Fuel

[cruiserforlife]

1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS 454

from

http://www.fast-autos.net/chevrolet/chevroletchevelle.html

 

The Chevrolet Chevelle SS represented Chevrolet's entry into the hot midsize muscle car battle.

from

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/chevrolet-chevelle/chevrolet-chevelle-history.shtml

 

Thanks again for the info derf...as always!

[Flintstone]

What an interesting thread!!! Thank you!!

 

When we do a bridge tour on the Sapphire in a couple weeks...I will be sure to ask about its fuel consumption and costs.

 

Deb

[derf5585]

What an interesting thread!!! Thank you!!

 

You don't use fuel for your car you use your feet :D

 

How did you choose the name Flintstone?

[Flintstone]

LOL !!!!

 

I'm from Flint, MI.

 

Deb

[stag]

When I was in one of the cruise ships, the officer told me that they always extended the stabilizers in the open sea. I read somewhere that fully extended stabilizers can reduce the roll from 30 degrees to 3 degrees on a controlled test. The stabilizers need not to be very long, 8'-15' on the average, that would not create significant drag for a ship with the average girth of 100'. Some ships may have more than one set of stabilizers.

[spongerob]

The force required to create that counteracting roll has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is drag. Since drag is proportional to fluid density and increases by a factor of velocity squared, what seems like a small effect on an aircraft is a huge force where water is concerned. Like my old physics prof used to say, what you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts.

[Joe and Ivan]

According to Seawaves Cruise News, the fuel costs for Royal Caribbean were 7.1% of total revenues during the fourth quarter of 2004. If the average revenue per passenger day is about $100, then that means that the cost of fuel per passenger day should be about $7.10. In our private autos, that might be enough money to drive two people with $14.20 for about 140 miles. The ship might go about twice as far in a day that included 14 hours of sailing.

 

Ivan

[CGTNORMANDIE]

1500 TONS = 375,000 gallons. At $225,000 per 7 day voyage = $.60 per gallon. This works out to $65 per passenger per week based on a 3,000 passenger compliment. This works out to $9.30 per day per passenger. Obviously the shipping companies are buying oil futures just like the home heating oil companies do...this will get them the best bulk rate. The new turbine-electric ships are using a lower form of kerosene...bunker C fuel is only used for the older Parson type turbines...bunker C needs to be heated to 200*F. before it can be blown into a boiler. The new turbine-electric ships work off a large version of a jet engine...the result is that the turbine is light weight...the ship no longer requires propeller shafts and less heavy fuel so the savings in weight alone justifies the use of the more expensive kero type fuel. These ships are much more fuel efficient and enviromentally friendly than any of the older type Parsons or diesel ships.

 

ROSS

[Druke I]

cgtnormandie

 

I may be in error, but I believe the last passenger ship built with steam turbines was the Sky Princess, now Pacific Sky for P&O Australia.

 

QE2 did have steam turbines, but they were replaced with diesel some years ago.

[coiran]

The newer ships may have the turbine engines - the Grand Class and older, including the Star have electric propulsion (shaft and props) utilizing Sulzer conventional piston type diesel engines. I don't think any of the Princess ships have gone to the Pod propulsion yet. The Star has four 16 cylinder and two 12 cylinder engines.

 

Ron

[CGTNORMANDIE]

DRUKE 1...Correctomondo!!! The QEII did get rid of her troublesome steam turbines and I beleive the SKY PRINCESS was the last of the steam turbines. She was originally built for Sitmar before Princess bought Sitmar out...I believe.

 

COIRAN: I think you are correct...I was thinking of RCI ships that have Azipods with no shafts...like THE JEWEL OF THE SEAS and the ADVENTURE Class ships. We were on the first Caribbean cruise of the JEWEL last November and the Captain took her up to 25 knots one day at sea...ZOWIE!!! These new jet turbines are really something. I haven't really looked at the innards of the CARIBBEAN PRINCESS and CARIBBEAN STAR...but I am surprised they have not gone with the jet trubine...very efficient and clean!!!

 

ROSS

[coiran]

I watched a refueling of the Royal or Regal once - I asked the attendant if they use Bunker C - he said "Oh No, that is too expensive, we use much cheaper fuel" - it don't get much lower grade than Bunker C.

 

Ron

[spongerob]

Sapphire, Diamond, Coral, and Island all have gas turbine powerplants in combination with conventional diesels. The only problem with turbines on their own is that they are fuel hogs when idling and happiest when running at a high percentage of maximum RPM.

[cjh]

Spongerob I will be driving a Ford E350 van to Edmond, OK for the Endeavor Wheelchair Games next week. Now there is a gas hog.

[cruiserforlife]

Spongerob I will be driving a Ford E350 van to Edmond, OK for the Endeavor Wheelchair Games next week. Now there is a gas hog.

 

5.4L V8 or the dreaded 6.8L V10?:eek:

[VibeGuy]

There's various operating modes on the Diamond/Sapphire system that optimize for either fuel economy, total power or emissions, depending on the area of operations, speed requirements, ship services loads, etc.

 

Azimuthing podded propulsion, while certainly state of the art, especially when teamed with a CODAG powerplant, has clearly been saddled with major operational reliability problems which seem to be somewhat more pronounced in cruise ships relative to other vessel types. Carnival has had a very stormy relationship with ABB/Azipod over their units failing in service. I believe that ABB replaced every pod free, and paid something like 9.8mm in penalties for various thrust bearing failures. Rolls-Royce/Alstom has similar problems with their Mermaid system (which looks more like Azipod than not), and as I write, one of the Mermaid-equipped Ships (Celebrity's Summit) is headed for the latest in a series of emergency drydocks to deal with a pod bearing issue.

 

I suspect, however, given Carnival's recent positive experiences with podded propulsion (including what I believe to be the largest installation, on the QM2), we'll start seeing Princess builds with them. They're certainly fast and powerful, they're very energy-efficient, and they make manueverability almost a non-issue (well, as much of a non-issue as anything approaching 1,000ft long can be). My wager is that the next major design comes with someone's pod underneath, especially as oil prices stabilize over $40/bbl.

 

Eric

[scousecruiser]

Boy

 

You guys really need to get out more!! Who cares how much fuel they use as long as they dont run out of the stuff mid ocean.

 

SC

[derf5585]

Boy

You guys really need to get out more!! Who cares how much fuel they use as long as they dont run out of the stuff mid ocean.

SC

 

Then they could use the MUTS screen as a sail.

[bdjam]

Boy

 

You guys really need to get out more!! Who cares how much fuel they use as long as they dont run out of the stuff mid ocean.

I think this is an important thread – and one that cruise ship enthusiasts would enjoy...at least I have. It should be required reading for all of those who take advantage of the rock bottom cruise fares and then complain about the active attempts to create on-board revenue.

Then they could use the MUTS screen as a sail.

Or throw it overboard to save weight.

[Joe and Ivan]

Does anyone have any idea about how much a ship must budget per passenger day for food? I would think it would be at least $20.

 

Ivan

[derf5585]

Does anyone have any idea about how much a ship must budget per passenger day for food? I would think it would be at least $20.

Ivan

 

If you are between $10 and $12.50 that’s the total of what most lines spend per person per day

from

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/guides/guide-display/-/2PF7TX5MGQU0Z/102-4113009-4201716

[samtesla]

You guys really need to get out more!! Who cares how much fuel they use as long as they dont run out of the stuff mid ocean.

 

I have an even more burning question... Why did they lock the butter patties in the kitchen? I took a picture of a mini-fridge that was full of flower-shaped butter patties (is that the correct term?) and had TWO serious locks in it. (maybe they toss the old butter patties in the fuel tank if noone eats them? :eek:)

 

Seriously, as an engineer, this is what matters to me. Having a good time? that, too, but after a few glasses of St. Panteleimon wine (from Cyprus) and good company I can have a good time in the brig :D.

[derf5585]

I have an even more burning question... Why did they lock the butter patties in the kitchen?

 

When the ship enters rough water the butter lockers tend to open spewing butter all over the deck. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[samtesla]

(what else to do while waiting for next March's Sun Princess cruise :) )

 

A Nimitz class carrier is about the size and weight (and personnel) of a Grand class ship, and with a pair of GE reactors and four props it can do almost 10 knots faster than the Grands, or so the web said... But, what you save in fuel costs you spend in people, since it takes a lot more people to run it.

[VibeGuy]

Well, yeah, and if I had a series of pods with the roughly 250MW available at the screws on your basic CVN, I could really get up and move. ;0) I think the current most-powerful cruise ship is the QM2 with about 80MW at the screws combined total.

 

I seem to recall that maximum speed of a ship in knots is the square root of the length of the hull at the waterline, assuming sufficient power, so it would be theoretically possible to move the Grand Princess at just shy of 29 knots (utter maximum), compared to the QM2 at roughly 32. Published maximums for the Grand are 24 knots, the QM2 at roughly 30, so it's possible to argue that, in fact, the Grand class is underpowered relative to what would be utterly possible if not practical.

 

A citation escapes me at the moment, but I'm relatively certain that the SS France was originally built so that a nuke plant could be retrofitted later (using similar technology to the NS Savannah), which, of course, never happened. The NS Savannah, for various reasons not all having to do with nuke power, was a total financial disaster for all and sundry.

 

The scary part is, I think the numbers would pencil out; when the Savannah was mothballed in 1972, she was running at about $2MM greater annual operating loss than a bunker-fueled vessel, and bunker was $20/ton back then, which is about $68 in today's dollars. With fuel now being 6X as expensive, and marine nuke plants being vastly more reliable now than the state of the art in 1962, the only barriers that remain are regulatory (I honestly can't see ships sailing under flags of convenience ever being allowed to have nuke power) and perception: it would be the Instant Kiss of Death to ponder a passenger ship with a reactor...but, oh, the benefits - endless hot water, plenty of power to desalinate seawater, gobs of power for ship services (lights, A/C, all that fun stuff), never having to stop in crappy ports for fuel, and zero emissions.

 

Eric, Geek