Carnival Corporation Upgrading Global Fleet with Fuel- and Energy-Saving Technology

[chengkp75]

On 8/5/2022 at 1:14 PM, tidecat said:

I also would not be surprised to see at least Seabourn jump on the hydrogen bandwagon, presuming Carnival keeps the brand. Viking and Explora (MSC) have already committed to hydrogen mewbuilds.

No hydrogen powered cruise ship regulations have been approved by the class societies, and the infrastructure to produce hydrogen is not exactly green either.

 

On 8/5/2022 at 1:19 PM, mz-s said:

I wonder how viable a nuclear cruise ship would be.

Never going to happen.  Every single passenger who develops cancer after a cruise on a nuclear powered cruise ship would be suing the cruise line.

 

5 hours ago, ew101 said:

There are bits and pieces of hardware around to contribute to a lower impact cruise ship.  It would seem the three /four day market out of say Miami might be best as you would be near places to charge.

Not sure that any of your examples would be possible on cruise ships.

 

4 hours ago, firefly333 said:

The new ships using LNG idk .. I hope it wouldnt run short and be more scarce to use. Natural gas is now forecast to be in short supply next winter.

At the worst, the ship would revert to conventional fuel, since the engines are "dual fuel" and burn 5% diesel fuel all the time anyway, and the regulations require a sufficient quantity of "conventional fuel" to return to port if the LNG system goes down.

 

30 minutes ago, Enryon said:

“Comprehensive upgrades to each ship's hotel HVAC systems,

This is going to be a massive investment, to provide variable speed drives for all the fans and pumps for the HVAC system, not sure how long a pay-back period is going to be on this.  As for the air filtration systems, this will actually require more energy.

 

32 minutes ago, Enryon said:

“Technical systems upgrades on each ship 

Again, variable speed drives are not cheap, and continue to take up "real estate" in the technical areas of the ship.

 

33 minutes ago, Enryon said:

“State-of-the-art LED lighting systems

Seriously?  They haven't changed to LED lighting already?  15 years ago, NCL had LED lighting vendors offering to pay for the conversion of the lighting, in exchange for a percentage of the savings over several years.  This is way overdue.

 

35 minutes ago, Enryon said:

“Remote monitoring and maintenance improvements that maximize benefits from the upgrade packages, including improved instrumentation and automated management systems, with nonstop ship-to-shore connectivity. Expanded remote monitoring and analysis of each ship's energy performance and technical status ensure peak efficiency and minimal down times.”

Again, really?  This has been used on NCL ships over 15 years ago, and has been available to merchant ships at least that long, so why is Carnival so far behind on this?

[AmazedByCruising]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Never going to happen.  Every single passenger who develops cancer after a cruise on a nuclear powered cruise ship would be suing the cruise line.

 

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

 

And while that failed, serious people are investing in the design of nuclear ships 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ulstein-thor-nuclear-powered-ship/index.html

 

(btw, also nice to read that they also think of using drones for rescue operations, I remember being Mr Pie in the sky for suggesting just that).

 

 

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

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

 

And while that failed, serious people are investing in the design of nuclear ships 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ulstein-thor-nuclear-powered-ship/index.html

 

(btw, also nice to read that they also think of using drones for rescue operations, I remember being Mr Pie in the sky for suggesting just that).

 

 

And, as it says, the reactors are still under development for shoreside applications, let alone seaborne ones, and Ulstein doesn't say whether they have talked to class about whether this would get approved.  As they say, many years in development, and no guarantee the ships would be built as proposed.

 

The drones would be used for search, not rescue, and not sure how much they would help.

[Pellaz]

On 8/5/2022 at 3:15 PM, BlerkOne said:

Remember the Scorpion?

 

Remember that its loss, according to the after-incident report, had nothing to do with its nuclear plant?  

 

On 8/5/2022 at 1:19 PM, mz-s said:

 

I wonder how viable a nuclear cruise ship would be.

 

Not viable at all.   

Nuclear reactors are EXPENSIVE.  Between permitting costs and the costs of construction, they'd be prohibitively high.   

 

And of course, no-one would take a cruise on one because nUclEaR poWeR Is uNsAfE/dAnGeRouS/eViL.  

 

[BlerkOne]

44 minutes ago, Pellaz said:

 

Remember that its loss, according to the after-incident report, had nothing to do with its nuclear plant?  

and the reactor along with some nukes are at the bottom of the sea.

 

Assorted military nuclear accidents (that we know about)

 

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

 

 

[ew101]

14 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

No hydrogen powered cruise ship regulations have been approved by the class societies, and the infrastructure to produce hydrogen is not exactly green either.

 

You can see why the "Bat Signal" is in constant use out here.  Thank You.  OK so if say Carnival wanted to build a new eco friendly ship for the under 30 year old passengers out of Miami, and decided to truly innovate (Virgin chose not to - they are having a lot of fare sales lately LOL)-  who has influence on the class societies?  Can the VP of Sustainability at Carnival pick up the phone and say - "yea we all get that burning a barge load of heavy fuel oil every voyage is reliable and proven, but we have customers wanting a "lighter" option for shipboard energy?"   

 

And yes you keep coaching us to do our homework- is hydrogen made from burning coal "green"- no.  

Edited August 7, 2022 by ew101

[jimbo5544]

22 hours ago, topaz123 said:

Hmmm....maybe a wind powered cruise ship?

They are already here

[tidecat]

48 minutes ago, ew101 said:

And yes you keep coaching us to do our homework- is hydrogen made from burning coal "green"- no.  

Maybe not in the US, but Norway is investing heavily in the carbon-free (green) production of hydrogen.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, ew101 said:

You can see why the "Bat Signal" is in constant use out here.  Thank You.  OK so if say Carnival wanted to build a new eco friendly ship for the under 30 year old passengers out of Miami, and decided to truly innovate (Virgin chose not to - they are having a lot of fare sales lately LOL)-  who has influence on the class societies?  Can the VP of Sustainability at Carnival pick up the phone and say - "yea we all get that burning a barge load of heavy fuel oil every voyage is reliable and proven, but we have customers wanting a "lighter" option for shipboard energy?"   

 

And yes you keep coaching us to do our homework- is hydrogen made from burning coal "green"- no.  

Well, the VP can ask if a certain process or equipment can be used on a ship, but the class society would ask for studies on feasibility, safety, emissions, etc, and then determine requirements to meet "best industry standards" and the requirements of the insurance coverers and to meet both international and national regulations.   The class societies won't start the investigation into a new technology, but when presented with some evidence that it might be practical, they will develop standards that have to be met.  The class societies could care less what passengers want, and really don't set their standards based on whether or not they benefit the business aspects of shipping.  They are insurance underwriters.

[chengkp75]

46 minutes ago, tidecat said:

Maybe not in the US, but Norway is investing heavily in the carbon-free (green) production of hydrogen.

The problem is that the "green" production of hydrogen, by splitting water, is very expensive.

[mz-s]

Regarding the cancer comment of nuclear - I don't think that would be as big of a hangup. Probably the biggest issue is the payoff for nuclear isn't there for the expected lifetime of the ship. That may eventually change assuming fossil fuels continue to get more expensive over the years, which is pretty much a certainty.

[tidecat]

3 hours ago, mz-s said:

Regarding the cancer comment of nuclear - I don't think that would be as big of a hangup. Probably the biggest issue is the payoff for nuclear isn't there for the expected lifetime of the ship. That may eventually change assuming fossil fuels continue to get more expensive over the years, which is pretty much a certainty.

The reactor used on the NS Savannah would run over $288 million in 2022 dollars. That was for 74 MW of power, which is just barely less than what is onboard Carnival Magic (75.6 MW). Even with a range of 300,000 nautical miles, the ship would likely need to be refueled about once every five to six years.

 

For a ship that uses around 150 tons of fuel at $800/ton per day, that would be around $44 million annually. Over a long enough time frame, nuclear might be competitive, but disposing of the spent fuel and eventually the ship itself would likely erase any savings.

 

There would also I'm sure be extra layers of precautions that would have a cost. An evacuation drill might have to be redesigned to take into account any issues with the reactor. That's not to mention any additional maintenance or monitoring that would take place.

[mz-s]

1 minute ago, tidecat said:

The reactor used on the NS Savannah would run over $288 million in 2022 dollars. That was for 74 MW of power, which is just barely less than what is onboard Carnival Magic (75.6 MW). Even with a range of 300,000 nautical miles, the ship would likely need to be refueled about once every five to six years.

 

For a ship that uses around 150 tons of fuel at $800/ton per day, that would be around $44 million annually. Over a long enough time frame, nuclear might be competitive, but disposing of the spent fuel and eventually the ship itself would likely erase any savings.

 

There would also I'm sure be extra layers of precautions that would have a cost. An evacuation drill might have to be redesigned to take into account any issues with the reactor. That's not to mention any additional maintenance or monitoring that would take place.

 

Incredible to imagine a ship that needs barnacles scraped off the hull more frequently than it needs refueling.

[BlerkOne]

Passengers might balk at the thought of having to wear a dosimeter badge.

[AmazedByCruising]

On 8/7/2022 at 2:05 AM, chengkp75 said:

The drones would be used for search, not rescue, and not sure how much they would help.

 

The article is a bit ambiguous. . The ship is also equipped with drones and helipads, which would be useful in search and rescue operations. At least drones can drop life rings which already happens. Searching is the hard part I think, but the drones get cheaper, smarter and more autonomous (i.e. no crew training needed), every month. Maybe 2 years to have companies prove it works. Then 5 years until CDC demands having drones available for MOB situations (because someone at CDC found a way to define a MOB as a way to introduce diseases to the US, and now he gets the people and budget and a pay raise). I'm willing to bet most cruise ships sailing in US waters have drones within 10 years. 

[ew101]

On 8/7/2022 at 12:11 PM, BlerkOne said:

Passengers might balk at the thought of having to wear a dosimeter badge.

If this was 1964 I could see a reactor room tour as part of Carnival Behind the Fun 🙂

 

The data linking low level, short term radiation exposure and cancer is not very compelling - and passengers would probably get more of a dose on the airplane flying to the port than on the ship.   The engineers and crew would see more.   Extended analysis of solid cancer incidence among the Nuclear Industry Workers in the UK: 1955–2011 | Radiation Research (allenpress.com) 

[chengkp75]

Whether or not the passengers got dosed with radiation or not, the liability would be there, and in the US's litigious culture, the lawsuits, whether justified or not, would be rampant, and set before a jury of lay people. 

[BlerkOne]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Whether or not the passengers got dosed with radiation or not, the liability would be there, and in the US's litigious culture, the lawsuits, whether justified or not, would be rampant, and set before a jury of lay people. 

The liability would certainly be there, and if they didn't have monitors on the passengers and couldn't prove they weren't exposed, I pity the fool.

[ALKID]

They cannot even get the hvac or toilets functioning properly and you think anyone would trust them with a nuclear reactor?

[pc_load_letter]

Where's whats-her-name with the "Carnival is just following in the footsteps of the other lines" drivel. 

[BlerkOne]

25 minutes ago, ALKID said:

They cannot even get the hvac or toilets functioning properly and you think anyone would trust them with a nuclear reactor?

I dunno. I know a number of prospective engineers that flunked out of college only to be accepted into the Navy nuclear program with open arms.

[chengkp75]

40 minutes ago, ALKID said:

They cannot even get the hvac or toilets functioning properly and you think anyone would trust them with a nuclear reactor?

Even the Navy has problems keeping their vacuum toilets working on the two nuclear carriers that have them, and they only have less than 500 toilets on the ship.  And the Navy is resorting to a $400k "acid flush".  Gee, we did this on merchant ships using a machine that cost $5000, was used at 6 locations around the ship (for about 30 toilets), took overnight at each location, and cost about $100 for the acid, and we did it once a year.  I'd like to sign up to provide this service to the Navy for $400k.

 

And, on the cruise ships, we've been doing this for decades, using a dissolving packet of citric acid in each passenger toilet every week.  The Navy just has to do things its own way.

Edited August 8, 2022 by chengkp75

[6aces]

On 8/5/2022 at 10:14 AM, tidecat said:

There's a lot of pressure around the world to cut carbon emissions. Short of replacing ships, reducing fuel consumption is the next best step to take.

 

I also would not be surprised to see at least Seabourn jump on the hydrogen bandwagon, presuming Carnival keeps the brand. Viking and Explora (MSC) have already committed to hydrogen mewbuilds.

Co2 makes up.04% of the atmosphere. Humans make up 4% of the .,04%.  It's a big joke

[BlerkOne]

32 minutes ago, 6aces said:

Co2 makes up.04% of the atmosphere. Humans make up 4% of the .,04%.  It's a big joke

Don't forget all the methane and hydrogen sulfide.