Going the Arctic route, equipped with ice breakers, can break the Polish dead ends, all around a circle, but the time is much shorter!
To put it bluntly, taking the Arctic waterway with an icebreaker can not only bypass the transportation deadlock in Poland, but even if it looks like an extra circle at first glance, the actual time spent is much shorter. This matter is much more reliable than many people think, and it is not an unreachable gimmick.
When many people mention the Arctic waterway, they preconceived that "this route is useless". The reason sounds quite real. Look, if it is a passenger route, only the starting point and the terminal station can get on and off passengers, and there is not even a stop place along the way. Guests can't get off in the middle, and no one can get on in the middle. Just relying on the source of customers at the starting point and the end point, the cost can't be spread, and most of them will lose money.
So they think that even if the Arctic navigation can go now, there is not much value, mostly a "symbolic opening", but these people, in fact, look at the current technology, and do not understand the changes in the Arctic, they forget that there is a technology called ice breaking technology, there is a kind of "groom" called nuclear ice breaking ships, and not noticing that the Arctic climate is not the kind of ice and snow, the whole year frozen look.
Now the Arctic climate warming is real, the summer sea ice melting range is greater than year-on-year, and the winter ice is much thinner than before, and has long had the basic conditions for navigation.
Moreover, there has just been news from Russia, saying that the Arctic waterway will be open to navigation throughout the year within five years. This is not a casual statement. If people have confidence, the confidence comes from nuclear icebreakers.
Compared with ordinary icebreakers, the advantages of nuclear icebreakers are too obvious. The nuclear power endurance is super strong, so it doesn't need to stop frequently to refuel. It can run for several years at a time, and it has sufficient power to break through ice layers more than 3 meters thick, even if it is The thick ice area in Arctic winter can be driven through steadily.
China and Russia have cooperated before, using nuclear icebreaker escorts to transport Arctic liquefied natural gas from Russia to China. The entire voyage saved almost 20 days compared with the traditional Suez Canal route. How obvious do you think this efficiency improvement is?
Others think that "taking the North Pole is a circle", but in fact, the traditional route from Europe to Asia has to pass through the Suez Canal from the Mediterranean Sea and then take the Indian Ocean. Sometimes the Suez Canal is congested, or it has to bypass some unstable areas, but it takes a further detour.
The Arctic navigation route is actually the "northern shortcut" that connects Europe and Asia, the distance of the straight line is short, plus the nuclear breaking ice ship can be stable, do not have to wait for ice, do not have to go around the long road to hide congestion, but rather than the traditional route a lot faster.
To take China Shanghai to Rotterdam in the Netherlands, the Suez Canal will take about 35 days, the Arctic route will only take about 25 days, this 10-day gap, for freight shipping is real gold and silver cost savings.
More importantly, this can also break the Polish transport deadlock, now land transportation between Europe and Asia, many have to pass through Poland, but Poland will sometimes encounter storage bottlenecks, low customs efficiency, even occasional transportation controls, cargo ships to the Polish port, unloaded goods and land route, instead of delaying time.
But taking the Arctic waterway is different. Going directly from the sea without passing through transit nodes such as Poland is equivalent to directly bypassing the "blocking point" in the middle. Goods can be sent directly from the Arctic to ports in Europe or Asia, and the efficiency is improved instantly. It's up.
Of course, some people will worry about whether Arctic navigation will affect the ecology? Or are nuclear icebreakers too expensive to maintain? However, it is undeniable that the potential of the Arctic waterway has slowly emerged, and the freight volume is increasing year by year. In 2023, it will be 30% faster than the previous year.
Do you think the Arctic waterway can really slowly become the "golden waterway" in the future? Or do you have any concerns? Come to the comment section and talk about your opinion.
To put it bluntly, taking the Arctic waterway with an icebreaker can not only bypass the transportation deadlock in Poland, but even if it looks like an extra circle at first glance, the actual time spent is much shorter. This matter is much more reliable than many people think, and it is not an unreachable gimmick.
When many people mention the Arctic waterway, they preconceived that "this route is useless". The reason sounds quite real. Look, if it is a passenger route, only the starting point and the terminal station can get on and off passengers, and there is not even a stop place along the way. Guests can't get off in the middle, and no one can get on in the middle. Just relying on the source of customers at the starting point and the end point, the cost can't be spread, and most of them will lose money.
So they think that even if the Arctic navigation can go now, there is not much value, mostly a "symbolic opening", but these people, in fact, look at the current technology, and do not understand the changes in the Arctic, they forget that there is a technology called ice breaking technology, there is a kind of "groom" called nuclear ice breaking ships, and not noticing that the Arctic climate is not the kind of ice and snow, the whole year frozen look.
Now the Arctic climate warming is real, the summer sea ice melting range is greater than year-on-year, and the winter ice is much thinner than before, and has long had the basic conditions for navigation.
Moreover, there has just been news from Russia, saying that the Arctic waterway will be open to navigation throughout the year within five years. This is not a casual statement. If people have confidence, the confidence comes from nuclear icebreakers.
Compared with ordinary icebreakers, the advantages of nuclear icebreakers are too obvious. The nuclear power endurance is super strong, so it doesn't need to stop frequently to refuel. It can run for several years at a time, and it has sufficient power to break through ice layers more than 3 meters thick, even if it is The thick ice area in Arctic winter can be driven through steadily.
China and Russia have cooperated before, using nuclear icebreaker escorts to transport Arctic liquefied natural gas from Russia to China. The entire voyage saved almost 20 days compared with the traditional Suez Canal route. How obvious do you think this efficiency improvement is?
Others think that "taking the North Pole is a circle", but in fact, the traditional route from Europe to Asia has to pass through the Suez Canal from the Mediterranean Sea and then take the Indian Ocean. Sometimes the Suez Canal is congested, or it has to bypass some unstable areas, but it takes a further detour.
The Arctic navigation route is actually the "northern shortcut" that connects Europe and Asia, the distance of the straight line is short, plus the nuclear breaking ice ship can be stable, do not have to wait for ice, do not have to go around the long road to hide congestion, but rather than the traditional route a lot faster.
To take China Shanghai to Rotterdam in the Netherlands, the Suez Canal will take about 35 days, the Arctic route will only take about 25 days, this 10-day gap, for freight shipping is real gold and silver cost savings.
More importantly, this can also break the Polish transport deadlock, now land transportation between Europe and Asia, many have to pass through Poland, but Poland will sometimes encounter storage bottlenecks, low customs efficiency, even occasional transportation controls, cargo ships to the Polish port, unloaded goods and land route, instead of delaying time.
But taking the Arctic waterway is different. Going directly from the sea without passing through transit nodes such as Poland is equivalent to directly bypassing the "blocking point" in the middle. Goods can be sent directly from the Arctic to ports in Europe or Asia, and the efficiency is improved instantly. It's up.
Of course, some people will worry about whether Arctic navigation will affect the ecology? Or are nuclear icebreakers too expensive to maintain? However, it is undeniable that the potential of the Arctic waterway has slowly emerged, and the freight volume is increasing year by year. In 2023, it will be 30% faster than the previous year.
Do you think the Arctic waterway can really slowly become the "golden waterway" in the future? Or do you have any concerns? Come to the comment section and talk about your opinion.