Port Canaveral Expansion

[Ex techie]

I would suspect that the ports charge a premium for electricity, in order to pay the capital expense and maintenance of the supply equipment. Given that running one generator in port usually loads that generator pretty high, the efficiency is pretty good, and the cost will be pretty comparable to shore power, taking into consideration the additional capital expense for the shore power connection (usually requires an additional side port and the switchgear).

 

One can only hope state legislation becomes more strict, the electrical companies realise this as an extra source of income and keep the additional supply costs minimal and the port see it as a good PR excise to minimise pollution.

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

Does anyone know when this expansion is expected to be complete?

I'm thinking that more ships sailing out of Port Canaveral will necessitate more flights which usually translates to lower airfares.

 

Sunday, June 15, 2014 - Royal Caribbean will use the new Cruise Terminal 1, which is under construction right now, set to open in November.

 

http://mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/6/15/port_canaveral_aims_.html

 

ex techie

[chengkp75]

One can only hope state legislation becomes more strict, the electrical companies realise this as an extra source of income and keep the additional supply costs minimal and the port see it as a good PR excise to minimise pollution.

 

ex techie

 

It would be the port authority setting the cost for electricity, and you know they would be adding a mark-up over what the utility charged them. And I'm not convinced that ship pollution would be reduced significantly by cold ironing, after the Jan 2015 0.1% sulfur regulation comes into effect. It's not like there is "spare" electricity "on the grid". When a cruise ship plugs in, the utility has to burn more fuel to generate the additional power, and I don't believe the power plants are any cleaner than an EPA Tier II or III engine burning low sulfur diesel fuel.

[Ex techie]

It would be the port authority setting the cost for electricity, and you know they would be adding a mark-up over what the utility charged them. And I'm not convinced that ship pollution would be reduced significantly by cold ironing, after the Jan 2015 0.1% sulfur regulation comes into effect. It's not like there is "spare" electricity "on the grid". When a cruise ship plugs in, the utility has to burn more fuel to generate the additional power, and I don't believe the power plants are any cleaner than an EPA Tier II or III engine burning low sulfur diesel fuel.

 

Just out of interest then, why did the port of LA do this and wouldn't this detract cruise lines from using them?

Vancouver also offer the ability.

 

ex techie

[chengkp75]

Just out of interest then, why did the port of LA do this and wouldn't this detract cruise lines from using them?

Vancouver also offer the ability.

 

ex techie

 

The California state ECA was established several years before the US one. It required ships to switch to 0.1% sulfur diesel fuel at 40 nm offshore unless the vessel switches to shore power within a couple of hours of docking. That saved a lot of ships (cargo ships, not just cruise ships) from having to carry enough diesel fuel (in addition to the normal bunker fuel) for the entire stay in port. So, even if the electricity costs more than the fuel the ship would burn to generate it, it saved on the additional operational costs of having two fuels onboard (which has been a problem for all ships calling at the US since the ECA went into effect), and the additional cost of the diesel fuel over bunker.

 

One of the things I find interesting, is that Alaska requires cold ironing in some ports, yet the power plant that generates the shore power is a diesel power plant just up the valley.

[Ex techie]

One of the things I find interesting, is that Alaska requires cold ironing in some ports, yet the power plant that generates the shore power is a diesel power plant just up the valley.

 

That because you are probably one of the few that know where that electricity comes from and publicly said and it blows the lid off the environmental benefits! lol!

 

And article from 2011 I've just found on CC says"

Brooklyn is making progress on plans to offer shoreside power at its Red Hook Cruise Terminal . According to a report in the New York Post

The Port of San Francisco, for example, is working with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to price shoreside power at a rate that's cheaper than using the onboard engines while docked.

In 2001, Juneau, became the first port to offer this technology. Seattle came onboard in 2005, followed by Vancouver in 2009. Two California ports adopted the program in 2010 -- San Francisco followed by San Diego. And now Los Angeles is the newest addition, as of January 2011.

http://www.cruisecritic.co.uk/news/news.cfm?ID=4427

 

Some ports are taking their responsibility to stop the emissions seriously, how seriously I don't know after your post above about the diesel powered power station!

 

It does seem that cargo vessels are being targeted more than passenger vessels though.

I guess it is easier to hide the true cost of shore power in a product such as a TV or computer than an environmental tax on a cruise.

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

I wonder if we will ever see a nuclear powered or hydrogen powered cruise ship in our life time?

 

ex techie

[chengkp75]

I wonder if we will ever see a nuclear powered or hydrogen powered cruise ship in our life time?

 

ex techie

 

Definitely not a nuclear powered one. Can you imagine the lawsuits for anyone who ever cruised on a nuclear powered cruise ship and then developed cancer. Not only would the line have to prove that radiation didn't cause the particular cancer, but that the guest could not have received the required radiation onboard their ship. Sign and Sail cards with radiometers?

 

Not sure about hydrogen, as I'm not aware of how large a fuel cell would be required. Cargo ships are starting to experiment with natural gas, but the infrastructure is not there yet, and the volume that the fuel takes up will affect the space available for cargo or passengers. Given that ports like Boston completely shut down vehicular traffic whenever an LNG tanker enters port, I can't imagine that an LNG powered cruise ship would be well received.

[ducklite]

Does anyone know when this expansion is expected to be complete?

 

I'm thinking that more ships sailing out of Port Canaveral will necessitate more flights which usually translates to lower airfares.

 

 

How so?

 

MCO is about to begin a major expansion which will double the number of gates in several phases, but that shouldn't have an affect in airfares. That's all about supply and demand on routes, and until MCO becomes a hub for someone, we're not likely to see any type of overall fare reductions.

 

Also keep in mind that only about half the people who cruise out of PC fly to get there, and there isn't indication that this will change. The airport is more focused on key indicators involving convention business and increasing presence by global businesses in the area. Cruise business is just a blip that isn't meaningful to their traffic in the big picture.

[ducklite]

Definitely not a nuclear powered one. Can you imagine the lawsuits for anyone who ever cruised on a nuclear powered cruise ship and then developed cancer. Not only would the line have to prove that radiation didn't cause the particular cancer, but that the guest could not have received the required radiation onboard their ship. Sign and Sail cards with radiometers?

 

 

 

Not sure about hydrogen, as I'm not aware of how large a fuel cell would be required. Cargo ships are starting to experiment with natural gas, but the infrastructure is not there yet, and the volume that the fuel takes up will affect the space available for cargo or passengers. Given that ports like Boston completely shut down vehicular traffic whenever an LNG tanker enters port, I can't imagine that an LNG powered cruise ship would be well received.

 

 

What about propane?

[chengkp75]

What about propane?

 

Anything short of LNG (liquefied natural gas) would be prohibitive in space required to store fuel. For example, you can generate 0.5 megawatts of electricity burning one barrel (42 gallons) of petroleum fuel, which takes up about 7 cubic feet of space. To generate the same amount of electricity using natural gas or propane, would require 4000+ cubic feet of gas. Even compressed, you are talking hundreds of times more volume that would have to come from passenger space. LNG reduces the volume of natural gas by a factor of 600, but you must provide the ability to store the LNG at -260*F (tanks with very thick insulation), which will also take up passenger space.

[Ex techie]

Definitely not a nuclear powered one. Can you imagine the lawsuits for anyone who ever cruised on a nuclear powered cruise ship and then developed cancer. Not only would the line have to prove that radiation didn't cause the particular cancer, but that the guest could not have received the required radiation onboard their ship. Sign and Sail cards with radiometers?

 

Not sure about hydrogen, as I'm not aware of how large a fuel cell would be required. Cargo ships are starting to experiment with natural gas, but the infrastructure is not there yet, and the volume that the fuel takes up will affect the space available for cargo or passengers. Given that ports like Boston completely shut down vehicular traffic whenever an LNG tanker enters port, I can't imagine that an LNG powered cruise ship would be well received.

 

They would definitely have to add an additional half page to the cruise travel disclaimer for all of the other things they have no control over! lol!

 

RCI are adding solar cells to the top other ships.

I don't understand why DCL haven't taken advantage to do that on the deck 5 forward crew deck on the M&W and cover that space in solar cells.

 

 

OR cover the their faux funnels on the forward stack with solar water heater tubes.

 

ex techie

Edited September 7, 2014 by Ex techie

[Ex techie]

2 posts were posted whiles I was thinking!

 

Thanks Chief for the explanation!

 

ex techie

[ducklite]

They would definitely have to add an additional half page to the cruise travel disclaimer for all of the other things they have no control over! lol!

 

RCI are adding solar cells to the top other ships.

I don't understand why DCL haven't taken advantage to do that on the deck 5 forward crew deck on the M&W and cover that space in solar cells.

 

 

OR cover the their faux funnels on the forward stack with solar water heater tubes.

 

ex techie

 

 

Great idea on the solar. I would think it could be enough to provide a good amount of the hot water the ship requires, if nothing else.

[Ex techie]

Great idea on the solar. I would think it could be enough to provide a good amount of the hot water the ship requires, if nothing else.

 

Between the solar electric panels and solar heated water tubes on the FWD stacks, hell, why aren't there solar tubes around the AFT smoke stacks to take advantage of the additonal heat they give off as well?

 

Oh I forgot, Imagineers and shore side exec's....

 

 

ex techie

[chengkp75]

They would definitely have to add an additional half page to the cruise travel disclaimer for all of the other things they have no control over! lol!

 

RCI are adding solar cells to the top other ships.

I don't understand why DCL haven't taken advantage to do that on the deck 5 forward crew deck on the M&W and cover that space in solar cells.

 

 

OR cover the their faux funnels on the forward stack with solar water heater tubes.

 

ex techie

 

I haven't seen anything about the RCL solar panels, and I'm not sure how much this is PR, or how much it will really save. Solar panels generate about 9 watts per square foot, so the 6-7 megawatts needed for a cruise ship's hotel load would require nearly a million square feet of panels. I know they're not planning on repowering completely to solar, but even several thousand square feet of panels MIGHT power one or two bars or dining rooms. Solar panel payback periods is around 10-15 years, so this is a relatively long term investment for a ship that is planned to last 20-25 years.

Edited September 8, 2014 by chengkp75

[Ex techie]

 

 

High on deck 19, out of sight from passengers, are 21,000 square feet of thin solar film that produce enough power to light the ship’s Royal Promenade and Central Park areas, said Jamie Sweeting, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.’s VP of environmental stewardship and global chief environmental officer.

The Miami-based cruise company (NYSE: RCL) learned some lessons from installations on two of its Celebrity Solstice class ships before installing the system on Oasis.

The $750,000 installation was a coup for BAM Solar Power,

Allure was fitted with an 80 kW solar array by BAM Energy Group which powers the shopping district.

The system cost US$600,000 and covers an area of 2,000 m2 (21,530 sq ft). It uses Uni-Solar BIPV laminates designed to withstand foot traffic and marine conditions.[20][21]

 

80kW's sounds like a lot of power to me, and that is an expansive space of 2,000m2!

 

The M&W could not accommodate that, but at a rough guest of the space of deck 5 FWD 20m x 30m of useable space so 600m2, 15kW?

 

ex techie

Edited September 8, 2014 by Ex techie

[Ex techie]

The one thing it doesn't say is that that is 80kW at 12v, 110v or 230v, 400v or higher!

 

Obviously the voltage of the supply from the PVC's varies a hell of a lot on the consuming voltage!

 

They would be a great advantage if a ship did not have a completley secondary back up system like when the Triumph had her issues.

 

ex techie

[chengkp75]

 

 

 

 

 

 

80kW's sounds like a lot of power to me, and that is an expansive space of 2,000m2!

 

The M&W could not accommodate that, but at a rough guest of the space of deck 5 FWD 20m x 30m of useable space so 600m2, 15kW?

 

ex techie

 

A ship the size of Oasis most likely uses 8-10 megawatts for hotel use. That is 8,000-10,000kW. So 21,000 square feet of panels (144 feet by 144 feet) generates 1% of the power required for the hotel. And the hotel load is generally about 10-15% of the installed power on the ship (hotel and propulsion). So, they spent $750,000 to provide 0.1% of the ship's power.

[Ex techie]

Just a PR exercise I guess with the expenditures and overall return on the investment.

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

A ship the size of Oasis most likely uses 8-10 megawatts for hotel use. That is 8,000-10,000kW. So 21,000 square feet of panels (144 feet by 144 feet) generates 1% of the power required for the hotel. And the hotel load is generally about 10-15% of the installed power on the ship (hotel and propulsion). So, they spent $750,000 to provide 0.1% of the ship's power.

 

Chief,

 

Please know I am only asking you constantly as I am genuinely interested!

You use the same terminology to me, but I am more used to amps per voltage.

So pretty much after the generator and then after the step-down transformer and about current.

And not more than 220-240v per phase.

 

Please excuse my ignorance when it comes to kVA's etc!

 

ex techie

[Host Mick]

I wonder if we will ever see a nuclear powered or hydrogen powered cruise ship in our life time?

 

ex techie

 

You missed it. Look up the N.S. Savannah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

[Host Mick]

The one thing it doesn't say is that that is 80kW at 12v, 110v or 230v, 400v or higher!

 

Obviously the voltage of the supply from the PVC's varies a hell of a lot on the consuming voltage!

 

They would be a great advantage if a ship did not have a completley secondary back up system like when the Triumph had her issues.

 

ex techie

 

The voltage doesn't matter. A KW at 12V is the same as a KW at 1000V. The inverter regulates the voltage supplied to match the ship's grid.

[Host Mick]

Thanks for the reply Truck,

 

The reason I asked was with fuel prices constantly on the increase, I wonder when it will be more cost effective to buy electricity from the grid when in port over self production?

PC would seem a good port with an average 10 hour stay?

That and when more ports will introduce stricter environmental emission controls that require it.

 

ex techie

 

Fuel prices aren't constantly on the increase. Thanks to fracking and the oil booms in ND and TX, oil priced are declining.

Electricity, however in California is on the rise. The state's renewable energy mandates are driving electricity prices up. PG&E was just given another price increase by the CAPUC. Solar and wind energy is expensive all things considered.

[chengkp75]

Fuel prices aren't constantly on the increase. Thanks to fracking and the oil booms in ND and TX, oil priced are declining.

Electricity, however in California is on the rise. The state's renewable energy mandates are driving electricity prices up. PG&E was just given another price increase by the CAPUC. Solar and wind energy is expensive all things considered.

 

While I completely agree with you on renewable energy costs, the fact that crude oil prices at the wellhead are dropping really doesn't mean much for the end user, as we've seen over the last few years as crude prices fluctuate and gas prices rise. The average barrel of crude oil is bought and sold 6 times on the futures market before it even reaches the refinery, which doesn't do anything but drive up it's price each time. And the switch on 1 Jan from low sulfur HFO to low sulfur diesel will result in a 30-50% increase in fuel cost for the ships. No one knows how the massive increase in demand for low sulfur marine diesel will affect pricing, or whether this will cause shortages of gasoline or heating oil because the refineries are using more crude and time making marine fuel.