HAL Recieves Air Quality Violations In Alaska

[edward01ca]

As far as I know, the HAL ships are able to use shore electricity while in Vancouver and so do not need to run their engines. Maybe the Alaskan ports should try this solution.

[rkacruiser]

As far as I know, the HAL ships are able to use shore electricity while in Vancouver and so do not need to run their engines. Maybe the Alaskan ports should try this solution.

 

A good suggestion for Alaska, but a very major expense for the many ports to bear. Given the financial situation of the Alaskan State Budget, as I understand it from a family member who lives in Anchorage, such a suggestion is not feasible in the near future.

[chengkp75]

As far as I know, the HAL ships are able to use shore electricity while in Vancouver and so do not need to run their engines. Maybe the Alaskan ports should try this solution.

 

A good suggestion for Alaska, but a very major expense for the many ports to bear. Given the financial situation of the Alaskan State Budget, as I understand it from a family member who lives in Anchorage, such a suggestion is not feasible in the near future.

 

From what I remember back when I worked for NCL, there was a port in Alaska that required shore power (back maybe 10-12 years), but what they had done was substitute the ship's diesel generator for a shore diesel generator power plant. So, while particulate and SOX/NOX emissions may have been better controlled (need scrubbers and cooling towers), the amount of greenhouse gases generated were essentially the same. It's tough for areas on limited capacity power grids like many parts of Alaska to suddenly try to deal with a massive user like a cruise ship.

[igraf]

Actually, they can. Here in San Diego the port powers the docked cruise ships with electricity The ships literally plug in with a big power cord. No ship emissions from filthy bunker fuel.

 

igraf

 

 

 

...Seems to me presently the Alaska authorities can't have it both ways & that is collect high port charges & no emissions . ...

[chengkp75]

Actually, they can. Here in San Diego the port powers the docked cruise ships with electricity The ships literally plug in with a big power cord. No ship emissions from filthy bunker fuel.

 

igraf

 

And, those ships haven't been burning "filthy bunker fuel" in California waters since 2009 when the CARB regulations took effect.

[cbr663]

I doubt that this situation will affect 2019 Alaska itineraries.

 

But, it is disappointing news. Anyone who has participated in a Behind the Scenes Tour or attended a presentation by the Environmental and Safety Officer knows how seriously the cruise lines take with regard to their responsibility to protect the environment: air and ocean.

 

They may "say" that they take it seriously, but it would appear that they don't. When you have six of HAL's ships receiving citations, and the Eurodam receiving two - one for air and one for water discharge, it's difficult to believe that this is simply a one-off oops.

[jaxonboy]

They may "say" that they take it seriously, but it would appear that they don't. When you have six of HAL's ships receiving citations, and the Eurodam receiving two - one for air and one for water discharge, it's difficult to believe that this is simply a one-off oops.

You get what you inspect.

[sail7seas]

The article identifies them...

 

"A full list of the violating ships includes the Norwegian Jewel (Norwegian Cruise Line), Radiance of the Seas (Royal Caribbean), Amsterdam (Holland America Line), Eurodam (Holland America Line), Nieuw Amsterdam (Holland America Line), Westerdam (Holland American Line), Emerald Princess (Princess Cruise Line) and Golden Princess (Princess Cruise Line) were all found to have violated air quality from June-August this year."

 

 

 

Whew that is a Long list. Sad.

[cbr663]

You get what you inspect.

 

(y)(y) Well stated.

[cbr663]

Whew that is a Long list. Sad.

 

Yes. The long list also indicates that this is a problem in Alaska and I applaud any state or country taking actions to protect its environment.

[old mike]

If that is the overall efficiency of a combined cycle gas turbine, then a well designed marine diesel engine beats that. A slow speed diesel engine, combined with a jacket water heated evaporator, and a waste heat boiler with superheat coils and a steam turbo-generator, can reach 80% overall thermal efficiency. And the diesel will maintain a higher efficiency over a bit wider range of power demand than the gas turbine. While gas turbines are good for power plants that have relatively stable loads, the widely and quickly variable loads of a ship do not lend themselves to gas turbines from an efficiency standpoint.

 

That is not an apples for apples comparison, A large marine diesel, on a stand alone basis, can be quite efficient at around 50% versus the combined cycle turbine at 62-64%. You are describing a "co-generation installation" and a turbine could be installed as the prime source in a similar way and will beat the diesel engine in that situation. Otto cycle, Brayton cycle, which ever, thermodynamics is like Karma, a B**** and unavoidable.

 

You are correct on the load versus efficiency question, that raises questions on the turbine sizing basis. An additional smaller turbine sized to handle hotel only could have been installed in addition to a turbine intended for the much larger propulsion loads. That's in part the rational behind my comment on "head scratching and financial calculations". Capital versus operating cost for differing types of equipment and also retrofit versus scrap and replace.

 

Bottom line for customers is what will the tightening environmental regulations mean to fares. It will probably mean an increase in fares, a reduced margin for cruise lines and/or cost cutting in other areas in various permutations.

 

There are differing views on the ability of the global refining industry to supply a low sulphur version of the approximately 9 million barrels per day of global marine fuels, and at what cost. An increase of circa 25% seems to be a predominant view. I've seen fuel stated as being somewhere between 10 to 25% of operating costs for cruise lines. Without getting into the convoluted relationships there is a better than even chance that there will be a knock on effect that will drive up aviation fuel costs also.

 

 

Whatever, we will still cruise whilst we are physically able to and when we can't anymore we will live on the happy memories.

[Oceansaway17]

wow more than one ship has been hit with a violation. Sounds to me like the cruise line overall is doing something wrong. I mean other ships sail in the area. So what happened with HAL this year.HAL has been a staple in the Alaska market for a long time.

[ShipsAreTheBest]

Reading the article and noting that there seem to be more violations in 2018 than in the last few years coupled with the fact (as a previous poster mentioned) that there may be some pressure with the Alaska state budget, seems like a little extra enforcement to raise some dough for the state coffers. Just sayin’...

[ski ww]

Thanks you very much chengkp75 for the education, very informative.

Allan

[bluegiraffe]

Yes. The long list also indicates that this is a problem in Alaska and I applaud any state or country taking actions to protect its environment.

 

Right there with you. I go to Alaska to see its amazing natural beauty. I don't want to be a part of harming its environment.