Eco friendliness Cruise Ship ranking

Dear RCCL fans,

I am a big RCCL fan. Among many things I also like RCCL's 'Save the waves' activities.

I thought RCCL also does this along their fuel consumption / burning / exhaust gas filter systems etc.

Reading the latest NABU report even the Quantum class does not get any green dot ... and as this report was published in lot of media it caught my attention.

As follows the overview of their 2014 rating (click on the upper pic to enlarge, sorry did not find an english translation, but at least you may see the ranking):

http://www.nabu.de/themen/verkehr/schifffahrt/mirstinkts/17005.html

Is there any more information on why RCCL does not use the latest technology at least in the exhaust filtering ?

Of course this causes higher cost, but as e.g. the new AIDA does quite more in that area I assume that a ship may still be operated with those modern systems.

Again, I'm a RCCL fan, simply trying to understand or get more info on this.

Hope I did not oversee any info that could answer the above.

Regards

Christian

Christian,

There is no official announcement about scrubbers or anything else regarding the RCI ships so far.

But actually the Quantum is equipped with sulphur scrubbers - one of the two reasons she has to go into dry dock at Hamburg next weekend. So the NABU is wrong on this.

On the Oasis there was a question to the captain about scrubbers for RCI ships and he said that the Oasis will get them during the dry dock (no more details) and that the other ships will be equipped also.

According to international law the ships either have to have scrubbers for sulphur or run on Marine diesel (which is very pricey compared to heavy oil they are using now).

I haven´t heard anything about soot filters (Russpartikelfilter) but actually the cruise lines aren´t forced to have any by any international laws. And so far only Mein Schiff 3 is equipped with a triple filter system (which is still not running correctly as far as I know).

steamboats

I was confused to see all the plastic waste on Rccl ships. Prepacked sandwiches, fruit cups. Not what I am expecting from a "Green" cruise line.

Christian,

 

There is no official announcement about scrubbers or anything else regarding the RCI ships so far.

 

But actually the Quantum is equipped with sulphur scrubbers - one of the two reasons she has to go into dry dock at Hamburg next weekend. So the NABU is wrong on this.

 

On the Oasis there was a question to the captain about scrubbers for RCI ships and he said that the Oasis will get them during the dry dock (no more details) and that the other ships will be equipped also.

 

According to international law the ships either have to have scrubbers for sulphur or run on Marine diesel (which is very pricey compared to heavy oil they are using now).

 

I haven´t heard anything about soot filters (Russpartikelfilter) but actually the cruise lines aren´t forced to have any by any international laws. And so far only Mein Schiff 3 is equipped with a triple filter system (which is still not running correctly as far as I know).

 

steamboats

Not entirely correct. The ships will be required (as of 1 Jan 15) while in Emissions Control Areas (ECA's) to either use scrubbers or Marine Gas Oil (MGO) with a sulfur content of 0.1%. Currently, the ECA's are the North Sea, Baltic Sea, and US, and the EU nations require it while in port, I believe. Operation anywhere outside these ECA's does not require either a scrubber or MGO fuel.

Yes, the Quantum has scrubbers, and RCI has committed to installing scrubbers, but the port states that adopt the ECA's allow the ship owner to continue to sail using higher sulfur fuel if they have committed to installing a scrubber at the next scheduled drydock. If they fail to do so at that docking, then they are fined. So, Oasis received scrubbers this month, I believe, and Allure will get them when she dry docks in March/April next year. Grandeur has received them for the long Bay transit required in Baltimore, and other ships, particularly those calling US homeports will receive them as time goes on.

I don't know much about the particulate filters, since as steamboats posts, they are not required by law, and I don't believe there is much data available on shipboard effectiveness or reliability. RCI has a few years track record with scrubbers on Liberty and Independence since 2011.

I was confused to see all the plastic waste on Rccl ships. Prepacked sandwiches, fruit cups. Not what I am expecting from a "Green" cruise line.

I would also point out that of the ships listed on the NABU ranking that are "greener" than Quantum, only 3 of the 18 have actually been built, and of those three, only the Mein Schiff 3 has a better "rating".

They are also requiring a shore power connection to gain the top rating, when just having a shore power connection does nothing for the ship's "greenness" when the ports it calls on do not have the infrastructure to provide several megawatts of power at 10kv to the ship. Very few do, and it is the port's cost to build this infrastructure, not the cruise line's.

I was confused to see all the plastic waste on Rccl ships. Prepacked sandwiches, fruit cups. Not what I am expecting from a "Green" cruise line.

If you want more 'green' you'll need to fork over more green.

Not entirely correct. The ships will be required (as of 1 Jan 15) while in Emissions Control Areas (ECA's) to either use scrubbers or Marine Gas Oil (MGO) with a sulfur content of 0.1%. Currently, the ECA's are the North Sea, Baltic Sea, and US, and the EU nations require it while in port, I believe. Operation anywhere outside these ECA's does not require either a scrubber or MGO fuel.

Cheng, thanks for adding more details. I didn´t come up with the proper English words when typing my post. My DH is sort of an expert on the environmental topic but all his texts are in German of course so I didn´t want to put the links on here.

Gee, I have to correct myself... according to my DH the Quantum has sulphur scrubbers and particulate filters. At least Wärtsilä Hamworthy announced this in 2012 (more here in German). And for Christian, here you can read more about this topic in general. Christian, try out the search on my DHs website and search for "scrubber" and a lot of articles are popping up (especially those where cruise lines have announced to build in scrubbers).

steamboats

Thank you all so far for your comments, especially to steamboats and your links :D

PS Was afraid to get flamed for this thread ... good to see that this did not happen :cool:

Cheng, thanks for adding more details. I didn´t come up with the proper English words when typing my post. My DH is sort of an expert on the environmental topic but all his texts are in German of course so I didn´t want to put the links on here.

 

Gee, I have to correct myself... according to my DH the Quantum has sulphur scrubbers and particulate filters. At least Wärtsilä Hamworthy announced this in 2012 (more here in German). And for Christian, here you can read more about this topic in general. Christian, try out the search on my DHs website and search for "scrubber" and a lot of articles are popping up (especially those where cruise lines have announced to build in scrubbers).

 

steamboats

I'm not an expert on emissions by any means, but I'm sailing on a Jones Act tanker operating solely within the US ECA, so I'm aware of the impact that the upcoming 1 Jan deadline is going to mean. Unfortunately, the translation engines on google/bing/etc don't do a very good job, but at least I was able to translate the "shore power connection". :D

I think your DH would agree that with or without a specifically advertised particulate filter, that the current generation of shipboard scrubbers will significantly reduce particulate emissions just by the misting nature of the scrubbing process (at least that's how I understand it).

Thank you all so far for your comments, especially to steamboats and your links :D

PS Was afraid to get flamed for this thread ... good to see that this did not happen :cool:

While I'm not the most prolific cruiser, I've worked the ships, and my reason for posting here is to provide answers to technical questions like yours. I really hate it when threads go south with personal attacks, and I will tend to abandon them when it happens. I really enjoyed the Concordia threads where we exchanged views (over 3500 posts on each thread) without getting trashy with each other. I try not to flame anyone, but am prepared with my fireman's suit at all times to receive abuse.

Royal Caribbean continually monitors the effectiveness of its environmental policies and procedures. I have a friend, an environmental engineer and auditor, who worked for an independent environmental consulting firm. He spent many years performing compliance audits on Royal ships. The reports generated by the audits provided Royal with an independent outside opinion and detailed information.

If they aren't "green" enough you could stop sailing them. I'm sure that would save the planet.:D

If they aren't "green" enough you could stop sailing them. I'm sure that would save the planet.:D

I learned, right arguments are on your side.

http://www.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nabude/verkehr/131111-background_cruise_ships_2012.pdf

Provides a lot more background information than the news release. Very interesting reading.

Royal Caribbean continually monitors the effectiveness of its environmental policies and procedures. I have a friend, an environmental engineer and auditor, who worked for an independent environmental consulting firm. He spent many years performing compliance audits on Royal ships. The reports generated by the audits provided Royal with an independent outside opinion and detailed information.

We always like to talk with the ship's officers about emissions and air quality.

The Oasis captain last summer (2013) did mention to us, as well, that all fo the fleet will be updated with scrubbers and more advanced emissions equipment.

It's related to what I do, so I also asked some people I know, and they are aware of many shore based stationary diesels that are of similar output as the ship's engines that do use catalysts/scrubbers for the exhaust.

It's pretty easy to use the exhaust emissions to extract a little more energy out of the stream- the particulates are like small pieces of charcoal, which burns really well. So with the right catalyst/scrubber, they can use the PM, NOx and SOx to extract a little more heat, and possibly save some fuel if they can use that exhaust heat.

A while ago, we met with the captain of the Allure, and he indicated to us that the Oasis/Allure uses virtually the same amount of fuel as the Freedom does doing the same itinerary. That's not per person, but overall- so the ships can more +2000 more passengers with the same fuel. Put that together with the advanced emissions equipment, and the new ships can do a lot better with "Save the Waves."

I sure hope it happens.

I skimmed the NABU report, and just noticed a couple of things off the top of my head. Germany still uses coal to produce most of its electricity, and there are 12 power plants in Germany that use "6 oil" (bunker oil). While stationary plants can have better scrubbers, etc, than ships (size limitations), I'm not sure Germany should be casting too many stones about emissions.

They call bunker oil a "waste product" of the refining process, and while this is true to some extent, the fact is that many, many of the world's refineries cannot extract any more light distillate from crude oil than presently, and the end product of that refining process that creates the gas and oil the world wants is heavy fuel oil. Only "third generation" refineries can extract 95% of a barrel of crude into light distillates. The end product there is solid coke. It would take a major infusion of capital to upgrade the world's second generation refineries so that they no longer produce the "waste product" of heavy oil.

They mention that German diesel vehicles have particulate filters, and that may be, but whenever anyone talks about shipboard emissions, I just think about all the trucks and busses spewing black smoke around US cities.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud emissions regulations, but they must be realistic, and have a cost/benefit ratio that makes sense. Scrubbers for cruise ships seems to be one that passes this test. I did a quick figuring last year for the Pride of America, which cruises exclusively within the US ECA. The payback period for her scrubbers is around 4-5 years.

One big question in my mind is whether the world's ships will continue to run the scrubber when outside the ECA's.

Not sure how much solid matter you will get from the scrubber/filters, and you must then realize that these particulates have the most concentration of the sulfur and heavy metals of any product from the original barrel of crude, so not sure you'd be able to burn them. I believe current practice is to discharge the scrubber waste (the scrubber water is sent through a centrifuge to remove the solids) ashore with the ship's other waste oil and sludge. Since the boilers onboard will not have scrubbers, they must burn MGO, so introducing waste oil/sludge to them probably is a non-starter.

They mention that German diesel vehicles have particulate filters, and that may be, but whenever anyone talks about shipboard emissions, I just think about all the trucks and busses spewing black smoke around US cities.

 

Don't get me wrong, I applaud emissions regulations, but they must be realistic, and have a cost/benefit ratio that makes sense. Scrubbers for cruise ships seems to be one that passes this test. I did a quick figuring last year for the Pride of America, which cruises exclusively within the US ECA. The payback period for her scrubbers is around 4-5 years.

FWIW, all of the diesels in the US are now regulated. Not the older ones, but new ones- trucks, busses, etc.

And if it also helps- the current vehicle rules in the US- all diesel vehicles produce less emissions (HC, NOx, and PM) than the European counterparts. The rules are much tighter here than there.

IMHO, the regulations are very realistic. Relative to cars and trucks, the regulations for the shipping industry are both new and easy. It's not as if they HAVE to run both low sulphur fuel, particulate fiters, AND catalysts that require urea to work. Ships can run low sulphur fuel OR run basic catalyst/scrubbers. Most seem to be choosing the catalyst/scubber path-which will be running even out at sea.

Actually our coal and oil fired power plants - and there aren´t many left compared to the number in the US - do have scrubbers are particulate filters. So do have our diesel driven cars, busses and trucks. Our environmental laws are pretty strict about it. And we do have lots of water power plants and wind power plants (many of them off shore). Our main problem is to transport the green energy we are producing (power lines are missing).

I know the Mississippi and Ohio river system pretty well. You can see lots of coal power plants and nuclear power plants along the rivers but only a few of the many lock and dams do have a water power plant connected. That´s a waste of clean green emission free energy.

Anyway I do not support the NABU on the cruise ship part as the NABU is using wrong numbers (one example is that they said for a long time 50,000 people are dying by lung diseases caused by exhausts in Hamburg yearly... sorry, but that´s the number of deaths the WHO is saying and it´s not connected to cruise ships only but also land based vehicles).

steamboats

FWIW, all of the diesels in the US are now regulated. Not the older ones, but new ones- trucks, busses, etc.

 

And if it also helps- the current vehicle rules in the US- all diesel vehicles produce less emissions (HC, NOx, and PM) than the European counterparts. The rules are much tighter here than there.

 

IMHO, the regulations are very realistic. Relative to cars and trucks, the regulations for the shipping industry are both new and easy. It's not as if they HAVE to run both low sulphur fuel, particulate fiters, AND catalysts that require urea to work. Ships can run low sulphur fuel OR run basic catalyst/scrubbers. Most seem to be choosing the catalyst/scubber path-which will be running even out at sea.

While I know this is a cruising forum, most ships are not going the scrubber way, though most cruise ships are. Take tankers for instance. With lots of tankers on time charters, it is the charterers fuel bill, not the ship owner. So our fleet of Jones Act tankers will be switching to higher cost low sulfur gas oil since we are not paying for it. If the charterer wants a scrubber, they will have to pay for it. And the price of gas oil will only continue to rise (already about 50% higher than even low sulfur heavy fuel) as the demand rises.

And I'm not sure the scrubbers will be running at sea, since once outside the US ECA, they can continue to burn the 3.5% sulfur heavy fuel, without exceeding emissions, so why run expensive equipment. Just my realistic view of ship owners.

Actually our coal and oil fired power plants - and there aren´t many left compared to the number in the US - do have scrubbers are particulate filters. So do have our diesel driven cars, busses and trucks. Our environmental laws are pretty strict about it. And we do have lots of water power plants and wind power plants (many of them off shore). Our main problem is to transport the green energy we are producing (power lines are missing). I found an article that said that German coal plants are producing over 50% of the electricity as of last year, while the US is at 39%. I know that the gross amount of electricity is far different for the two countries, but Germany is still using a lot of coal. And I said that stationary power plants, in both the US and Germany can have more efficient scrubbers/filters, since size is not a real issue. Not trying to be nationalistic.

 

I know the Mississippi and Ohio river system pretty well. You can see lots of coal power plants and nuclear power plants along the rivers but only a few of the many lock and dams do have a water power plant connected. That´s a waste of clean green emission free energy.Well, no locks on the Miss as far north as Minnesota, but the Ohio does have some. I don't recall that there is a great deal of level change at each lock, so power generation might be minimal.

 

Anyway I do not support the NABU on the cruise ship part as the NABU is using wrong numbers (one example is that they said for a long time 50,000 people are dying by lung diseases caused by exhausts in Hamburg yearly... sorry, but that´s the number of deaths the WHO is saying and it´s not connected to cruise ships only but also land based vehicles).

 

steamboats

Yes, looking at one source is always dangerous, as you don't know what their possible agenda might be, or what they missed or misinterpreted. The NABU report is interesting, and Germany is trying very hard to be green. I remember back in the late '80's when the MARPOL regulations on oil discharges was getting stricter, and Germany thought, "well if we're going to make them discharge it ashore, maybe we ought to have some place for them to do it". At that time, recycling marine sludge was not a profitable business, so the German government allowed every ship to discharge sludge (up to 1% of the total fuel burned) for free, and the government paid the sludge contractor to dispose of it. Unfortunately, that kind of forward thinking didn't last more than a couple of years, but soon thereafter the slops business became a money maker, so things worked out.

In regards to the Mississippi and locks etc. I believe chengkp75 is correct there is not a large drop in elevation. Also you have to take into account historical and other geographical considerations.

Many of the cities along the Mississippi and its tributaries were establsihed "river" cities. Thus, many of the cities have a fair portion of their city limits in the flood zone. Thus over the years, levee's etc were built. Either a dam across the entire flood plan would need to built and the existing areas allowed to flood.

Omaha is a microcosm of this phenomenon. It is on the Missouri River, most of the downtown area would be flooded to build dams/reservoirs for hydro power. Ironically enough north of the city are dams and reservoirs that power hydro plants that supply power to Omaha.

In the early 1800's and early 1900, it was determined that it was more important to move goods down the Missouri and the Mississippi than the need for electricity.

While I know this is a cruising forum, most ships are not going the scrubber way, though most cruise ships are. Take tankers for instance. With lots of tankers on time charters, it is the charterers fuel bill, not the ship owner. So our fleet of Jones Act tankers will be switching to higher cost low sulfur gas oil since we are not paying for it. If the charterer wants a scrubber, they will have to pay for it. And the price of gas oil will only continue to rise (already about 50% higher than even low sulfur heavy fuel) as the demand rises.

 

And I'm not sure the scrubbers will be running at sea, since once outside the US ECA, they can continue to burn the 3.5% sulfur heavy fuel, without exceeding emissions, so why run expensive equipment. Just my realistic view of ship owners.

Well, this is a cruise ship forum. I was forwarded an article that was about Carnival making a big investment in emissions control devices.

Why would they not run them? The scrubber/catalyst technology isn't as much a scrubber as it is a catalyst- and thanks to tight packaging space, it's not as if they can plumb around the catalyst that is in there.

Plus, a properly running system will heat the exhaust a little more- which means more heat that the system can extract. In other words, realistically, the ship can get more energy out of the fuel they use. That's why they would use it.

I'll have to double check on the technology to make sure it's a catalyst set up, though. That's the technology that I'm very aware of.

Well, this is a cruise ship forum. I was forwarded an article that was about Carnival making a big investment in emissions control devices.

 

Why would they not run them? The scrubber/catalyst technology isn't as much a scrubber as it is a catalyst- and thanks to tight packaging space, it's not as if they can plumb around the catalyst that is in there.

 

Plus, a properly running system will heat the exhaust a little more- which means more heat that the system can extract. In other words, realistically, the ship can get more energy out of the fuel they use. That's why they would use it.

 

I'll have to double check on the technology to make sure it's a catalyst set up, though. That's the technology that I'm very aware of.

I'm not sure which system that Carnival is using. Both NCL and RCCL are using the Green Tech scrubber, which is not a catalytic unit. It is even advertised as being able to be dry run when outside the ECA. The tower itself is virtually the same size as the existing silencer in the exhaust pipe. I don't believe that this water spray type of scrubber would heat the exhaust.

Actually it´s 28 locks between St. Louis and the Twin Cities and I don´t think the lift/drop height is elementary for a water power plant. I´m not an expert but you can just install a turbine and let the water flow through. We do have those kinds of power plants along our (non navigable) river here in Munich. And the drop is not really high, only a few meters.

The Ohio river has currently 20 locks and dams but the last two ones are going to be replaced by one single dam (and actually dam 53 is usually down - it´s an old wing dam structure).

The US might have a less percentage of energy produced by coal fired power plants but I think we have to count the real amount of energy produced and not the percentage ;). There are quite a bit more nuclear power plants in the US too (and ours are supposed to be closed down within the next couple of years). You might say nuclear power plants are emission free - yes, but there´s still the problem to "store" those nuclear leftovers.

Anway, we´re drifting away from the original topic.:D

steamboats