Just how much fuel does a cruise ship burn?

[chengkp75]

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?

 

The 2000 pax NCL Sky uses about 5.5Mw of hotel load (this is what I remember from 2004-2008 in Hawaii). The MAN generators use about 183 grams of fuel/kilowatt-hour, so this is about 24 tons of fuel per day, sitting at the dock. This would be one engine/generator, operating at about 75% capacity. Sailing required between 3-6 engine/generators, depending on speed required for itinerary.

[chengkp75]

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.

 

Bruce;

 

You are currently aboard cruise ships, while I have been away for about 5 years, but am still currently sailing on Jones Act tankers.

 

Is the $900/ton for 3.5% sulfur HFO, or the 1% required for US ECA? You also say you are burning low sulfur gas oil within 25 miles of US, and this is required for Hawaii, Alaska, and California? I know that the California ECA requires the Ultra-low sulfur gas oil within 40 miles, but don't you burn 1% sulfur HFO within 200 miles of Hawaii, and Alaska? Is there a tankage limitation that limits the types of fuel carried? Some of our tankers trade West Coast to Hawaii, and need 0.1% gas oil for California, 1% HFO for Hawaii and for California outside 40 miles, but within 200 miles, and 3.5% HFO for the sea passage.

 

You can look back at some of my previous posts on this topic in other threads to see that I have predicted a significant increase in cruise prices, particularly starting in 2015.

[chengkp75]

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.

 

Yeah, there is a reason that gas turbines are not used in commercial shipping, and outside of a few cruise ships, only navies use them: navies don't worry about fuel consumption! These things, while the distillate fuel does burn cleaner, absolutely devour fuel, and the jet fuel or even marine gas oil that they burn is way more expensive than bunker. It has crossed my mind that in the 2015-2020 period, when global fuel requirements drop sulfur content significantly, that there may be a resurgence of gas turbines, but I really think the consumption factor will outweigh the price factor.

[BillB48]

Yeah, there is a reason that gas turbines are not used in commercial shipping, and outside of a few cruise ships, only navies use them: navies don't worry about fuel consumption! These things, while the distillate fuel does burn cleaner, absolutely devour fuel, and the jet fuel or even marine gas oil that they burn is way more expensive than bunker. It has crossed my mind that in the 2015-2020 period, when global fuel requirements drop sulfur content significantly, that there may be a resurgence of gas turbines, but I really think the consumption factor will outweigh the price factor.

 

I have wondered if Celebrity/Royal ever second guessed the decision to build those ships with gas turbines as primary propulsion.... I believe they have 4 each. On the other hand, Princess and I believe Cunard installed gas turbines but only for peak power. At the time they started to roll those ships out, I think it was in the late 90s oil prices were pretty reasonable. Who knows, maybe in hindsight the gas turbines may turn out to be a blessing for X and Royal.

[chengkp75]

I have wondered if Celebrity/Royal ever second guessed the decision to build those ships with gas turbines as primary propulsion.... I believe they have 4 each. On the other hand, Princess and I believe Cunard installed gas turbines but only for peak power. At the time they started to roll those ships out, I think it was in the late 90s oil prices were pretty reasonable. Who knows, maybe in hindsight the gas turbines may turn out to be a blessing for X and Royal.

 

My impression was that the ships that installed only one gas turbine did so to run it in port, as the emissions were less (even when sulfur requirements were higher), as required in California.

 

I believe that marine gas turbines run on marine gas oil (actually #2 diesel in US parlance), so when the 2015 US ECA takes effect requiring 0.1% sulfur fuel, it means that both diesels and gas turbines will be burning the same fuel, and the diesel will win out in efficiency.

 

There are marine slow speed engines (cargo ships) that can meet the upcoming tier III emissions required by IMO (with design modifications that are already tested and proved), using 1.0% sulfur. I'm not sure why the US decided to declare their own ECA, as the previous special ECA's have been in basically enclosed seas like the Baltic and North Sea areas. It may have to do with the sheer volume of maritime traffic in the US, but it is what it is.

[BillB48]

Wow, going from 1.0% sulfur to 0.1% in 2015 is huge! I wonder how wide range of an impact this is going to have? Just read an article here on CC about Carnival leaving Baltimore.... http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=5406

 

Interesting times......

[chengkp75]

Wow, going from 1.0% sulfur to 0.1% in 2015 is huge! I wonder how wide range of an impact this is going to have? Just read an article here on CC about Carnival leaving Baltimore.... http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=5406

 

Interesting times......

 

Yes, I've posted on a couple of threads about Carnival leaving Baltimore due to Carnival's seeking EPA waivers.

 

The 1.0% requirement is currently being met using low sulfur HFO (heavy fuel oil), but the 0.1% will require distillate fuel (marine gas oil, or #2 diesel (home heating oil)), and this will really impact cruise prices. Worldwide requirements will drop to 1.0% by 2020, so this is going to affect prices of everything, since 90% of world trade goes by sea.

[klfrodo]

Yes, I've posted on a couple of threads about Carnival leaving Baltimore due to Carnival's seeking EPA waivers.

 

The 1.0% requirement is currently being met using low sulfur HFO (heavy fuel oil), but the 0.1% will require distillate fuel (marine gas oil, or #2 diesel (home heating oil)), and this will really impact cruise prices. Worldwide requirements will drop to 1.0% by 2020, so this is going to affect prices of everything, since 90% of world trade goes by sea.

 

chengkp75 and Bruce,

I don't really have anything to bring to the table here.

I just wanted to say to both of you that I appreciate the insider expertise that you both bring to the table. I appreciate even more both of your abilities to communicate that expertise at a level that a non insider can understand.

 

Thanks to both of you.

[LawDog61]

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.

 

Great information being provided by the posters here. After reviewing the above CCR section, I am unclear about what the current CA rule is. Is it the .01 regulation? In other words, how much does this change things in CA? Thanks.

[bob brown]

I have wondered if Celebrity/Royal ever second guessed the decision to build those ships with gas turbines as primary propulsion.... I believe they have 4 each. On the other hand, Princess and I believe Cunard installed gas turbines but only for peak power. At the time they started to roll those ships out, I think it was in the late 90s oil prices were pretty reasonable. Who knows, maybe in hindsight the gas turbines may turn out to be a blessing for X and Royal.

The QM2 is the only Cunard ship with supplemental gas turbines. As for Princess, I believe only their Mitsubishi built ships (Diamond and Sapphire?) have similar.....

[bob brown]

I have wondered if Celebrity/Royal ever second guessed the decision to build those ships with gas turbines as primary propulsion.... I believe they have 4 each. On the other hand, Princess and I believe Cunard installed gas turbines but only for peak power. At the time they started to roll those ships out, I think it was in the late 90s oil prices were pretty reasonable. Who knows, maybe in hindsight the gas turbines may turn out to be a blessing for X and Royal.

The QM2 is the only Cunard ship with supplemental gas turbines. As for Princess, I believe only their Mitsubishi built ships (Diamond and Sapphire?) have similar.....

The QM2's two GE LM2500 Gas Turbine engines do have one efficiency...their waste heat is harnessed to heat water for a steam turbine.

[chengkp75]

Great information being provided by the posters here. After reviewing the above CCR section, I am unclear about what the current CA rule is. Is it the .01 regulation? In other words, how much does this change things in CA? Thanks.

 

Yes, the CA ECA requires 0.1% low sulfur gas oil within the 24nm of the California coast, unless the ship goes "cold iron" (shore power) within 1 hour of docking. So, for West Coast cruising, the ship will need 0.1% gas oil for port calls and out to 24nm, and then 1.0% sulfur heavy fuel for anything out to 200nm. I don't remember whether Washington state has adopted their own ECA like California, there was talk, but the 1.0% fuel would be needed for all of the Oregon, Washington, and Alaska coast. So to answer your question, the lines are already (since last Aug) paying for the higher priced 1.0% sulfur heavy fuel, and have been using the 0.1% gas oil for several years. The crossing to Hawaii, or down the Mexican coast can be done using the 3.5% sulfur heavy fuel.

[chengkp75]

The QM2 is the only Cunard ship with supplemental gas turbines. As for Princess, I believe only their Mitsubishi built ships (Diamond and Sapphire?) have similar.....

The QM2's two GE LM2500 Gas Turbine engines do have one efficiency...their waste heat is harnessed to heat water for a steam turbine.

 

That is the only way to make gas turbines anywhere near as efficient as diesels. The diesels on cruise ships use the heat in their cooling water to boil the sea water to make fresh water in the evaporators. While exhaust gas boilers are common on cargo ships with slow speed diesels, I haven't seen any on cruise ships with their medium speeds, but there may be some. This generates steam to heat fuel, hot water, etc. Modern slow speed diesels with cooling water evaporators, and exhaust gas boilers (these can be used to drive a steam turbine generator) can reach 75% efficiency (75% of the calorific value of the fuel is turned into work).

[SadieN]

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.

 

Port of LA now has several AMP plug ins for ships

http://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/alt_maritime_power.asp

 

The other measures are interesting as well.

[Gail & Marty sailing away]

Cruise ships don't burn gallons of fuel - they burn TONS of fuel.

 

My ship burns about 1200 tons of fuel every 7 day cruise.

Last year the bunker fuel we use cost about $300 per ton.

This year it costs around $650 per ton - and the price is rising fast.

We carry around 3,000 passengers every week.

 

You work out the math.

Is this the real thing???

[chengkp75]

Is this the real thing???

 

See Bruce's posts about current fuel prices, which I can confirm, as I bunker my ship all the time.

 

In Hawaii on NCL's Aloha, with only 60 hours of steaming time each week, and the rest of the time in port, we only burned 700-800 tons a week. A less port intensive cruise will burn well over 1000 tons per week. If you search threads on CC about Carnival's leaving Europe and Baltimore, you will see some of my statistics for fuel cost and consumption.

 

Fuel cost is the single largest cost for operating a cruise ship.

[Gail & Marty sailing away]

The Oases and the Allure fuel ????

[chengkp75]

The Oases and the Allure fuel ????

 

Given the installed power on the Oasis, and my assumption that they would need to run 5 of the 6 engines for full speed (22 knots), she would burn about 300-350 metric tons of fuel per day. That's about $32,000 per day at today's fuel prices (assuming high sulfur fuel, not the more expensive low sulfur fuel or gas oil required inside the US ECA). In port, she would burn around 60-70 metric tons per day.

[mr green]

A gallon of fuel moves the QM about 80 feet. I'm with Phillip. Pay the charge and enjoy the cruise!:)

B.

 

One of us is wrong. I thought that I read several years ago that the QE 2 did 8 INCHES to the gallon.:D

 

john

[taglovestocruise]

While the design length of the Allure of the Seas is the same as that of her sister, she is actually about 50 millimetres (2.0 in) longer than the Oasis of the Seas. According to the shipyard, this is not intentional and such small differences in length may occur simply due to the temperature of the steel in such a large ship.[16]

The ship's power comes from six medium speed marine diesel generating sets: three 16-cylinder Wärtsilä 16V46D common rail engines producing 18,860 kilowatts (25,290 hp) each and three similar 12-cylinder Wärtsilä 12V46 engines producing 13,860 kilowatts (18,590 hp) each. The fuel consumption of the main engines at full power is 1,377 US gallons (5,210 l; 1,147 imp gal) of fuel oil per engine per hour for the 16-cylinder engines and 1,033 US gallons (3,910 l; 860 imp gal) per engine per hour for the 12-cylinder engines cruising speed at night with electrical drain equals a usage of 7230 gallons per hour.

[chengkp75]

While the design length of the Allure of the Seas is the same as that of her sister, she is actually about 50 millimetres (2.0 in) longer than the Oasis of the Seas. According to the shipyard, this is not intentional and such small differences in length may occur simply due to the temperature of the steel in such a large ship.[16]

The ship's power comes from six medium speed marine diesel generating sets: three 16-cylinder Wärtsilä 16V46D common rail engines producing 18,860 kilowatts (25,290 hp) each and three similar 12-cylinder Wärtsilä 12V46 engines producing 13,860 kilowatts (18,590 hp) each. The fuel consumption of the main engines at full power is 1,377 US gallons (5,210 l; 1,147 imp gal) of fuel oil per engine per hour for the 16-cylinder engines and 1,033 US gallons (3,910 l; 860 imp gal) per engine per hour for the 12-cylinder engines cruising speed at night with electrical drain equals a usage of 7230 gallons per hour.

 

7230 gal/hr = 258mt/day roughly.

[BoaterMax]

And this thread will be around much much longer.

Fuel costs are our biggest costs [...] in the cruise industry.

 

Where can a good cost breakdown be found?

 

This site, http://www.cruisemarketwatch.com/home/financial-breakdown-of-typical-cruiser/, lists fuel as the #3 cost, given an average cruise duration of 8.5 days:

 

Other operating costs	$251	14.5%
Agent commission		 $225	13.0%
Ship fuel costs		  $221	12.8%

 

How accurate is their breakdown?

[chengkp75]

Where can a good cost breakdown be found?

 

This site, http://www.cruisemarketwatch.com/home/financial-breakdown-of-typical-cruiser/, lists fuel as the #3 cost, given an average cruise duration of 8.5 days:

 

Other operating costs	$251	14.5%
Agent commission		 $225	13.0%
Ship fuel costs		  $221	12.8%

 

How accurate is their breakdown?

 

I won't argue with their data, as I don't know its source, and my info was from a few years ago, but fuel prices have only gone up since then. With today's prices, this works out to 150-160 mt/day of fuel, which I think is a little light, given todays larger ships.

 

Other operating costs is a place holder for various costs, so I was breaking this down into its components while fuel cost is a single item.

 

Surprised that agent fees is so high.

[BoaterMax]

I've read that RCL and NCL have experimented with engine scrubbers, those by Green Tech are very compact (require no extra space because they replace the exhaust silencer), and installing one costs between $1M and $1.5M per engine, and can be done while the ship is in operation.

 

The running cost for the scrubbers was estimated to be between $150k $900k per year in Oct 2011, and at $780k/yr for 20MW installed power in 2007 (data from Wärtsilä).

 

Situation not so bleak after all? Or are there hidden costs?

 

Question is, what fuel grade would ships be able to burn if scrubbers are installed? How cheap can the fuel be for the scrubbed emissions to be within the new limits?

[chengkp75]

I've read that RCL and NCL have experimented with engine scrubbers, those by Green Tech are very compact (require no extra space because they replace the exhaust silencer), and installing one costs between $1M and $1.5M per engine, and can be done while the ship is in operation.

 

The running cost for the scrubbers was estimated to be between $150k $900k per year in Oct 2011, and at $780k/yr for 20MW installed power in 2007 (data from Wärtsilä).

 

Situation not so bleak after all? Or are there hidden costs?

 

Question is, what fuel grade would ships be able to burn if scrubbers are installed? How cheap can the fuel be for the scrubbed emissions to be within the new limits?

 

Yes, RCI is now ordering more scrubbers (I think they have 2 or 3 ships outfitted with various types) and NCL's POA has 4 installed, and the upcoming Breakaway Plus ships will be outfitted.

 

For the POA, which cruises exclusively in the US ECA, the payback period will be about 4-5 years. While the scrubber itself will fit in where the silencer was, there are the injection pumping skid, the effluent centrifuge to separate out the particulate elements, and the need for a separate sludge tank, and associated piping, so its not a simple plug and change. The separated sludge from the scrubber effluent is to be disposed ashore, and I'm not sure of the facilities available for this, or whether the environmentalists will not protest this disposal, like they did the disposal at sea. I know that shore power plants have large lagoons of contaminated scrubber water that I don't know if they can get permits to dispose of. Time will tell.

 

Using the scrubbers, they will continue to burn the world-wide standard of 3% sulfur heavy fuel oil (IFO380), and maintain the required emissions. However, in 2020, the IMO is suggesting reducing the world-wide sulfur content to 1% as the US ECA requires now.