New Princess Sphere class ships?

[skynight]

I would think P.E. will have LNG available.

[chengkp75]

Regarding LNG bunkering.  A ship takes far too much LNG for trucking to be a viable source.

 

Currently, Carnival is using an LNG barge to bring product from Savannah, GA, to Port Canaveral.  I believe there is a "terminal" here that takes the LNG from the barge, and then discharges it to the ship, rather than a straight barge to ship transfer, or at least that is the plan.  There are also plans for LNG storage tanks there.

 

With regards to PEV, the reason it may not be getting LNG fueling capability, or not have it yet, is it requires an EPA license, and you need storage facilities.  Even using an existing gas pipeline, of which there may not be sufficient excess capacity, you would need a re-liquifaction plant as well as storage facilities.  The liquifaction plant needs EPA approval as well.  Residents' reluctance to have a natural gas plant in the city is also a concern.

 

Yes, the ships are "dual fuel", as are all marine diesels utilizing LNG, since LNG will not self-ignite (diesel engine cycle) without a spark plug.  The ship can operate on any blend of fuel from 95% LNG to 100% liquid fuel (just to mention that LNG is a fossil fuel as well), and while the class societies require sufficient liquid fuel to get the ship back to port if the LNG system fails, not sure that there is sufficient tankage of diesel/residual fuel to make up for lack of LNG completely during a cruise.

 

I don't know what they've been doing on Mardi Gras, but I would assume that there are even more stringent restrictions on passengers during LNG bunkering.

[azbirdmom]

Here's more info on the LNG operations at Port Canaveral.  It's done from the new terminal 3 which is very close to the jetty and the open ocean.  The other terminals are further away.  We heard a bit about the infrastructure required earlier this year while taking a catamaran from Port Canaveral.  Quite interesting and I would not be surprised if they didn't move a sphere ship here too at some point.  https://www.portcanaveral.com/About/Recent-News/Port-Canaveral-Gets-Underway-as-North-America’s-Fi

[CruisinChris]

good article on the future of LNG in FL ports.

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/florida-s-ports-lead-the-way-in-switch-to-natural-gas

[Avid Travel Geek]

Unveiling in June?!

 

[VibeGuy]

I feel like there’s never much new under the sun at Carnivore and that P&O Iona might provide a lot of template for what we’ll see in Sphere. 

[Astro Flyer]

In a Princess survey I received last summer the names for the two new LNG ships were:

• Sphera Princess
• Radia Princess

 

[VibeGuy]

One thing I desperately hope they borrow from Aida and p&o is what p&o markets as the “conservatory mini suite” and Aida has some giant German compound word for. 
 

Take a standard mini suite and put the soft seating out in fresh air.  Completely covered, but not climate controlled. P&O use a sort of outdoor sectional out there.  Aida uses more of a daybed and a couple of club chairs.  Then another zone of uncovered conventional balcony with the loungers (and hammock, for Aida).  In any event, it’s my idea of heaven, so much so that I’m brushing up my long-neglected German to sail in one on Aida.   

[1emerald1]

51 minutes ago, Astro Flyer said:

In a Princess survey I received last summer the names for the two new LNG ships were:

• Sphera Princess
• Radia Princess

 

They sound like diseases, haha!

[RMS Olympic]

Thanks for this thread.....very anxious to find out more.

im stumped that nothing is being published on a vessel due to enter service in late 2023. Considering Celebrity is selling their Ascent that has her inaugural at the end of Nov 2023.

I just hope the Princess design is not a spin off of the Ada, P&O, Costa and Carnival new builds.....cookie cutter off the rack designs so to speak. If it’s like Costa forget it....

Ill just hope for something unique even if it’s too big.

If her start up is in Nov 2023.....then maybe an inaugural out of Florida.....if so I’m ready to book.

 

[Astro Flyer]

2 hours ago, 1emerald1 said:

They sound like diseases, haha!

And when searching for definitions couldn’t find anything…what do they mean. 🤔

[VibeGuy]

Tell me the Sphere isn’t P&O Skydome, and keep a straight face.   I say it can’t be done. 
 

I’ll also lay good money that activating the open space of promenade with food/beverage comes into play with some sort of statement about listening to customers and connections to the sea and all that. 

 

If I were to make one wild prediction it would be a pivot away from three main dining rooms in favour of some kind of second food court / buffet/experiential dining on Fiesta aft, or space for two more speciality dining spots.  Something like that.   Their European brands have been pretty successful with this and it’s definitely fewer labour hours. 

[Thrak]

6 hours ago, Avid Travel Geek said:

Unveiling in June?!

 

 

Nice picture of ***** boy. I freaking totally dislike this jerk with his "always-in-place marketer's fake smile".  He is the absolute worst thing to happen to Princess in a very long time.

[brisalta]

On 9/21/2021 at 7:05 AM, chengkp75 said:

Regarding LNG bunkering.  A ship takes far too much LNG for trucking to be a viable source.

 

Currently, Carnival is using an LNG barge to bring product from Savannah, GA, to Port Canaveral.  I believe there is a "terminal" here that takes the LNG from the barge, and then discharges it to the ship, rather than a straight barge to ship transfer, or at least that is the plan.  There are also plans for LNG storage tanks there.

 

With regards to PEV, the reason it may not be getting LNG fueling capability, or not have it yet, is it requires an EPA license, and you need storage facilities.  Even using an existing gas pipeline, of which there may not be sufficient excess capacity, you would need a re-liquifaction plant as well as storage facilities.  The liquifaction plant needs EPA approval as well.  Residents' reluctance to have a natural gas plant in the city is also a concern.

 

Yes, the ships are "dual fuel", as are all marine diesels utilizing LNG, since LNG will not self-ignite (diesel engine cycle) without a spark plug.  The ship can operate on any blend of fuel from 95% LNG to 100% liquid fuel (just to mention that LNG is a fossil fuel as well), and while the class societies require sufficient liquid fuel to get the ship back to port if the LNG system fails, not sure that there is sufficient tankage of diesel/residual fuel to make up for lack of LNG completely during a cruise.

 

I don't know what they've been doing on Mardi Gras, but I would assume that there are even more stringent restrictions on passengers during LNG bunkering.

 

I wonder how the Port of San Francisco will deal with LNG bunkering as the cruise terminal is effectively down town with residential buildings on the hills overlooking the Embarcadero at that point?

[Cuedon]

4 hours ago, Astro Flyer said:

And when searching for definitions couldn’t find anything…what do they mean. 🤔

Sphera, probably from Latin's sphaera/spera, literally refers to spheres, but it has the connotation of celestial bodies; Globe or Earth Princess', so to speak.

 

Radia has a somewhat more murky etymology (I doubt they're using the Arabic name, because Happy Princess sounds a bit silly...), but I'd bet on some loose interpretation of 'radiant', in the sense of Bright or Shining Princess.

 

 

[caribill]

5 hours ago, Astro Flyer said:

And when searching for definitions couldn’t find anything…what do they mean. 🤔

 

It means the names are not in use by anyone else, either cruise ships or other product.

[VibeGuy]

I think we are a long way from SF being an LNG port.  The cost of building out the infrastructure for what averages out to like a call a week?  Carnivore deploys LNG ships where someone has already taken the risk to build out infrastructure and then shuffles oil-burning ships to the other ports.   Ultra-Low Sulfur diesel when they’re in CA waters and filthy bunker where they can get away with it is gonna be their MO for a long time to come, while touting a fleet that might be 10% LNG for a delightful greenwashing effect. 

 

If I were a petroleum-exporting country adjacent to California, however, with a state-owned oil enterprise and *very* little domestic natural gas usage, I might get very excited about building out LNG fueling in places like PV, Cabo, Ensenada, Progresso and the Mayan Riviera.   There’s no rule that says you can’t bunker fuel at mid-trip ports with fewer NIMBYs.  Same in Alaska vs trying to get this working in Vancouver or Seattle.  Even with Washington State Ferries and the major shipping lines serving Alaska providing year-round markets for LNG services, it’s not exactly moving apace here. 
 

Domestically, I would suspect Sphere ships get deployed one-each to PE and LA, or PE and a year-round European home port or two. 
 

 

[chengkp75]

5 hours ago, brisalta said:

 

I wonder how the Port of San Francisco will deal with LNG bunkering as the cruise terminal is effectively down town with residential buildings on the hills overlooking the Embarcadero at that point?

You would have to build a liquifaction plant somewhere, that takes the natural gas in the pipelines coming into California, and cools it down to -260*F to liquify it.  Then you've either got to have cryogenic piping running to the cruise dock, or build small LNG tankers to take it to the cruise ships.  Even on a small scale, just for ship bunkering, the liquifaction plant would be several acres of industrial facility.

[5:00_Somewhere]

8 hours ago, VibeGuy said:

Tell me the Sphere isn’t P&O Skydome, and keep a straight face.   I say it can’t be done. 
 

I’ll also lay good money that activating the open space of promenade with food/beverage comes into play with some sort of statement about listening to customers and connections to the sea and all that. 

 

If I were to make one wild prediction it would be a pivot away from three main dining rooms in favour of some kind of second food court / buffet/experiential dining on Fiesta aft, or space for two more speciality dining spots.  Something like that.   Their European brands have been pretty successful with this and it’s definitely fewer labour hours. 

 

I suspect you're on to something here. Personally, I wouldn't mind if the Sphere Class borrowed from the Iona. The Iona being an LNG ship makes this all the more likely. Although, the Iona's 5200 passenger capacity is quite a bit more than the 4200 I've seen "teased" for the Sphere Class, and certainly more than I would like, personally.

 

I know a LOT of Princess passengers would love to see the return of the glass-covered pool, as on the early Grand Class ships. The "Conservatory" is very popular on Celebrity ships. Although, in those pictures, it looks as if the "sphere" is very far forward, over what would be the Retreat on the Iona, akin to the Sanctuary on current Princess ships. I see the Iona's Retreat features a pool. This could be a nice update to the Sanctuary. I also think Princess passengers would like the Iona's stern "Infinity Pool" (so long as it's deeper than a wading pool). 😉 

 

And, while it's always difficult to make predictions from concept images, that picture on the far right certainly does make it look as if there will be more usable outdoor space on the Promenade Deck, which I also wouldn't mind. And this, too, would appear to be a feature of Iona.

 

As I said on another forum, I just hope Princess doesn't forget what it learned in the evolution of the Royal Class ships, and includes - from the outset - a central staircase (also omitted on the original Grand Princess), at least some cabins with balconies larger than a window ledge, and an aft pool, among other things. 

 

I'm looking forward to seeing what she has to offer.

 

Edited April 30, 2022 by 5:00_Somewhere

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, VibeGuy said:

Ultra-Low Sulfur diesel when they’re in CA waters and filthy bunker where they can get away with it is gonna be their MO for a long time to come,

First off, the IMO's requirement that residual fuel reduce the sulfur content, world-wide, from 3.5% to 0.5% has reduced sulfur oxide emissions by 86%, and many cruise ships are using scrubbers to reduce this even more.  In addition to the ULSD required in California, the North American ECA requires a sulfur content of 0.1% within 200 nm of the North American coast.

 

2 hours ago, VibeGuy said:

while touting a fleet that might be 10% LNG for a delightful greenwashing effect. 

Most of the reasoning for changing to LNG fuel is cost, with a side of greenness. One side effect of LNG use on ships that no one in the environmental groups want to talk about is "methane slip", or the amount of methane (natural gas) that escapes/leaks from wellhead to combustion, whether it be in refineries, pipelines, bunker tankers, hose connections, boil off, safety venting due to equipment failure, or incomplete combustion in the engine, and the fact that methane is 200 times more damaging as a greenhouse gas than CO2 (remember the "cow fart" protests against industrial ranching), and sticks around far longer than CO2.

 

2 hours ago, VibeGuy said:

If I were a petroleum-exporting country adjacent to California, however, with a state-owned oil enterprise and *very* little domestic natural gas usage, I might get very excited about building out LNG fueling in places like PV, Cabo, Ensenada, Progresso and the Mayan Riviera.

While Mexico has substantial reserves of natural gas, their production has been decreasing for over a decade, and they find it more economical to import gas from the US than produce their own.  Not sure there would be enough market to ramp up natural gas production for bunkering purposes, though commercial export could be profitable.

 

2 hours ago, VibeGuy said:

Same in Alaska vs trying to get this working in Vancouver or Seattle.

I don't believe there will be a gas pipeline or liquifaction facility in Alaska for the near future, given the politics and environmental concerns there, so LNG bunkering would be out, in my opinion.

[Fairsky84]

I've also feared the Sphere-class would be some version of Carnival Corp's other LNG ships, and while concept art isn't always reliable, even from this small image it's clear the Sphere is NOT a modified version of Iona.

 

First, the bow and forward superstructure are completely different shapes. And, most shockingly, the Sphere-class actually appears to have a very large glass dome/sphere on the top deck forward of the radar mast. This is a completely different shape from the Dome on Iona and Aida ships which is located midship. 

 

Finally, Sphere is listed at 175,000 grt and 4300 passengers. That's quite different from the Costa/Aida/P&O/Carnival LNG ships which are all 183,900 grt and around 5200 passengers. All of this, plus the image, make me think the new Princess ships will be a completely different hull and design.

[dides]

13 hours ago, VibeGuy said:

One thing I desperately hope they borrow from Aida and p&o is what p&o markets as the “conservatory mini suite” and Aida has some giant German compound word for. 
 

Take a standard mini suite and put the soft seating out in fresh air.  Completely covered, but not climate controlled. P&O use a sort of outdoor sectional out there.  Aida uses more of a daybed and a couple of club chairs.  Then another zone of uncovered conventional balcony with the loungers (and hammock, for Aida).  In any event, it’s my idea of heaven, so much so that I’m brushing up my long-neglected German to sail in one on Aida.   

Ack no! We had a conservatory mini suite on P&O Iona and they are positioned on decks 8 and 9 on or overlooking the promenade deck with some letting passers-by peer into your balcony! And the balconies were all overlooked from above.  The extra seating area was nice but just had a sofa - no outlets for charging devices or an extra TV like you get on Princess. The rest of the cabin was identical in size to a standard balcony so we didn't feel it was worth the extra money. 

 

Edited April 30, 2022 by dides

[pms4104]

7 hours ago, Thrak said:

 

Nice picture of ***** boy. I freaking totally dislike this jerk with his "always-in-place marketer's fake smile".  He is the absolute worst thing to happen to Princess in a very long time.

But ... he is making boatloads of money to do whatever it is he does.

[VibeGuy]

1 hour ago, Fairsky84 said:

I've also feared the Sphere-class would be some version of Carnival Corp's other LNG ships, and while concept art isn't always reliable, even from this small image it's clear the Sphere is NOT a modified version of Iona.

 

First, the bow and forward superstructure are completely different shapes. And, most shockingly, the Sphere-class actually appears to have a very large glass dome/sphere on the top deck forward of the radar mast. This is a completely different shape from the Dome on Iona and Aida ships which is located midship. 

 

Finally, Sphere is listed at 175,000 grt and 4300 passengers. That's quite different from the Costa/Aida/P&O/Carnival LNG ships which are all 183,900 grt and around 5200 passengers. All of this, plus the image, make me think the new Princess ships will be a completely different hull and design.

mutton dressed as lamb - of course it’s going to be a Fincantieri design and all that comes with it.  But I think it’s less a rejection of where both Meyer Werft and Mitsubishi Heavy ended up with their LNG builds and more an evolutionary refinement.  They know they want a somewhat more generous space ratio for American tastes and buttocks sizes, and that they need more crew space to hit the service levels for the brand.    But ultimately there are only so many ways to

arrange 2200 cabins and fit into existing shore facilities. Whether the magrodome is a little more forward or a little more aft, the placement of the central atrium and what hangs out off it, it’s ultimately going to have eleven +\-1 decks above Promenade, it’s going to maximise balcony cabins at all costs, and hopefully they take a cue that everything they’ve built for Princess has been less visually connected to the sea in each generation since Diamond and Sapphire and *do something about it*.  

[Steelers36]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

First off, the IMO's requirement that residual fuel reduce the sulfur content, world-wide, from 3.5% to 0.5% has reduced sulfur oxide emissions by 86%, and many cruise ships are using scrubbers to reduce this even more.  In addition to the ULSD required in California, the North American ECA requires a sulfur content of 0.1% within 200 nm of the North American coast.

 

Most of the reasoning for changing to LNG fuel is cost, with a side of greenness. One side effect of LNG use on ships that no one in the environmental groups want to talk about is "methane slip", or the amount of methane (natural gas) that escapes/leaks from wellhead to combustion, whether it be in refineries, pipelines, bunker tankers, hose connections, boil off, safety venting due to equipment failure, or incomplete combustion in the engine, and the fact that methane is 200 times more damaging as a greenhouse gas than CO2 (remember the "cow fart" protests against industrial ranching), and sticks around far longer than CO2.

 

While Mexico has substantial reserves of natural gas, their production has been decreasing for over a decade, and they find it more economical to import gas from the US than produce their own.  Not sure there would be enough market to ramp up natural gas production for bunkering purposes, though commercial export could be profitable.

 

I don't believe there will be a gas pipeline or liquifaction facility in Alaska for the near future, given the politics and environmental concerns there, so LNG bunkering would be out, in my opinion.

Maybe they should go with small nuclear plants?  IDK cost, etc, so maybe only for the military realm.