Just how much fuel does a cruise ship burn?

[sunlover5]

On a tour of Fort Lauderdale in March (on the water taxi) the guide was telling us about the QM. Said it took 1 gallon to move her 1 inch!?????:eek: :confused:

[cb at sea]

If you want to cruise, do you REALLY care how much fuel it burns??? I mean--this is "discretionary" money you're spending--it's not your necessary income!

Think of how much fuel an airplane uses... if you want to fly--would that really stop you?

[Vampire Parrot]

On a tour of Fort Lauderdale in March (on the water taxi) the guide was telling us about the QM. Said it took 1 gallon to move her 1 inch!?????

 

Humm... that doesn't sound right.

 

The great circle distance between Southampton and New York is just over 3300 miles, so let call it 3300 miles, which is 209,088,000 inches.

 

One U.S. gallon of bunker fuel weighs around 7-8lbs (give or take). I'll use 7lbs.

 

Which means the QM2 would need over 600,000 tons of fuel to cross the Atlantic.... perhaps your guide was "misinformed" :rolleyes:

[blindrid]

I don't know where you got your research. My research indicated that it takes 15 gallons to move a cruise ship 1 foot.

 

However, I've also read a lot of Phillips posts. He seems to be very knowledgable about the industry and has never given me any reason to question his integrity. Therefore, my vote goes with Philip.

 

Besides, your last statement validates why the cruiselines are instituting a fuel surcharge.

 

Agree... Here, here to Phillip.

 

Am I the only one that does not have a problem with a fuel surcharge?

[Deaf Dude]

Found this on snopes. It doesn't tell you how may MPG a ship uses but how may FEET per gallon the QE2 gets ! ! eeeek !!!!!:)

 

 

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/trivia/qe2.asp

[cruiser2101]

Found this on snopes. It doesn't tell you how may MPG a ship uses but how may FEET per gallon the QE2 gets ! ! eeeek !!!!!:)

 

 

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/trivia/qe2.asp

 

Wow! that's a real eye opener isn't it? Just glad there are 3 or 4,000 other people to help share this expense.

[CruisnGram]

I posted this on another fuel topic, so thought I'd repost here. Of course, the figures aren't exact, but it'll give you a general idea.

 

_____________________

 

According to Wikipedia, the average cruise ship (950 feet long) uses 1 gallon of fuel for every 40 to 50 feet traveled. I wouldn't BEGIN to know how many "feet" a cruise line travels in a weeks time, but if you figure 50 feet per gallon, and there are 5280 feet in a mile, that's approx 105 gallons per mile. Times that by $3.00 per gallon (I'm being conservative on the price) that's $3168 per mile! Most ships that size don't hold over 2000 people and that includes those that are 3 and 4 in a cabin. Guessing that 1500 of the 2000 are only 2 in a room, the fuel surcharge adds up to $94500, The other 500 would pay the lesser surcharge adding up to $14000...grand total of surcharge, $108,500. Divide that by the cost per mile and the surcharge pays for 34 miles

[BaumD]

From RCCL's 2007 Annual Report

 

2007 fuel cost $354,371,000

2007 passenger days 26,594,515

Cost per passenger per day $13.33

 

Anticipated 2008 fuel costs $595,000,000 (or $484/metric ton)

Anticipated 2008 passenger days 28,721,000

Cost per passenger day (2008) $20.71

 

Hmmmm.....$ 7.00 per day increase....sound familiar.

[Inside Cabin Cruiser]

From Carnival's 2011 annual report; they used 3,395,000 metric tons of fuel in 2011. There are 307.86 us gal. per metric ton or Carnival used 1,045,184,700 gallons to move 9,559,000 passengers that year. That is an average 109.34 gallons per passenger in 2011.

[notalandlover]

I asked this question to a ships officer on the NCL Sun in 2007. He said the ships burns one gallon of fuel every fifty feet.

[thinfool]

This is all very interesting. Lots and lots of numbers, but amongst it all seems to be a thought that a fuel surcharge has been imposed.

 

Did I miss something? AFAIK, while the cruise lines reserve the right to impose the $xx per person, per day fuel surcharge, very few have actually done so.

 

Cunard is the only one that actually started to do so, if I recall correctly.

 

Are there others?

[Waynetor]

The $7 per day mentioned earlier is from 2008 - this is an old post

[bbwex]

We seem to have some varying numbers, but also seem to have settled on about 50 feet per gallon. I cannot speak for cruise ships, but once calculated our aircraft carrier's fuel usage -- 1 gallon moved us about 10 yards at our most efficient speed. We were not as hydrodynamic as some of the newer ships, so the 40 - 50 feet per gallon sounds reasonable.

 

It is, however, impossible to untangle the entire equation for a cruise line's costs and profits, but suffice it to say that fuel is more expensive, and the fuel surcharge is one way to raise prices slightly but still explain why. I wish I weren't paying $4 a gallon now, but I am and it's more than it used to be!

[BruceMuzz]

People, you need to re-calculate.

As of August 2012, one ton of bunker fuel (the fuel that most cruise ships burn most of the time) is averaging US$800 per ton in North American ports.

This price is going up very fast.

[njhorseman]

People, you need to re-calculate.

As of August 2012, one ton of bunker fuel (the fuel that most cruise ships burn most of the time) is averaging US$800 per ton in North American ports.

This price is going up very fast.

 

You need to realize that you're looking at posts from 2008. Someone decided to reopen a thread that had been dormant for four years. None of the posts made in the last couple of days makes any assumption or statement about the price of fuel.

[Mizzouaholic]

For teh record, I believe my truck burns fuel by the ton! :D

[BruceMuzz]

This week we bunkered 1,300 tons of fuel at $875 per ton.

 

We also had to load 500 tons of low sulphur marine gas oil at $1,300 per ton.

This low sulphur fuel must be burned whenever we are within 25 miles of the US Coast.

 

Do you think that the price of your next cruise might be going up?

[BoaterMax]

Very interesting thread; to sum up the consensus:

• A 62,000 GT cruise ship consumes about 65 gallons per mile at around 22 knots
  
• A ~900-ft cruise ship has a fuel efficiency of about 50 ft. per gallon of diesel
  

 

Most of the fuel is used to move the mass of the ship; but about how much? In other words, how much fuel would a ~1400-pax ship like the Zaandam consume per day if it were to sit idle, just for providing on board comfort?

[rvsullivan]

Five year old thread!!

[BruceMuzz]

And this thread will be around much much longer.

Fuel costs are our biggest costs -and biggest headaches - in the cruise industry.

 

My ship bunkered yesterday in North America at US$900 per ton for regular fuel and US$1450 per ton for low sulphur fuel that is now required in Alaska, as well as Hawaii and California.

You can expect to see even fewer cruises on the West Coast next year - and higher fares in Alaska and Hawaii.

Next time you see another cutback on one of our ships - you will know it is paying for the fuel.

[BillB48]

Bruce, those figures really put into perspective what the cruise lines (and other shippers) are up against with the new fuel requirements. Been reading on another thread about Carnival pulling out of Baltimore largely due to tighter EPA requirements. Like you said, fewer ships and those that remain, watch your wallets.... ouch!

[boogs]

And this thread will be around much much longer.

Fuel costs are our biggest costs -and biggest headaches - in the cruise industry.

 

My ship bunkered yesterday in North America at US$900 per ton for regular fuel and US$1450 per ton for low sulphur fuel that is now required in Alaska, as well as Hawaii and California.

You can expect to see even fewer cruises on the West Coast next year - and higher fares in Alaska and Hawaii.

Next time you see another cutback on one of our ships - you will know it is paying for the fuel.

 

It's a fine line to be drawn with these regulations, I'm sure. But having lived in in California for the past 55 years, I can certainly attest to the value of restrictive regulations and energy policies because the air has been so much better the last decade or two compared to the 70s. People who live in the areas cruise ships visit have to deal with the pollutants of fuel burning on those ships, as well as their own autos. If, as in California, the residents have to pay more for special fuel and additional pollution controls on their cars to keep their air clean, it is reasonable to expect the cruise lines who visit our state, and the people who enjoy our ports of call, to be equally willing to pay the price of our clean air.

 

I mentioned the 70s. In those days I lived in a tract house in a neighborhood in southern California. On many summer days, the house across the street - a mere 100 or so feet away - could barely be seen through a brown haze. That was smog at it's worse. You could actually smell and taste the smog in the air. Hardly a healthy situation for anyone.

 

Today, due to the regulations put into place since then, the air is quite good on most days, and only a tiny bit hazy on the worst days. Our health is better, and we thank you for understanding.

[BoaterMax]

My ship bunkered yesterday in North America at US$900 per ton for regular fuel and US$1450 per ton for low sulphur fuel that is now required in Alaska, as well as Hawaii and California.

 

Not suggesting polluting or anything, but is low-sulfur fuel required even when passing through the contiguous zone of these states (without visiting a port)?

 

13 CCR § 2299.2 in the California Air and Resources Board FUEL SULFUR AND OTHER OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR OCEAN-GOING VESSELS WITHIN CALIFORNIA WATERS AND 24 NAUTICAL MILES OF THE CALIFORNIA BASELINE

suggests that only port visits would be subject to this regulation.

[bob brown]

I wonder how the cost of the low-sulphur fuel oil compares with kerosene or whatever it is that is used in marine gas turbines engines, that burn very clean.

I am wondering because I have read somewhere that most of the ships that have supplemental gas turbines (like the QM2), no longer use them, and ships that formerly were powered solely by gas turbines (like Celebrity's M Class), have replaced them with diesels, all due to the high fuel consumption of turbine engines.

Perhaps gas turbine power will make a comeback with these new clean air regulations, if costs justify...

[BillB48]

I wonder how the cost of the low-sulphur fuel oil compares with kerosene or whatever it is that is used in marine gas turbines engines, that burn very clean.

I am wondering because I have read somewhere that most of the ships that have supplemental gas turbines (like the QM2), no longer use them, and ships that formerly were powered solely by gas turbines (like Celebrity's M Class), have replaced them with diesels, all due to the high fuel consumption of turbine engines.

Perhaps gas turbine power will make a comeback with these new clean air regulations, if costs justify...

 

On those M class ships which are essentially the same (engine wise) as Royal's Radiance class ships have not been completely re-engined with diesels. What they did do is install diesel generators that could be used while the ships were in port instead of running the gas turbines. On one of the Radiance class ships I was on the Chief Engineer addressed that matter. He stated that the gas turbines were horribly inefficient when they were used only for ship's power while in port and really chewed up the fuel. The only time they "efficient" to run is when they were loaded up to capacity running about 17-18 knots on one turbine.