首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Marine Engineering Innovation and Research >Comparing Total Fuel Consumption of A Ship Between East Asia And European Countries Travelling The Conventional Route Versus North-East Passage
【24h】

Comparing Total Fuel Consumption of A Ship Between East Asia And European Countries Travelling The Conventional Route Versus North-East Passage

机译:比较东亚和欧洲国家之间的船舶的总燃料消耗传统路线与东北通道

获取原文
           

摘要

Global Warming is the most compelling environmental issues in the world recently. Almost a century, the temperature increased 0,74° Celsius and made the ice in North and South Pole melt in high rate.Some people say that global warming brings the negative effect for the society, however businessman, especially in shipping and logistic industries, believe that the melting ice process will shorten the distance between East Asia Countries and European Countries. Melting ice in Arctic Sea, open a new route, called Northeast Passage. Using Northeast Passage will reduce distance and time of the voyage.The big idea of this thesis is to compare 2 routes between Northeast Passage and Suez Canal for delivering cargoes from East Asia countries to European Countries or vice versa. Comparing total resistance, total fuel consumption and total cost for bunkering and additional charges are the main topic on this bachelor thesis.Results of this research, total fuel consumption for conventional route is 5810,231215 tons with operational hours of a vessel is 596,15 hours and the total fuel consumption per hour is 9,74625 tons/hour. By using Northeast Passage, a vessel can reduce 1900 nautical miles or saves 17% from the normal distance. There are 2 methods for calculating the resistance of the ship when passing through ice condition, Lindqvist and Riska method. If a vessel wants to save 20% of their fuel consumption (Lindqvist method: 4621,58 tons; Riska Method: 4670,82 tons) compared to conventional route, a vessel just only save 5% of their operational hour (needs 565,367 hours to travel Northeast Passage). Then, if a vessel wants to speed up and save 11% (528,03 hours) of the operational hour it reduces the saving of fuel consumption to 9% (Lindqvist Method 5270,615 tons; Riska Method 5322,38 tons).Bunkering Plan at conventional route is occurred at Hongkong Port, Port Klang and Piraeus Port with price 463 USD, 460 USD and 467 USD respectively. Suez Canal is controlled by a country so a vessel needs to pay some money for passing through the canal. The total price that needed to be paid for conventional route is 2.997.496,754 USD. Northeast Passage is considered as International water because there is too much complexity about the declaration. So, there is no taxes for a vessel when passing through the passage. Bunkering is occurred at Hamburg and one of Port in Russsian Coastline with price 447 USD at Hamburg and 400 USD at Russian. 1962466 USD needs to be paid for a vessel passing through Northeast Passage from Hamburg to Hongkong. The usage of Northeast Passage can saves 35% of expense or equivalent to 1035031 USD.
机译:全球变暖是最近世界上最引人注目的环境问题。近一个世纪,温度升高0.74°摄氏度,并使北极和南极融化的冰融化了。有些人表示,全球变暖为社会带来负面影响,无论商人,尤其是运输和物流行业,相信熔炼冰过程将缩短东亚国家与欧洲国家之间的距离。北极海融化冰,开辟了一条名为东北通道的新路线。使用东北通道将减少航行的距离和时间。本论文的大思想是比较东北段和苏伊士运河之间的2路线,用于将东亚国家的货物从东亚国家汇入欧洲国家,反之亦然。比较总阻力,燃料总量和额外收费的总成本是本市学士论文的主要话题。本研究的结果,传统路线的总燃料消耗量为5810,231215吨,船舶的运营时间为596,15小时和每小时的总燃料消耗量为9,74625吨/小时。通过使用东北通道,船舶可以减少1900海里,或从正常距离节省17%。通过冰条件,LINDQVIST和风险法计算船舶电阻有2种方法。如果船只希望节省20%的燃料消耗(LINDQVIST方法:4621,58吨;威胁方法:4670,82吨)与传统路线相比,船只仅节省5%的运营时间(需要565,367小时旅游东北通道)。然后,如果船只想要加速并节省11%(528,03小时)的运营时间,则降低燃料消耗的节约到9%(Lindqvist方法5270,615吨;风险法5322,38吨)。全球常规路线计划在香港港,港口港口和比雷埃夫斯港,价格463美元,460美元和467美元。 Suez Canal由一个国家控制,因此船只需要支付一些钱来通过运河。常规路线需要支付的总价格为2.997.496,754美元。东北通道被视为国际水,因为对宣言有太多复杂性。因此,通过通道时,船只没有税。汉堡和俄罗斯海岸线之一发生了炙手可热,汉堡和俄罗斯400美元的价格为447美元。 1962466 USD需要支付通过从汉堡到香港的东北通道的船只支付。东北段的使用可以节省35%的费用或相当于1035031美元。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号