New Princess Sphere class ships?

[mtnesterz]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

...LNG ships are also all required to have sufficient alternative fuel (diesel or residual) to get to port should they have to vent all the LNG due to failure of the cryogenic equipment.

This touches on my concern, and maybe concern of others here. 

I know there are LNG tankers. The new Mardi Gras is LNG powered. I am concerned LNG needs to be stored at minus 260, you mention previously.  Other threads touch on maintenance concerns below decks. Do you think LNG storage is safe? Meaning, what would happen far out at sea if the freezing system failed?

Edited April 30, 2022 by mtnesterz

[VibeGuy]

The fuel mostly stays cold by virtue of being stored in a thermos, and drawing off fuel to run the engines causes the remaining fuel to cool slightly.  Ideal Gas Law, all that. It’s like how when you spray a can of deodorant the can chills a bit. 

[RSS from SF]

On 4/29/2022 at 3:26 PM, Astro Flyer said:

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

• Sphera Princess
• Radia Princess

 

On 4/29/2022 at 4:19 PM, 1emerald1 said:

They sound like diseases, haha!

 

18 hours ago, Thrak said:

He is the absolute worst thing to happen to Princess in a very long time.

---

 

In honor of the current management I think I'll refer to Sphera & Radia as Sphincta & Recta.

 

---

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, mtnesterz said:

This touches on my concern, and maybe concern of others here. 

I know there are LNG tankers. The new Mardi Gras are LNG powered. I am concerned LNG needs to be stored at minus 260, you mention previously.  Other threads touch on maintenance concerns below decks. Do you think this is safe? What what would happen if the freezing system failed?

LNG tankers have transported millions of tons of LNG for nearly half a century, with no accidents.  

 

In actuality, the ship doesn't rely on "freezing" the LNG all the time.  The LNG is liquified on shore and pumped to the ship at -260*F.  It is stored onboard in special tanks, that are essentially vacuum flasks, just like a thermos bottle.  The vacuum in between the layers of the tank provide insulation to keep the LNG near the -260*F temperature.  But, nothing is perfect, so the temperature will rise slightly, and some LNG will boil off into natural gas.  This boil off is what is used to fuel the engines, along with warming more LNG if the natural boil off is not enough to fuel all the engines required.  If the boil off is too much for what the engines need, there is a liquifaction plant that will take the gaseous methane and cool it back to liquid state, and re-inject it into the tanks.  If all of this fails, and the temperature and pressure in the tank continue to rise, there are relief valves that will vent the excess gas off way up the ship's funnel, away from the passengers.

 

As for safety, since LNG and natural gas have a low "flash point", the temperature where the fuel gives off enough vapor to ignite in air, the storage tanks are required to have the atmosphere above the liquid replaced with an inert atmosphere, typically pure nitrogen.  An inert atmosphere is one where the oxygen content is so low, the fuel cannot ignite, even in the presence of a spark.  Traditional fuel tanks are not required to have this inert atmosphere, and can have combustible vapors present in the tank, that a spark (like a collision) could ignite.  For these reasons, transporting and using LNG as a marine fuel present no additional danger, and in many ways are safer than "traditional" marine fuels.  Engineers have to take special training to become certified to operate a ship on LNG.

 

I would tend to disregard most posts that claim "maintenance concerns", as being pure conjecture by people who have no knowledge of shipboard systems.  There are safeguards in place to ensure that proper maintenance is carried out properly and on time, and maintenance is such a small part of the overall operating budget of a cruise ship that it makes no sense to skimp on it, especially when you are going to get caught, and have to do it anyway, at a time that may be inconvenient for the ship's operation.

[eroller]

47 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

LNG tankers have transported millions of tons of LNG for nearly half a century, with no accidents.  

 

 

 

 

More great info thank you.  I figured LNG must be reasonably safe for cruise ships to use it, but none the less like with any fuel there is some risk involved.  Is the risk greater with the actual refueling process?  That seems to be where extra training is needed from what I've read.  Also in the US at least, we seem to be quite new to LNG with relatively few refineries that produce and store it.  You mentioned earlier that for MARDI GRAS it has to come all the way from Savannah.  Surely there is expense involved for transport, but I guess the cruise lines feel it's worth it based on future environmental guidelines which I'm guessing will only get stricter.  I'm suspecting they also expect the LNG infrastructure to grow in support of all these new ships coming on line using the fuel.  Build it and they will come!   

 

Will the refueling at PortMiami will be similar to Port Canaveral, with a barge (or special tanker) storing and transporting the LNG to the actual ships?  PortMiami is also installing electrical infrastructure to power the cruise ships while tied up.  They seem a little late to that game, and I know not every ship has been retrofitted to accept shore-side electrical power.  

 

Hopefully the LNG and shore-side electric power are produced cleanly, or it sort of negates the Eco-friendly aspect of these alternatives.  Just curious how do you feel about scrubbers?  Are they worth it or just a smoke screen so to speak.  I know they clean the emission discharge from the funnels helping the air quality, but they also produce a large amount of bio waste that must be disposed of, and hopefully disposed of properly.  I just hope the bio-waste doesn't negate the actual benefit of scrubbers.  I honestly don't know enough about it to have an opinion one way or the other but I figure you do. 

[VibeGuy]

I got opinions about open-loop scrubbers as preferred by Carnival Corp and their subsidiaries. 
 

You know how it would be rude to fart at a cocktail party?

 

Well, open loop scrubbers turn that fart into an actual turd in the punch bowl.  What was air pollution is now water pollution.  
 

Shipping lines and cruise operators have made it impossible for states to appropriately regulate open-loop scrubber emissions.  Lisa Murkowski managed to equate the impact of washing down a greasy fishing boat deck with operating an open loop scrubber and now states can’t legislate their own controls, while EPA hasn’t set technical standards after years of rule making. 
 

The answer isn’t open-loop scrubbing. It’s

mandating use of ISO8217 distillate fuels or LNG, and possible closed-loop scrubbing with a viable land-based disposal plan for the resultant filth. 

[eroller]

23 minutes ago, VibeGuy said:

I got opinions about open-loop scrubbers as preferred by Carnival Corp and their subsidiaries. 
 

You know how it would be rude to fart at a cocktail party?

 

Well, open loop scrubbers turn that fart into an actual turd in the punch bowl.  What was air pollution is now water pollution.  
 

Shipping lines and cruise operators have made it impossible for states to appropriately regulate open-loop scrubber emissions.  Lisa Murkowski managed to equate the impact of washing down a greasy fishing boat deck with operating an open loop scrubber and now states can’t legislate their own controls, while EPA hasn’t set technical standards after years of rule making. 
 

The answer isn’t open-loop scrubbing. It’s

mandating use of ISO8217 distillate fuels or LNG, and possible closed-loop scrubbing with a viable land-based disposal plan for the resultant filth. 

 

Wow I can’t believe open-loop scrubbing is even permitted.  All these cruise companies claiming they care about our oceans, then dumping soot-sludge into the sea.  Is it treated at all?  That is awful and I had no idea.  I thought every ship with scrubbers was closed looped and the bio-waste was stored in tanks and shipped to landfills.  I didn’t even like that idea as it still pollutes the land, but better than our oceans.  So while the funnel air looks clean you can’t see what is being discharged below the water line.  Not good.  Not good at all.  

Edited May 1, 2022 by eroller

[mtnesterz]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

LNG tankers have transported millions of tons of LNG for nearly half a century, with no accidents...

Thank you for your thorough explanation!

[VibeGuy]

8 minutes ago, eroller said:

 

Wow I can’t believe open-loop scrubbing is even permitted.  All these cruise companies claiming they care about our oceans, then dumping soot-sludge into the sea.  Is it treated at all?  That is awful and I had no idea.  I thought every ship with scrubbers was closed looped and the bio-waste was stored in tanks and shipped to landfills.  I didn’t even like that idea as it still pollutes the land, but better than our oceans.  So while the funnel air looks clean you can’t see what is being discharged below the water line.  Not good.  Not good at all.  

Treated?  Well, they’re allowed to add emulsifiers and detergents to keep it from floating to the surface in a sheen.  But it’s still particulate and sulfuric acid and it’s inevitably greasy. 
 

roughly 1 in 50 scrubber systems is completely closed loop.  Maybe two are hybrids.  The rest are just rinsing stack emissions into the ocean. 
 

 

[eroller]

19 minutes ago, VibeGuy said:

Treated?  Well, they’re allowed to add emulsifiers and detergents to keep it from floating to the surface in a sheen.  But it’s still particulate and sulfuric acid and it’s inevitably greasy. 
 

roughly 1 in 50 scrubber systems is completely closed loop.  Maybe two are hybrids.  The rest are just rinsing stack emissions into the ocean. 
 

 

 

😖 Grrr!  This is disturbing.  

[VibeGuy]

Hence why I’m enthusiastic about LNG as a better fuel for the next 50 years of shipping.  Scrubbers aren’t a better alternative to distillate and LNG fuels:  they’re a cheaper and more expedient one. 
 

[Steelers36]

5 hours ago, brisalta said:

Just change the class name to Pacific class and make the first of the marque the Pacific Princess.

 

The Atlantic Ocean would feel slighted.

[brisalta]

Just now, Steelers36 said:

The Atlantic Ocean would feel slighted.

 

Ha! I suspect the first "Sphere" ship would sail out of San Francisco Bay as the air quality rules are strict due to the bay effectively being in a bowl hence Pacific and Pacific being a name formerly on a Princess ship.  There has never been an Atlantic Princess as far as I know.

[AtlantaCruiser72]

5 hours ago, brisalta said:

 

But it must have a true promenade!

[chengkp75]

I won't take up space and quote everything, I'll just try to cover all the questions, discussions about LNG.

 

First, the bunkering process.  As far as safety is concerned, it is really no more dangerous than traditional bunkering, since any leak would have the vapor concentration well above the UEL (upper explosive limit), at which concentration the vapors cannot ignite (too much fuel for the oxygen).  There is danger of freeze burns, and steel embrittlement in leaks, but this hose technology has been around as long as LNG tankers (50+ years).  The largest "danger" in LNG bunkering is "methane slip",  which is the amount of methane that is leaked/spilled/lost from wellhead to combustion, and any release of methane during hose connection/disconnection is 200 times more damaging as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and remains many years longer.

 

With regards to infrastructure, you can get natural gas from any pipeline in the US.  You just have to build a plant to re-liquify it, and store it.  Many plants in the US produce liquid propane (LPG) from crude refining and natural gas processing, but this is liquified by compressing it, so it is liquid at ambient temperature.  LPG is considered to be a "green" fuel, while natural gas (either gaseous or LNG) is not.  Most of the liquifaction plants in the US are designed for gas export, so are quite large, capable of filling LNG tankers for export.  Whether the existing plants would care to deal with the small parcels involved with ship bunkering is unknown.  The Savannah plant is licensed for gas export, but will fill the small tankers used by Carnival.  There is a liquifaction plant in Blount Island, Jacksonville, that services Crowley's container ships, and there is a cryogenic supplier in Seattle that supplies Tote's container ships.  There is also a small plant in Louisiana designed for offshore supply boats.  Whether Florida ports will be willing to invest in liquifaction plants, or merely storage facilities supplied by tankers remains to be seen.

 

As for environmental concerns, as I've said before, most of the reason for changing to LNG is cost, not environmental concern, on the part of the cruise lines.  In the US, there is a significant savings using LNG over diesel in particular, or the ULSF (ultra low sulfur fuel) which is a residual fuel, that are required in the North American ECA.  In Europe, even with a more robust infrastructure for LNG bunkering, the savings is less, and in Asia, the savings are non-existant.  It all depends on what fuel is more readily available, where.  Whether the ECA regulations will get any stiffer, they are currently 5 times as stringent as worldwide limits, is anyone's guess, but I don't foresee it happening in the next few decades.  The IMO's worldwide requirements to drop fuel sulfur content from 3.5% to 0.5% a couple years ago, has reduced sulfur emissions by 84% already, and that is while continuing to use residual fuel.

 

As for scrubbers, I don't know enough about the chemistry of the oceans to know if the discharge from an open loop scrubber is more or less damaging to the environment than letting the emissions go up the stack.  I do know that in addition to what Vibeguy has said, that the effluent is treated with caustic to neutralize the sulfuric acid created in the scrubber. Closed loop scrubbers will reclaim all the particulate matter in the effluent, neutralize the water and re-use it.  The particulate matter is collected in the ship's waste oil tanks, where the spent lube oil, and sludges and particulates from the fuel are collected, and these are either incinerated onboard, or disposed of ashore (where they are incinerated).  The ships generate tons of waste oil per year, the scrubbers will add only a fraction to that total.  I don't believe open loop scrubbers are the best alternative, but they are incremental, and can be upgraded to close loop, and I have my personal doubts of the green-ness of LNG.

 

One of the problems with going away from residual fuels is what do we do with it then?  Residual marine fuel (IFO, or Intermediate Fuel Oil) is not a refined product like gasoline or diesel.  It is instead, the "end product" when a refinery cannot extract any more lighter products from the crude oil.  About 5% of the world's refineries are tier III refineries that can extract 98% of a barrel of crude into refined product (the resultant end product is "coke", used in steel making), while the other 95% of the refineries can only extract about 70% of the crude, and the remaining 30% is residual fuel oil.  Now, if we remove the market for residual fuel in the marine industry, and don't find another use for it, what happens?  The price drops as refineries try to get rid of it.  So, then in emerging countries, where international agencies have been trying to get the governments to switch to less polluting fuels for their power generation, they will see this supply of very cheap fuel, and revert to using it instead.  These are the kinds of unintended consequences that can come from not thinking through an entire problem from start to finish.

 

And, while the EPA may not have set technical standards for scrubber wash water emissions, the IMO has set them, in MARPOL, which the US is signatory to, and to which all ships must adhere.  While a study by the EPA a decade ago showed problems in monitoring equipment, there studies did not show that scrubber discharges (mainly taken while the ship is stationary) produced significant changes to surrounding waters.  As an example, they studied the Baltic, which is a relatively small, mostly enclosed body of water, that is heavily trafficked by ships.  They noted that if every ship in the Baltic were to use a scrubber, the nitrate loading of the Baltic would increase about 2%.  They studied scrubber discharges both at the "tailpipe" where the discharges are most concentrated, and at distances from the ship, and found that the distant readings had no significant change in pH over the surrounding waters.

[eroller]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I won't take up space and quote everything, I'll just try to cover all the questions, discussions about LNG.

 

 

Appreciate you taking the time to provide your insight and knowledge.  
 

My key takeaway is the situation is complex and there are no easy or simple solutions.  Often times it’s trading one type of pollution for another, and which is less harmful (nothing clear cut it seems). Then there is the cause and effect scenario.  Even the best intentions can have unintended consequences.  Interesting possible scenario if that cheap heavy bunker C byproduct fuel is eliminated by the marine industry .  It will still exist as a byproduct but where will it end up?  
 

From a purely personal and emotional viewpoint, I hate anything discharged into our oceans.  More than our air dare I say.  What can I say except I’m a water person and love the oceans.  As much as I love cruising and ships I realize there is no actual need for cruise ships, so the pollution they create stings for sure.  I remember cruising when I was much younger, just a kid really, in the late 70’s and 80’s.  I would stay up late walking the outer decks and see crew just dumping bag after bag of garbage off the stern from the crew deck below.  That really bothered me then, and the scrubber discharge bothers me now even though I can’t see it.  Sounds like there are probably worse types of pollution but it’s still hard for me to digest. 
 

I’m curious how the use of fuel cells and batteries may be used on cruise ships in the future.  If nothing else I’m happy companies are at least trying to minimize their environmental footprint and considering cleaned alternatives.  

Edited May 1, 2022 by eroller

[chengkp75]

34 minutes ago, eroller said:

From a purely personal and emotional viewpoint, I hate anything discharged into our oceans.  More than our air dare I say.

I agree, and have worked for 40+ years with the increasingly strict environmental regulations, and applaud them, despite the frustration and inconvenience it has caused me.

 

36 minutes ago, eroller said:

I’m curious how the use of fuel cells and batteries may be used on cruise ships in the future.  If nothing else I’m happy companies are at least trying to minimize their environmental footprint and considering cleaned alternatives.

The problem with fuel cells these days is that most hydrogen is created by gasification of coal or steam reforming of natural gas, so it requires hydrocarbon fuel to make.  Even the other form of hydrogen production, electrolysis, requires energy produced by some other form of energy.  Just like LNG bunkering today, hydrogen fuel requires special handling (again cryogenics) and also a ramp up of production and infrastructure.  Will it come in the future?  Sure, not sure when or to what extent.

 

Sea transport is by far the most efficient mode of transport, so I would like to see more governmental interest in "short sea shipping" to remove trucks from our highways, and lessen train transport.

[eroller]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

The problem with fuel cells these days is that most hydrogen is created by gasification of coal or steam reforming of natural gas, so it requires hydrocarbon fuel to make.  Even the other form of hydrogen production, electrolysis, requires energy produced by some other form of energy. 

 

Sea transport is by far the most efficient mode of transport, so I would like to see more governmental interest in "short sea shipping" to remove trucks from our highways, and lessen train transport.

A dilemma for sure.  It’s important that the production of new clean energy products  doesn’t negate the end result.  Even with electricity (shore-side hook ups), which many ports are scrambling to install, if that electricity is produced by coal I’m not sure the end result is any better than ships just running their engines.  Hopefully the electricity is produced by cleaner methods.  
 

I’m not familiar with “short sea shipping” but I’ll have to check it out.  I like the idea of trains as well for shipping over trucks on highways, which I know is already extensively used. 

Edited May 1, 2022 by eroller

[Geoffa30]

Heikki Laakkonen, Sky Princess’s captain said the new ship is the first ever Princess ship to have azipods.

Edited May 1, 2022 by Geoffa30

[chengkp75]

55 minutes ago, eroller said:

I’m not familiar with “short sea shipping” but I’ll have to check it out.

Short sea shipping is using ships to carry cargo along the US coasts, rather than trains or trucks.  As this requires Jones Act compliant shipping, this is a benefit to US citizens.  And, due to the efficiency of shipping over trucks and trains, this could be a savings for consumers by reducing transportation cost.  The problem is the port infrastructure act that requires a shipping tax on cargo in US ports.  When a truck or train loads cargo for transportation within the US, they pay a tonnage tax once, when loading the cargo, but not when unloading.  Ships pay the tax when loading in one port, and then again when discharging in the next port.  This raises the cost of transportation so that trucks now become more cost effective.  If the tonnage tax could be revised to only pay the tax once for ships, we could replace quite a lot of the trucks on the road today, and not require the truckers who are currently a hinderance to the supply chain post pandemic.

[VibeGuy]

There’s some data that show impact of scrubber discharge to ocean pH that is something like 25% of that caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels.   Not all bodies of water are equal and some species are more susceptible to pH variation than others - say, oysters vs shrimp.  Still, scrubber discharge is specifically prohibited in a surprising number of waters.  MARPOL standards are thin beer indeed - they’re a minimum, not a leading practice.  
 

oil companies are smart - if they can’t make money selling residuum, they will invest in hydrocracking, desulphurisation, or whatever it takes to get value out of the barrel.   Yes, it will cause a rise in the cost per btu, but it will also force the buyers of the fuels to pay for some of the externalities of their purchases.  If they can’t sell residuum they’ll make it into something else. 
 

Hydrogen fuel cells are definitely going to be part of the solution especially in Norway, where they can hydrolyse water using excess hydropower capacity.  This would also likely be viable for most of Canada’s seaports.  Havila is going all-in on this with their Norwegian coastal services.  I don’t see hydrogen being viable for typical ocean shipping in the next 50 years, but I could see direct methane fuel cells becoming part of the equation as advanced catalyst research identifies lower-energy paths from methane to hydrogen at the point of use.   One other low-sulfur, lower-carbon option is the use of natural gas to make “synthetic diesel” using GTL technology.  While it doesn’t really solve for greenhouse emissions, it’s the cleanest-burning liquid fuel that can drop in to existing marine infrastructure today and not require use of scrubbers. 
 

I actually don’t have a problem with closed-loop scrubbing but when it’s 2% of the marketplace vs the nasty yet cheaper alternative, it’s just not a consideration.   I admit you can’t inhale nearly as much of the pm2.5 when it’s in the water, and that’s probably the better alternative for human health relative to air discharges, but either never making particulate or burying it are definitely better still. 

 

 

[eroller]

Great info @chengkp75 and @VibeGuy!

 

Much appreciated.  Love to learn new things, even after 40 years being a part of and following this industry.  It’s never dull, to me at least.  

[pris993]

On 9/19/2021 at 7:35 PM, Ombud said:

I would not want an inside facing balcony. I go to my balcony to visually / mentally escape the ship

Agree and to visit the seascape.

[bmc alabama]

The first one can (and should) be Pacific Princess, but I hope the second is Dawn Princess.  That was the first ship I ever sailed on...

[gardenbunny]

14 hours ago, bmc alabama said:

The first one can (and should) be Pacific Princess, but I hope the second is Dawn Princess.  That was the first ship I ever sailed on...

It would be kinda of nice to have a 3rd generation Pacific Princess!!

The Love Boat generation, the fantastic small ship generation that we all loved, and the new 21st century LNG generation.