Emissions

[Chiliburn]

I’m not a greenie   but I thought I would start a thread on cruise ship emissions.

Its something people don’t seem to be aware of and have it’s going to effect the cruise industry.

 

 

 

[icat2000]

They should be going for smaller ships not larger ones.

[Ozwoody]

49 minutes ago, icat2000 said:

They should be going for smaller ships not larger ones.

I could not agree more.

 

But to my shame, it is more for my preferences for small cruise ships not because of the emissions.😬

 

Good choice of subject Chile. I was under the impression they were making headway on pollution reduction, not smoke & mirrors.

 

Jees this makes life hard I love cruising.😡

Edited March 17 by Ozwoody

[Bowm54]

Celebrity Eclipse in Ushuaia last month.

Apparently all good as exhaust scrubbers in use!

[OzKiwiJJ]

48 minutes ago, Ozwoody said:

I could not agree more.

 

But to my shame, it is more for my preferences for small cruise ships not because of the emissions.😬

 

Ditto.

 

However the new Sun Princess, which is far too big in my opinion, operates on LNG so more environmentally friendly I guess. 

 

RCL have said they going to build more smaller ships and hopefully they will be more environmentally friendly too.

 

It will be very interesting to see what direction the mass-market cruise lines take over the next few years. Will some, like, RCL, start building more small ships to cater for port calls if more and more ports start restricting cruise ship or passenger numbers?

 

Will some cruise lines develop mega-mega- cruise ships that will never visit any ports other than their home port ie they will be designed to be floating resorts? 

[Ozwoody]

18 minutes ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

Ditto.

 

However the new Sun Princess, which is far too big in my opinion, operates on LNG so more environmentally friendly I guess. 

 

RCL have said they going to build more smaller ships and hopefully they will be more environmentally friendly too.

 

It will be very interesting to see what direction the mass-market cruise lines take over the next few years. Will some, like, RCL, start building more small ships to cater for port calls if more and more ports start restricting cruise ship or passenger numbers?

 

Will some cruise lines develop mega-mega- cruise ships that will never visit any ports other than their home port ie they will be designed to be floating resorts? 

 

In the video the commentator said the LNG ships were just as bad because they discharged a different greenhouse gas. Seems the cruise lines can't win.

The commentator said they should use energy cells, not sure what they are, (assume some type of batteries).

But batteries require huge amounts of rare earth minerals, can't see how that helps, humongous amounts of mining to obtain, isn't good either.

 

All this is well beyond me, every time they come up with a solution, there seems to be ramifications.

 

However it is great that RCL is looking at bucking the big ship trend.

Edited March 18 by Ozwoody

[Over from NZ]

Wow. Without fact checking any of it.. if that video is correct.. that's a horrific indictment for cruise-ships. It's just horrible. But horrible enough to make us all feel ashamed? 

[Chiliburn]

16 minutes ago, Ozwoody said:

 

In the video the commentator said the LNG ships were just as bad because they discharged a different greenhouse gas. Seems the cruise lines can't win.

The commentator said they should use energy cells, not sure what they are, (assume some type of batteries).

But batteries require huge amounts of rare earth minerals, can't see how that helps, humongous amounts of mining to obtain, isn't good either.

 

All this is well beyond me, every time they come up with a solution, there seems to be ramifications.

 

However it is great that RCL is looking at bucking the big ship trend.

I was on Celebrity Edge just recently and the captain had a seminar and one of the subjects was the incoming emissions.

He said LNG was just a temporary thing to reduce emissions but it’s not the answer.

A interesting thing he said was Egde class is 17% more efficient than Solstice class.

Thats fuel burn and carbon emissions.

[mr walker]

There are a lot more planes, trains & automobiles than cruise ships.

Also, the number of cruise-ships in the world is a small percentage of the total of ships in the seas.

 

People 'exposing' specific problems mostly have vested interests influencing their views. Maybe a few should swim (no planes or ships) to places like Jakarta to see real pollution in action.

 

We can all revert to being subsistence villagers. only walking for travel - problem solved.

 

I'll keep on cruising.

[Chiliburn]

 

[icat2000]

I've heard plenty of lectures over the decades from elites telling us we must do this for the environment and all the while they preaching they doing the exact opposite.

 

Back in the 80s it was don't use aersol cans because of the ozzone layer. Still today aersol cans are still easily purchased. 

 

Like the Green Bag when it came in I thought it was a great idea. But then no one would mandate it and so it slipped back to plastic bags and then supermakets began wrapping everything in plastic and still do today. So they moved to paper bags. But hey didn't they only a couple of decades ago ban paper bags. Go figure.

 

Do I believe we should be doing more for the environment Yes. Do I take note of Elites or activists preaching about the environment. No. 

Edited March 18 by icat2000

[lyndarra]

1 hour ago, Ozwoody said:

 

But batteries require huge amounts of rare earth minerals, can't see how that helps, humongous amounts of mining to obtain, isn't good either.

 

 

It is a common misconception that batteries require rare earth metals. This has come about due to lithium batteries being used in vehicles where compactness and mobility are required.

There have been many advances in other types of energy storage. One type of battery  is what is known as a solar flow battery using zinc bromine. These two minerals are common, cheap, fire safe (very important) and recyclable and are powering small towns, homes, and mobile phone towers in remote areas. Perhaps they may provide solar energy storage for ships of the future. Who knows?

There is an Australian company producing these.

https://redflow.com/

 

 

Edited March 18 by lyndarra

[gbenjo]

1 hour ago, mr walker said:

There are a lot more planes, trains & automobiles than cruise ships.

Also, the number of cruise-ships in the world is a small percentage of the total of ships in the seas.

 

People 'exposing' specific problems mostly have vested interests influencing their views. Maybe a few should swim (no planes or ships) to places like Jakarta to see real pollution in action.

 

We can all revert to being subsistence villagers. only walking for travel - problem solved.

 

I'll keep on cruising.

Yep, the same as Australia is going to save the world by cutting emissions with bugger all effect while the rest of the world contributes ten times more pollution than we ever could but it is all up to us. Cruise ships are responsible for a very small percentage of  pollution but get all the blame. Now that is real pollution.

[MicCanberra]

It seems there are 2 types of emissions for cruise ships, the crape that is actually generated by them and the crape that is generated about them.

[Chiliburn]

Like I said I’m not a greenie but this is what the cruise industry will have to deal with.

I believe it’s this month of March it’s now mandatory to cut emissions.

 

 

Edited March 18 by Chiliburn

[onlyslightlymad]

2 hours ago, icat2000 said:

I've heard plenty of lectures over the decades from elites telling us we must do this for the environment and all the while they preaching they doing the exact opposite.

 

Back in the 80s it was don't use aersol cans because of the ozzone layer. Still today aersol cans are still easily purchased. 

 

Like the Green Bag when it came in I thought it was a great idea. But then no one would mandate it and so it slipped back to plastic bags and then supermakets began wrapping everything in plastic and still do today. So they moved to paper bags. But hey didn't they only a couple of decades ago ban paper bags. Go figure.

 

Do I believe we should be doing more for the environment Yes. Do I take note of Elites or activists preaching about the environment. No. 

Actually, aerosol cans weren't banned, they just aren't allowed to use CFCs as a propellant anymore.  CFCs are banned in a large number of countries and it does seem to have worked as the ozone layer is slowly recovering.  So, there's some good news.

Edited March 18 by onlyslightlymad

[icat2000]

4 minutes ago, onlyslightlymad said:

Actually, aerosol cans weren't banned, they just aren't allowed to use CFCs as a propellant anymore.  They are banned in a large number of countries and it does seem to have worked as the ozone layer is slowly recovering.  So, there's some good news.

I was a teenager in the 80s in NZ. And I can remember that it was a area of the hairspray can. Not that I used hairspray much as I hated the way it felt on my hair. 

 

Anyway, good that the layer has improved. I wish they would take the plastic issue seriously. 

Edited March 18 by icat2000

[onlyslightlymad]

31 minutes ago, icat2000 said:

I was a teenager in the 80s in NZ. And I can remember that it was a area of the hairspray can. Not that I used hairspray much as I hated the way it felt on my hair. 

 

Anyway, good that the layer has improved. I wish they would take the plastic issue seriously. 

Yes, I agree completely

[SinbadThePorter]

7 hours ago, Chiliburn said:

Its something people don’t seem to be aware of and have it’s going to effect the cruise industry.

 

What's going to affect the cruise industry first is various ports mandating on shore power. New York City has just done this, although the details are yet to be worked out.

 

In a few years, ships that don't have on shore power capability are going to be limited in their choice of ports.

[Chiliburn]

8 minutes ago, SinbadThePorter said:

 

What's going to affect the cruise industry first is various ports mandating on shore power. New York City has just done this, although the details are yet to be worked out.

 

In a few years, ships that don't have on shore power capability are going to be limited in their choice of ports.

The older ships will be going to the scrap yard.

 

The E.U. and California , I believe has said if one of your ships operates here ,your whole fleet must comply to our standards .

P&O Australia might be able to get around that as they don’t operate in the E.U. or California.

[cruiser3775]

Aurora Expeditions, which takes small expedition ships to Antarctica, has two newish ships they claim are completely carbon neutral, 'Greg Mortimer' and 'Sylvia Earle'.

www.auroraexpeditions.com.au/sustainability/

 

There are pretty strict regulations about the disposal of waste at sea, and most cruise ships have very robust recycling and cleaning systems for waste.  A long time ago, I was sailing on a Chinese ship. Every meal, we would eat around tables for eight or ten, with plastic tablecloths. At the end of the meal, the waiters would bundle up all plastic serving plates and chopsticks and the leftovers in the tablecloths, and just chuck the whole bundle over the side.

We have improved since then, but there's a long way to go. It would be good if tightening regulations meant that cruise ships got smaller, not bigger.

[buchhalm]

Let's all go on Windstar then....

[arxcards]

8 hours ago, icat2000 said:

They should be going for smaller ships not larger ones.

Alas, economy of scale means that mega ships pollute far less than smaller ships when it is measured per passenger.

 

There is more to be gained by using cleaner fuels, and just like on land, we will pay for the privilege.

[arxcards]

2 hours ago, Chiliburn said:

The older ships will be going to the scrap yard.

 

The E.U. and California , I believe has said if one of your ships operates here ,your whole fleet must comply to our standards .

P&O Australia might be able to get around that as they don’t operate in the E.U. or California.

P&O can cut emissions by travelling less per day. An extra day either way to cross to/from the islands, and/or more cruises to nowhere. The slower cruising means more nights or less ports, so we lose out on experiences, or pay more for the extra nights.

 

Older "dirty" ships will eventually scrapped. In the meantime, the better emissions of the newer ships will help offset the older ships.

 

I have commented on the excess smoke from Egde not being a good look in Sydney Harbour (similar to the Eclipse photo above). Apparently, it isn't a fair comparison, as their emissions are much cleaner than the sooty black smoke being emitted from older ships.

[Chiliburn]

1 hour ago, arxcards said:

P&O can cut emissions by travelling less per day. An extra day either way to cross to/from the islands, and/or more cruises to nowhere. The slower cruising means more nights or less ports, so we lose out on experiences, or pay more for the extra nights.

 

Older "dirty" ships will eventually scrapped. In the meantime, the better emissions of the newer ships will help offset the older ships.

 

I have commented on the excess smoke from Egde not being a good look in Sydney Harbour (similar to the Eclipse photo above). Apparently, it isn't a fair comparison, as their emissions are much cleaner than the sooty black smoke being emitted from older ships.

I think it was 60% reduction by 2035 and zero emissions by 2050 is the target.

Those old ships won’t be around for long.

It’s not just the fuel used to move the ship it’s all the stuff in Hotel . Incandescent lighting,old fashioned air conditioning,water production. It all adds up.

On the edge the other week the captain said it uses 17% less fuel than a solstice.

Thats a fair bit.