New Ships-Hydrogen Fueled and Bigger

[donaldsc]

If you want non-polluting, you could use sail.  We are doing a cruise on one of the Clipper line sailboats and I would guess that it uses very little fuel.

 

DON

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, Jim Avery said:

Thanks Chef,

That seems so much more cost and complexity.  Is it really worth the perceived "greenness" of the system.  Ships exhausts have been cleaned up significantly in the last 20 or so years so just curious how much all this would actually saves the environment.

A lot of the move to LNG is for economic reasons, not environmental, the "greenness" being a PR benefit.  In the US, LNG is significantly cheaper than residual fuel, but in Europe the savings is much less, and in Asia it is actually more expensive.  One of the things that environmentalists don't talk about much is "methane slip", which is the amount of methane that is leaked/lost from the well to the ship's exhaust, including methane in the exhaust from incomplete combustion.  With a widely varying load, that can change in seconds (ship maneuvering, thrusters), diesel engine turbochargers cannot react quick enough, and you get incomplete combustion of the fuel.  Methane has 200 times the greenhouse gas effect as CO2, and hangs around longer.

 

You're right, the IMO fuel sulfur limits have dropped sulfur oxide emissions by 85% over the last few years, and LNG has no sulfur emissions, but it does still emit CO2.

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, CurlerRob said:

With luck and research, that will hopefully change quickly, as small functional reactors have much broader usefulness than just on ships! 

One of the big drawbacks to nuclear use on ships is the far lower thermal efficiency of the steam cycle used with reactors (boilers and steam turbines) compared to internal combustion engines.  The maritime world abandoned the steam plant due to it's inefficiencies after WW2, with two notable exceptions:  the US retained steam turbines because fuel was cheap in the US, and labor (diesels are more labor intensive than steam turbine plants) was expensive, and later the LNG tanker fleet, where the fuel was essentially "free" as the boil-off from the cargo.

[Astromaid]

I am totally not knowlegable about this, but I wondered if this direction is being taken in response to increased restrictions in Norway in banning cruise ships in ecologically fragile areas like Flam. And aren't more restrictions to go into effect in 2025? Maybe this type of ship would be allowed to enter these areas?

[AmazedByCruising]

17 hours ago, Jim Avery said:

It seems to me nuclear makes much better sense.

 

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

[Clay Clayton]

52 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

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

Based on the wiki it doesn’t seem like it was more economical. 😢

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

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

 

38 minutes ago, Clay Clayton said:

Based on the wiki it doesn’t seem like it was more economical. 😢

As the wiki notes:  ""The President seeks no return on this vessel except the goodwill of men everywhere ... Neither will the vessel be burdened by proving itself commercially feasible by carrying goods exclusively."[

 

And, in three years, she carried 848 passengers, no telling how many were paying, and had a crew of 124.

 

Savannah was never designed to be even financially viable, yet alone "more economical" than a conventional ship.  There is a reason that only 4 nuclear commercial ships were ever built in the world, and the other three are from the Soviet Union, not noted for caring for crew health and welfare, nor environmental concerns.

[Clay Clayton]

42 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

As the wiki notes:  ""The President seeks no return on this vessel except the goodwill of men everywhere ... Neither will the vessel be burdened by proving itself commercially feasible by carrying goods exclusively."[

 

And, in three years, she carried 848 passengers, no telling how many were paying, and had a crew of 124.

 

Savannah was never designed to be even financially viable, yet alone "more economical" than a conventional ship.  There is a reason that only 4 nuclear commercial ships were ever built in the world, and the other three are from the Soviet Union, not noted for caring for crew health and welfare, nor environmental concerns.

That was my point

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, Clay Clayton said:

That was my point

I was using you as reinforcement.

[Jim Avery]

Even though the N/S Savannah was a test mule of sorts she was a beautiful ship.  I had the opportunity to poke about her when my ship was delivering a load of fuel oil just upstream from where she was docked in the city of Savannah.  The passenger spaces looked very nice and spacious.  A shame it was not pursued but Chief has laid out the main reasons why.  Cheap oil and the very specialized training required to play around with electrons and such.

[AmazedByCruising]

1 hour ago, Jim Avery said:

 Cheap oil and the very specialized training required to play around with electrons and such.

 

Even if that was solved by making a simpler system or current oil prices, I don't think the public really likes sailing on a nuclear reactor anymore 🙂

[Heidi13]

7 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

A lot of the move to LNG is for economic reasons, not environmental, the "greenness" being a PR benefit.  In the US, LNG is significantly cheaper than residual fuel, but in Europe the savings is much less, and in Asia it is actually more expensive.  One of the things that environmentalists don't talk about much is "methane slip", which is the amount of methane that is leaked/lost from the well to the ship's exhaust, including methane in the exhaust from incomplete combustion.  With a widely varying load, that can change in seconds (ship maneuvering, thrusters), diesel engine turbochargers cannot react quick enough, and you get incomplete combustion of the fuel.  Methane has 200 times the greenhouse gas effect as CO2, and hangs around longer.

 

You're right, the IMO fuel sulfur limits have dropped sulfur oxide emissions by 85% over the last few years, and LNG has no sulfur emissions, but it does still emit CO2.

 

Affirmative on the economic, as my last ship has significantly lower fuel costs. Unfortunately, I can't remember the numbers the new Senior Master mentioned, but I was definitely surprised.

[Jim Avery]

56 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

Even if that was solved by making a simpler system or current oil prices, I don't think the public really likes sailing on a nuclear reactor anymore 🙂

Well if you are wearing protection….😱

[philw1776]

On 4/19/2022 at 9:25 AM, Heidi13 said:

 

Jim,

 

Unless they are doing a complete ship re-design, which I suspect is unlikely, I believe the additional length will be provided with a new section added to the middle. Most likely similar to how Mr Hagen modified the Royal Viking Ships back in the 1980's.

 

The existing decks of cabins will have additional cabins added. If the length increases by about 35 feet, that is probably an additional 3 cabins per side on each deck (3, 4, 5 & 6).

 

I expect a re-design of the engineering spaces and upper decks, but the pax spaces and cabins will probably remain very similar. 

Silversea cut one of their small ships in half & added a few cabins.