability to navigate icy waters and clear paths for other ships. They are fairly large ships, at around 400 feet from bow to stern (O’Rourke). Most icebreakers last around 30 years before being refurbished or decommissioned (O’Rourke). There are two different methods of breaking ice: simply running through it or backing and ramming. Backing and ramming is a technique in which the ship backs up and rams the ice to break thicker sheets. Icebreakers are expensive and uncommon, but essential for Arctic navigation.
For our project, we propose that an icebreaker be built for use by the U.S. Coast Guard. The State of Alaska has shown interest in helping to fund this project, but they will not be solely responsible for finances. It is possible that funding could be acquired from many different parties who would be interested in contributing to a new icebreaker if it would benefit them in their Arctic operations, as was done with the Sikuliaq (Castellini). The vessel will be designed to break at least six feet of ice continuously and can be in service for 250 days at minimum so as to maintain a presence in Arctic waters throughout the year. The ship proposed should be maintainable by a crew of about 130, the size of the crew on former heavy icebreakers (O’Rourke). These aspects would greatly increase the ability of the Coast Guard to monitor and keep safe the Northwest Passage.
The Arctic sea ice is changing rapidly, and with this comes increased traffic through Arctic regions (DeMarban). Shipping vessels, tourism, oil drilling, and exploration of the Arctic all add to this traffic (Humpert. and Raspotnik). Given the estimated high number of vessels to be passing through the area, the ability to run an effective search-and-rescue mission is critical. Vessels can encounter problems such as icing from sea spray, getting stuck in sea ice, and iceberg collisions. The sheer remoteness of the Northwest Passage also poses a problem, since rescue times could be significantly slower if the passage was frozen (Humpert, and Raspotnik). The U.S. must increase their current Arctic navigational capabilities in order to manage the route. As of now, with only one functioning medium-power icebreaker, we are currently unable to do so.
Since traffic in the Arctic region is sure to exponentially increase in the years to come, we must match that with an increased number of icebreakers. A rise to 1.5 million tons of cargo has been predicted to pass through the Northwest Passage in the next year (Humpert, and Raspotnik). That number is expected to increase to 40 million tons by 2021, thirty times what it is today (Koranyi). With more shipping vessels going through the Arctic waters, more will be sailing near Alaska (CITE). Traffic in the Arctic Ocean will not only grow due to shipping vessels, but also because of tourism and resource development (DeMarban). Another factor to consider is that as of this year, over 1,000 vessels pass through the Bering Strait each summer, according to Rear Adm. Thomas P. Ostelo, commander of the Coast Guard in Alaska (Bellingston).
Traffic through the Northwest Passage is going to increase greatly in the near future. In order to ensure the safety of Arctic vessels, we must build at least one icebreaker, which will allow us to easily navigate Arctic waters. With only the medium sized Healy in working condition, the United States Coast Guard is currently not capable of responding quickly to an emergency in the Arctic.
Currently, the nation is in possession of two functional icebreakers: one heavy (the Polar Star) and one medium (the Healy), but only the Healy is currently in operation. There are two others in the country that are privately owned (by the NSF and Shell), but neither can be heavily relied upon to aid in an emergency, as they are both light icebreakers (United States Coast Guard). Other Arctic countries, such Russia and Canada, have upwards of 15 icebreakers, allowing them much more control over Arctic operations. This small number of icebreaking ships has caused the Coast Guard to be unable to fulfill its Arctic missions: to patrol the Arctic North, to perform research in the Arctic West, and make the U.S.’s Arctic bases available (O’Rourke). To fulfill these requirements, the Coast Guard needs, with its current procedures, at least three heavy and three medium icebreakers (O’Rourke). However, because of the budget
limitations, it is only suggested that we build one icebreaker. This will keep the project feasible while still increasing the Coast Guard’s Arctic operating capacity. Currently, with only two icebreakers, our country is lacking in polar transport and research capacity.
The Coast Guard’s primary icebreaker is the United States Coast Guard Cutter Healy. The Healy is a medium icebreaker, capable of breaking up to three feet of ice continuously or eight feet backing and ramming (United States Coast Guard). The thickness of Arctic ice and the inefficiency of the backing and ramming technique hinders the Healy from being able to clear a path for a major shipping line. Its primary function is scientific research. Most of its research entails studying Arctic marine mammals (United States Coast Guard). While its research is undoubtedly valuable to the scientific community, it does not have the capacity to clear shipping routes for major tankers.
The U.S.’s only heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, was recently refurbished and is currently undergoing testing, estimated to be operable in fiscal year 2014 (O’Rourke). The Polar Star is capable of breaking six feet of ice at three knots and 21 feet of ice backing and ramming (Alexander). This is the capability our heavy icebreakers need to fulfill the Coast Guard’s missions. However, the fact that the heavy icebreaker was out of commission for over four years is troubling (Restino). If a major Arctic crisis, such as an oil spill, happened during that time, we would be lacking in ability to facilitate cleanup, or even rescue people involved in the accident. Therefore, any accidents that can happen in the Polar Regions are, for now, in the hands of other countries and private icebreakers.
There have been several studies showing that the U.S. would be helpless in the event of an Arctic oil spill. In early September, the Healy went on a mission to the waters north of Barrow, equipped with several new tools for detecting and cleaning oil spills (Bourne). Many of these are ROVs (remotely operated vehicles) similar to, but sturdier than those used to clean up the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 (Bourne). Though much testing and trial runs have occurred, it is still general consensus among the U.S. National Academy of Scientists and industry leaders that as of today, there is no effective Arctic oil spill response (Bourne). There have been spills in the past (spills are inevitable considering the amount of drilling that occurs on the North Slope) but the vast majority have been small and on land. During a hearing after the Deepwater Horizon spill, General Thad Allen said, “The current condition of the Coast Guard icebreaker fleet should be of great concern to the senior leaders of this nation” (Shumaker). In this, General Allen stated that we are not ready for major Arctic operations at this moment. Another important observation was from Commandant Admiral Robert Papp, saying of the BP oil spill, “If this were to happen on the North Slope of Alaska, we’d have nothing” (Bourne). These two quotes clearly demonstrate how those in charge of coastal safety understand the need for icebreakers.
Currently, the U.S. Coast Guard is lacking in ability to respond to a major Arctic emergency. This lack of ability is dangerous, as an Arctic oil spill has become “inevitable” in the eyes of some organizations (Bourne). Our current tools for cleaning up spills are being tested, but researchers do not know how effective they will be (Bourne). Also, we are unable to support oil facilities off the North Slope, except in Deadhorse and Prudhoe Bay (Shumaker). Therefore, with our current icebreakers, it is impossible to support the infrastructure of our Arctic regions.
The U.S.’s Arctic operations have been important to the nation’s security and economy many times. Past missions of icebreakers were key in helping to protect Alaska and even some key northern locations during World War II (Canney). During WWII, the ice breaker Mackinaw was built to break ice on the Great Lakes shipping lanes to sustain the shipment of millions of tons of iron and other materials for war-time production of steel (Historical Naval Ships Association).These missions are examples of when U.S. needed ice breakers in the past and why we need them in the present and the future.
Tourism is also another area where icebreakers were needed. For example, in January of
2009, a cruise ship carrying 300 passengers was stuck in thick ice in the St. Lawrence River and was in need of icebreaker help. Luckily, the Canadian Coast Guard was able to respond and they sent out an icebreaker to help free the cruise ship. (Noronha) Another incident where an icebreaker was used for rescue was in 2010. A cruise ship, named the Clipper Adventurer, in Nunavut’s Coronation Gulf crashed into a rock and became stranded. This cruise ship was completing a 15 day Arctic Expedition before it ran aground. (CBC News) The ship’s 118 passengers and crew were all safe an unharmed by the time the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Amundsen arrived to rescue them (CNN Wire Staff). The Canadian icebreaker had to travel over
500 miles from its base in Quebec City to rescue the passengers and transport them to a nearby town called Kugluktuk (CNN Wire Staff). It reached the stranded passengers in just about two days. These instances help show that increased tourist traffic in icy waters could potentially lead to even more cruise ship crashes in icy waters.
In early 2012, the Healy plowed the way for a shipment of fuel to Nome; the only shipment the city would receive all year (Ahlers). The shipment is one of the only non-research missions the Healy has ever had. It was due to a length of bad weather that Nome couldn’t get its fuel, and the Healy and a Russian icebreaking tanker called Renda had to deliver the fuel (Ahlers). The two ships left from Dutch Harbor, 300 miles south of Nome (Ahlers). They
arrived on Saturday, January 14th (Yardley). Without the fuel shipment, Nome would have run
out of fuel by March (Yardley). The icebreaker was not the only way to ship the fuel into Nome (it could have been flown in) but it was by far the cheapest, as gasoline is already six dollars per gallon in the city (Yardley). This example proves that the U.S. is in need of icebreakers, and while the Healy came through in that instance, it may not be able to in a future incident.
There are also many instances today that icebreakers are being used. On September 4,
2013, the French catamaran Babuska was stuck in ice in the Arctic when it was traveling from Alaska to Greenland (ITAR-TASS). The Russian icebreaker Admiral Makarov rescued the two- man vessel overnight and dropped them of at the Port of Pevek in Chukotka, Russia on September 6 (ITAR-TASS). Without the help of the icebreaker, the two men would have had a smaller chance of survival.
In January 2013, a British Naval Vessel rescued an Antarctic cruise ship. The Icebreaker HMS Protector was escorting the Norwegian cruise liner Fram, the cruise liner hoping to safely follow the icebreaker through the ice-filled waters of the Antarctic (Baker). However, the boat got trapped by large chunks of ice completely surrounding the vessel and prohibiting any movement (Baker). It then took the icebreaker Protector over two hours to crack through the 13- foot-thick ice that surrounded the Fram (Baker). If the Protector hadn’t been escorting them, the passengers aboard the Fram most likely would have had to wait days before another ship could assist them in getting out of the ice, due to the extremely few number of icebreakers in that region (Baker).
Cruise ships getting stuck in Arctic waters aren’t the only problem. Similarly, many shipping vessels also get stuck in the ice. In fact, Russian icebreaker Vladivostok was sent to rescue a Russian shipping vessel Mikhail Somov (“New York Times”). The Somov had been used to deliver supplies and relief crews to the Soviet Union’s scientific bases on Antarctica (“Christian Science Monitor”). The Somov was stuck in the Amundsen Sea for four months, from late April to when the Vladivostok rescued it in early August. The ice surrounding the Somov was around 12 feet thick (“Christian Science Monitor”). The rescue mission took from early June to early August, which, had Russia not sent one of their bigger icebreakers, would have taken much longer (“New York Times”).
There have been numerous incidents involving shipping freighters getting stuck the sea ice and having to be saved by icebreakers. One of these include when the Nordvik, a tanker transiting over 5,000 tons of arctic diesel fuel to Khatanga, Russia (MAREX). When the ship attempted to plow through the ice, it suffered a hole on the port side of the ship (MAREX).
The primary mission of the USCGC Healy is scientific support (Elliot). With this mission in mind, the Healy has been taking annual summer trips to the Arctic West since 2001. These trips are purely scientific and have different goals with each trip. In 2008, the Healy had two scientific missions that were part of the National Science Foundation’s Bering Ecosystem Study and the North Pacific Research Board’s Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program (Elliot). Their goal was to study the “ecological processes as the sea ice retreats… Healy scientists will launch a comprehensive suite of studies to provide insights about how marine microorganisms, plants and animals, including fish, marine mammals, and birds, as well as local
human communities, will be affected by the on-going changes in the region” (Elliot). The Healy was in the Bering Sea for the first Arctic West Summer deployment from March 6th to May 17th (Elliot). The ship traveled over 8000 nautical miles and managed to perform 1,100 individual science evolutions (Elliot). The Healy still continues these expeditions today. On July 11, 2013, the Healy began their most current four-month deployment (Follmer). Without the Healy, many of the science done in the Arctic West would not be possible. The ice out there is dangerous even in the summer, but with the Healy it is possible to safely travel in the ice and research the sea ice and ecosystems in that area. The Healy is perfectly equipped to accomplish all the research, with multiple labs, two oceanographic winches, open working decks, staging areas for science
operations, cranes, science freezer and refrigerator, etc, and is dedicated to performing these operations (U.S. Coast Guard). Devoid of the Healy, we would not have the research we have on sea ice and Arctic West habitats and we would not be able to continually perform the scientific missions without it.
The size of our icebreaker fleet today is much smaller than it has been in the past. The need for the ships, however, will soon increase. The increase in Arctic shipping will make instances like Nome’s fuel problem much more common, and with only the Healy to deal with them, we won’t be able to help every ship and town or respond easily to emergencies.
The U.S. is currently incapable of speedy or effective response to a major Arctic crisis. We have relied on other foreign icebreakers to help with rescues and other emergencies in the past. If a new icebreaker were built to replace the Polar Star, they would give us a great advantage in working in the Arctic waters that would allow increased dependency on the
icebreakers for any need of assistance. It will also allow us to become more involved politically and economically in Arctic interactions. Our icebreakers could be used more widely and clear more ice, providing an opportunity for scientists to do more research and work in Arctic areas. The acquisition of more icebreaking ships would increase the effectiveness of U.S. operations in the Arctic regions. Currently, the two major icebreakers are able to break through the ice, assist in scientific research, defend and monitor U.S. territorial waters, and take part in other missions as needed by the Coast Guard (O’Rourke). Considering the increase in shipping, we will need the icebreakers to create passages allowing ships to travel through the Arctic seas. The icebreakers will play a huge role in protection and security for shipping and recreational vessels. Our Coast Guard needs another icebreaker, and there are certain expectations to which it needs to live up.
The ship outlined in our proposal is a heavy icebreaker, capable of breaking the thickest ice the Northwest Passage has to offer. The icebreaker must be able to spend at least 250 days at sea in one stretch, though over 300 would be recommended. These three factors are important to the functionality, fiscal feasibility, and efficiency of the icebreaker program.
Funding is always one of the primary factors in any project, be it scientific or economic. The state of Alaska has expressed interest in helping to fund a new icebreaker. No clarification was provided as to how much or what kind of help the state could provide. Also, Jim Hemsath, director of the Alaska Industrial and Development Authority has suggested that his agency could be involved in analyzing a market for a potential new icebreaker. For instance, Shell may
possibly rent the icebreaker for oil exploration in the Arctic, though a spokesman has stated that it is too early to say whether the company is considering this (DeMarban).
A new heavy icebreaker could cost approximately $852 million according to the Coast Guard (O’Rourke). However, this is an estimate for a heavy icebreaker, akin to the Polar Star. By contrast, it is estimated it would cost approximately $500 million to refurbish both the two Polar-class icebreakers for another decade (O’Rourke).
The most recent addition to the NSF’s (National Science Foundation) fleet is the Sikuliaq. The construction process started ten years ago. Many universities and research foundations got together to create a proposal for the NSF to build the Sikuliaq. Several different research groups provided funding for the $200 million project (Castellini). The primary purpose of the ship will be research; it is the only icebreaking vessel designed solely for this purpose (Castellini). Though it is owned by the NSF, it will be operated by the UAF School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences (Castellini). The vessel will be used to research the effects of the opening of the Northwest Passage and changing sea ice on the ecosystems in the Arctic, and will also study the ecosystems that change with the new open ocean that was previously covered in ice (Castellini). The icebreaker’s construction cost was covered primarily by funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Walker). The design study cost $1 million and was funded by Congress (Walker). It is possible to acquire some funding from the Coast Guard’s budget, but most of the money will have to come from other sources.
The nation’s new icebreaker should be similar to or better than the older models, so the capabilities of the former ships should be taken as a minimum when outlining the new ship’s abilities. Therefore, the ship should be able to break six feet of ice with ease, and more than twenty feet backing and ramming. The thickness of the Arctic sea ice necessitates this. The
thickness of ice varies throughout the Arctic, so the ship must be capable of breaking extremely thick ice so as to be ready to clear a path through any route necessary. Since no highly defined trade routes have been established through the Northwest Passage, there is no specific region to which we can pay attention; therefore, the icebreaker must be able to adapt to wide varieties of situations, and a high icebreaking capacity is essential to this.
The capacity to spend 300 or more days at sea at a time would also be highly beneficial to the ship’s mission. The Arctic sea ice is thick all year, so the ship must be on duty all the time. Also, the icebreaker should be able to carry cargo. This ability would make an event like the recent fuel crisis in Nome much easier to resolve, and would also allow the government to rent out the icebreaker for commercial purposes such as shipping oil or other goods. The new icebreaker could also help in providing more fuel or more frequent shipments to cities like Nome along the Bering and Chukchi Seas, lowering the fuel price and therefore increasing quality of life in those regions. These three factors are critical in making our icebreaker both able to fulfill its missions and to carry out the omnipresent mission of supporting people’s livelihoods.
The United States most definitely needs at least one new icebreaker. The Coast Guard cannot fulfill its mission of making Arctic waters safe without at least four more ships (O’Rourke). There is also an increased demand for ships that can navigate Arctic waters as the Northwest Passage opens and shipping increases. Even with the opening of the Northwest Passage, travel by that route isn’t entirely safe due to drifting sea ice. Shipping will also increase the chance for a need for capable search-and-rescue teams in case of a crash. In the past, the U.S. had many needs for icebreakers, and there is no reason to suspect that we won’t in the future. Even with the refurbishing of the Polar Star, our Coast Guard needs more icebreakers, and a new ship with more advanced technology could make their mission much easier to fulfill.
Arctic shipping is becoming more and more prevalent, and as a major world power, the United States needs to have control over who and what passes through our national waters. Given the amount of goods traded from Europe to Asia, there are bound to be more foreign ships traveling via the Northwest Passage, and we need to be able to manage that influx of trade. Building a new icebreaker or icebreakers is the best way for the Coast Guard to complete their missions. As long as the Coast Guard can fulfill its mission, the Northwest Passage will be more profitable and more efficient; but above all, a safer route of trade.
Figure 1– The Extent of Arctic Sea Ice
Figure 2- Arctic Shipping Routes
Send this to a friend
