8 day crossings

[Salacia]

I question it and don't consider cruise ships to be sources of pollution so that's where we will have to disagree.

 

There are also residents near the container port on Brooklyn (next to QM2's usual US berth) who don't want ships there either. (One resident complains, "My child should not have to suffer an asthma attack just so somebody in New York can get a cheaper big screen television.") If finances or regulatory burden make a port too expensive a cruise line won't go there - or will severely curtail visits.

 

$180M is chump change only if one is speaking of US Congress. $180M comes out of the corporate bottom line and either Carnival's customers will pay for it in higher fares or shareholders will pay for it in reduced or no dividends.

 

Regarding cruise ships contributing to pollution, I haven't found any source that refutes that - in fact, cruise lines appear to be actively finding ways to reduce their effect on the environment. That doesn't mean that further improvements don't need to be made, not only by cruise lines, but shipping lines in general.

 

"...The environmental impact of shipping includes greenhouse gas emissions and oil pollution. Carbon dioxide emissions from shipping is currently estimated at 4 to 5 percent of the global total, and estimated by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to rise by up to 72 percent by 2020 if no action is taken..." http://www.australianscience.com.au/environmental-science/cruise-ship-pollution/

 

Yes, I agree that cruise lines will cease (or reduce) docking at ports that require cruise lines to comply with certain regulations aimed at limiting damage to the local environment. We've seen this happen with Baltimore and Venice - just as two varied examples.

 

Regarding the relative meaning of $180 million to CCL, have you seen the salary and compensation packages for members of the board of directors? By comparison to those combined salaries paid for by passengers and stockholders, $180 million is chump change ;)

 

Salacia

Edited November 6, 2013 by Salacia

[Salacia]

There is really nothing going on but a lot of fear mongering or hot air coming out of the mouths of liberal politicians. What else do these liberal politicians want out of Mickey Arison? He has already installed an electrical system aboard QM2 in that when the QM2 is docked in Brooklyn an electrical cable that is plugged into the local power grid is plugged into the QM2's internal wiring so that all of the QM2's diesel engines can be turned off while the QM2 is docked in Brooklyn. And if the NYC politicians demand anything else out of Carnival Corp. that is not fair, if I were Mickey Arison I would hire very good lawyers to see if I could break the lease with NYC and start docking all the Cunard Ships and Princess Ships across the harbor in Bayonne,New Jersey at the same dock that Royal Caribbean uses where I have not heard of the Bayonne or New Jersey officials demand that Royal Caribbean International plug their ships into the local power grid. Royal Caribbean International which owns the Royal Caribbean Cruise Ships & Celebrity Cruise Ships moved to Bayonne,NJ in 2003 from the West Side Manhattan Piers because they saw that by 2003 the Manhattan Piers have become obsolete. So in the unlikely event that Mr. Arison is reading this post, Mr. Arison if the NYC officials demand anything else from you that is not fair, please consider the idea to start docking the Cunard Ships in Bayonne,New Jersey. Regards,Jerry

 

Hi Jerry. Cruise ships plugging into the electric grid when docked isn't all that new, nor is it limited to NYC or even the US.

 

Halifax (Canada) for example, expects to have their shore power system operational by 2014. http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1159825-cruise-ships-can-power-up-at-dockside Regards, Salacia

[Thaxted]

Regarding cruise ships contributing to pollution, I haven't found any source that refutes that - in fact, cruise lines appear to be actively finding ways to reduce their effect on the environment. That doesn't mean that further improvements don't need to be made, not only by cruise lines, but shipping lines in general.

 

"...The environmental impact of shipping includes greenhouse gas emissions and oil pollution. Carbon dioxide emissions from shipping is currently estimated at 4 to 5 percent of the global total, and estimated by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to rise by up to 72 percent by 2020 if no action is taken..." http://www.australianscience.com.au/environmental-science/cruise-ship-pollution/

 

Yes, I agree that cruise lines will cease (or reduce) docking at ports that require cruise lines to comply with certain regulations aimed at limiting damage to the local environment. We've seen this happen with Baltimore and Venice - just as two varied examples.

 

Regarding the relative meaning of $180 million to CCL, have you seen the salary and compensation packages for members of the board of directors? By comparison to those combined salaries paid for by passengers and stockholders, $180 million is chump change ;)

 

Salacia

 

Very well said, as always, Salacia. Although a few folk may close their eyes to the problem or launch into political tirades of one sort or another, I think that most of us recognize that, with the enormous pleasure we gain from cruising, there comes the responsibility to insure that the earth and its oceans are preserved so that generations to come can share our enjoyment.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Thaxted

[Cruise Liner Fan]

Hi Jerry. Cruise ships plugging into the electric grid when docked isn't all that new, nor is it limited to NYC or even the US.

 

Halifax (Canada) for example, expects to have their shore power system operational by 2014. http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1159825-cruise-ships-can-power-up-at-dockside Regards, Salacia

Hi Salacia Well if plugging the ships into the local power grid is a economically good thing for the cruise ships and saves fuel for the cruise ships then how can I be against that. So now I am admitting a change of opinion on that topic. Though we have to be realistic and realize that oil for now can only be the only feasible fuel to power the cruise ships at sea. In all honestly would anyone here want to go aboard a nuclear powered ship? I can say that I would not want to go aboard a nuclear powered ship. Though in the future maybe the used cooking vegetable oil maybe could be used to power the ships. I have heard that used vegetable cooking oil has been used in diesel engines for trucks and it is called Bio-Diesel. Regards,Jerry

[Jim Avery]

Ok, just can't stand it any more. Tell me, does a cruise ship with, say 3,000 persons on board, pollute more than a town of 3,000??? When a cruise ship plugs into the grid does that not put more demand on the power plant that makes that "green" electricity which results in more pollution from the power plant??? What environmentalists do not understand (or chose to ignore) is that there is no free lunch anywhere. Shifting pollution from one source to another, sometimes at great expense, gets one nowhere. As far as nuclear ships, go on one?? Sure. I have done. I only glow in the dark now and then. Seriously, if something catastrophic happens on a nuke ship, will you be more dead than the poor souls on Concordia?

[Cruise Liner Fan]

Ok, just can't stand it any more. Tell me, does a cruise ship with, say 3,000 persons on board, pollute more than a town of 3,000??? When a cruise ship plugs into the grid does that not put more demand on the power plant that makes that "green" electricity which results in more pollution from the power plant??? What environmentalists do not understand (or chose to ignore) is that there is no free lunch anywhere. Shifting pollution from one source to another, sometimes at great expense, gets one nowhere. As far as nuclear ships, go on one?? Sure. I have done. I only glow in the dark now and then. Seriously, if something catastrophic happens on a nuke ship, will you be more dead than the poor souls on Concordia?

I must admit that you do make good points in your post that plugging a ship into the local power grid may just cause a strain to the power plant supplying electricity to that local power grid. Regards,Jerry

[glojo]

Hasn't the USA got more nuclear powered ships than possibly the rest of the World put together? I am saying this very much tongue in cheek as I have no idea how many nuclear powered ships the rest of the World has but touching wood as I type... In US ships it has been a perfectly safe form of heat source and yes I would definitely travel on one tomorrow given half a chance. Sadly I believe you tried this source in your merchant marine and decided it was not a cost effective option?? Perhaps we should all go back to the days of sail!! A clipper called Queen Elizabeth??

 

Here we go

 

Nuclear power is particularly suitable for vessels which need to be at sea for long periods without refuelling, or for powerful submarine propulsion.

Some 140 ships are powered by more than 180 small nuclear reactors and more than 12,000 reactor years of marine operation has been accumulated.

 

I accept that a few countries still have nuclear powered Ice Breakers but the merchant ship I was thinking of was the US ship Savannah

 

Development of nuclear merchant ships began in the 1950s but on the whole has not been commercially successful. The 22,000 tonne US-built NS Savannah, was commissioned in 1962 and decommissioned eight years later. It was a technical success, but not economically viable. It had a 74 MWt reactor delivering 16.4 MW to the propeller.

 

The German-built 15,000 tonne Otto Hahn cargo ship and research facility sailed some 650,000 nautical miles on 126 voyages in 10 years without any technical problems. It had a 36 MWt reactor delivering 8 MW to the propeller. However, it proved too expensive to operate and in 1982 it was converted to diesel.

 

The 8000 tonne Japanese Mutsu was the third civil vessel, put into service in 1970. It had a 36 MWt reactor delivering 8 MW to the propeller. It was dogged by technical and political problems and was an embarrassing failure. These three vessels used reactors with low-enriched uranium fuel (3.7 - 4.4% U-235).

 

In 1988 the NS Sevmorput was commissioned in Russia, mainly to serve northern Siberian ports. It is a 61,900 tonne 260 m long LASH-carrier (taking lighters to ports with shallow water) and container ship with ice-breaking bow. It is powered by the same KLT-40 reactor as used in larger icebreakers, delivering 32.5 propeller MW from the 135 MWt reactor, and it needed refuelling only once to 2003.

 

Would it be worth considering having nuclear powered larger cruise ships\liners :D:D:D I can hear our tree huggers screaming from here but think about the 3 - 4 day Atlantic crossings with these ships cruising with their pedal to the metal and those steam turbines screaming like wild banshees

[Jim Avery]

I must admit that you do make good points in your post that plugging a ship into the local power grid may just cause a strain to the power plant supplying electricity to that local power grid. Regards,Jerry

 

Not necessarily a strain, but it is a simple function: More KW produced/used requires that much more fuel (coal, oil , whatever). Unless they are using hydroelectric it produces more pollution of some sort (even nuke).:eek::D

[Jim Avery]

N/S Savannah was a beautiful ship. Her failure was not due exactly to nuke power but her very limited, multi hold cargo capacity at the exact time containerization was starting to develop. Well, that and her US union crews. It was a bit like bringing out a nuclear powered airship at the same time the 707 was taking off.:eek:

[Cruise Liner Fan]

In my honest opinion a clipper sailing ship that does not have any engines is not really feasible today in the 21st Century. Regards,Jerry

Edited November 6, 2013 by Cruise Liner Fan

[glojo]

N/S Savannah was a beautiful ship. Her failure was not due exactly to nuke power but her very limited, multi hold cargo capacity at the exact time containerization was starting to develop. Well, that and her US union crews. It was a bit like bringing out a nuclear powered airship at the same time the 707 was taking off.:eek:

She certainly looked the part and nuclear power has far less moving parts to go wrong, it is just the heating element for the kettle :)

 

I might send a note to my Naval Architect and ask that they consider adapting my fleet :eek:;)

Edited November 6, 2013 by glojo

[BlueRiband]

For those technically inclined, our favorite naval architect was part of a working group which undertook an extensive study of Future Ship Powering Options: Exploring Alternative Methods of Ship Propulsion

[Jim Avery]

The holy grail of ship propulsion is to use seawater for power. As in Clive Cussler's ship Oregon, stripping electrons out of sea water to provide power. Who knows, science fiction has an uncanny way of becoming science fact in the future. Burning oil will, by necessity, come to an end some day. Remember, the first steamboats in this country simply pulled to the bank of the river and cut a few trees for fuel as needed. Quaint.:eek::D

[Salacia]

Ok, just can't stand it any more. Tell me, does a cruise ship with, say 3,000 persons on board, pollute more than a town of 3,000??? When a cruise ship plugs into the grid does that not put more demand on the power plant that makes that "green" electricity which results in more pollution from the power plant??? What environmentalists do not understand (or chose to ignore) is that there is no free lunch anywhere. Shifting pollution from one source to another, sometimes at great expense, gets one nowhere. As far as nuclear ships, go on one?? Sure. I have done. I only glow in the dark now and then. Seriously, if something catastrophic happens on a nuke ship, will you be more dead than the poor souls on Concordia?

 

Jim, the answer to your question would depend on where the town is located. A factory town in China, for example, does not have the same pollution control standards as does New York - or for that matter, the same controls as cruise ships.

 

Ships plugging into the electric grid when docked means less sulfur dioxide and shoot is released. Since power plants have used scrubbers to counter that problem for decades, it's not a matter of shifting pollution for ships to use electricity rather than burn fuel while docked - it reduces pollution. (Note: CCL very recently agreed to install scrubbers on 32 ships in the next 4 years. http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2013/09/06/deal-with-epa-requires-company-to-install-power-plant-technology-on-cruise-ship/

 

As far as nuclear powered cruise ships are concerned, I'm still studying the issue, having no opinion at this time. But I imagine it would be some years before that becomes a likelihood anyway. In the meantime, how about a few solar panels to lessen fuel dependency? :)

 

Salacia

Edited November 7, 2013 by Salacia

[pmb1]

For those technically inclined, our favorite naval architect was part of a working group which undertook an extensive study of Future Ship Powering Options: Exploring Alternative Methods of Ship Propulsion

Thanks, BR, for the link to that study. One design consideration that I've been wondering about is the placement of the electrically driven propeller pods. Why must they be at the stern? Perhaps midship mounted pods would reduce hull friction plus eliminating the need for stabilizers and side thrusters. The stern could then be optimized to deal with following seas. I'll must ask Stephen Payne about this next chance I get (it helps that I know that he treats ridiculous questions gently).

[Jim Avery]

Jim, the answer to your question would depend on where the town is located. A factory town in China, for example, does not have the same pollution control standards as does New York - or for that matter, the same controls as cruise ships.

 

Ships plugging into the electric grid when docked means less sulfur dioxide and shoot is released. Since power plants have used scrubbers to counter that problem for decades, it's not a matter of shifting pollution for ships to use electricity rather than burn fuel while docked - it reduces pollution. (Note: CCL very recently agreed to install scrubbers on 32 ships in the next 4 years. http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2013/09/06/deal-with-epa-requires-company-to-install-power-plant-technology-on-cruise-ship/

 

As far as nuclear powered cruise ships are concerned, I'm still studying the issue, having no opinion at this time. But I imagine it would be some years before that becomes a likelihood anyway. In the meantime, how about a few solar panels to lessen fuel dependency? :)

 

Salacia

 

You pick the town. I contend pollution per person is fairly constant. Cruise ships are already held to very high standards compared to other forms of transport. If you want a devil, look up about 35,000 ft. Spewing all those emissions in the upper atmosphere (where it never rains) is much more permanent than sea level contaminants that are often rinsed from the air by rain. What happens then is another question. Unless you want to return to caves, we have a problem with people causing wastes of all types. More people, more pollution. Why not limit people? That is the ultimate problem anyway.

[Salacia]

Thanks for that link, BlueRiband. I noticed with interest the first paragraph of the Executive Summary, to quote:

 

"International agreements on the need to combat climate change, the

fluctuating but generally rising costs of marine fuels which account for

a large proportion of the running costs of a ship, and developments on a

number of other fronts have led many in the industry to question whether

the present methods of ship propulsion are sustainable. These concerns

are enhanced by the introduction of environmental regulations intended

to reduce the impact of climate change – primarily MARPOL Annex VI and

the Energy Efficiency Design Index regulations together with the possible

introduction of carbon taxes."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Salacia]

You pick the town. I contend pollution per person is fairly constant. Cruise ships are already held to very high standards compared to other forms of transport. If you want a devil, look up about 35,000 ft. Spewing all those emissions in the upper atmosphere (where it never rains) is much more permanent than sea level contaminants that are often rinsed from the air by rain. What happens then is another question. Unless you want to return to caves, we have a problem with people causing wastes of all types. More people, more pollution. Why not limit people? That is the ultimate problem anyway.

 

 

Jim, your question "Why not limit people?" has already been applied in China. To me, that is a horrific alternative to sensible steps that can be taken to reduce the threat of global warming.

 

And when you speak of the sea, research what is happening well below the surface.

 

Believe what you will. While I enjoy a discussion based on accredited research, I have no interest in a personal nonsensical argument.

 

Salacia

Edited November 7, 2013 by Salacia

[glojo]

In my honest opinion a clipper sailing ship that does not have any engines is not really feasible today in the 21st Century. Regards,Jerry

You might be correct in what you say click

 

Taking on shore side power has been an option for as long as I can remember but the bottom line has always been about cost, and of course the capability. By that I mean if a ship goes into refit then it might not be able to run its own generators or b) They are no longer serviceable for one reason or another.

 

Thinking as I am typing, I can recall ship's watchkeepers working on shore-side boilers that supplied steam to the necessary ship's equipment to keep the ship habiitable whilst alongside.

[balf]

Would you sail on a nuclear powered cruise shp?

 

I would but I think many would not. There is a fear of nuclear energy in many minds, but if we are serious about reducing the fossil fuel usage, we really have no option, on land or sea.

 

David.

[glojo]

Would you sail on a nuclear powered cruise shp?

 

I would but I think many would not. There is a fear of nuclear energy in many minds, but if we are serious about reducing the fossil fuel usage, we really have no option, on land or sea.

 

David.

Totally agree and far be it for me to get up on my soapbox but I do wonder how much fuel is being burnt on these modern day goliaths of the sea;)

[glojo]

Been thinking...

 

The old clippers could at a push sail between Australia and the UK in approximately 67 days, I think the record was just over 60 days. (just found out it was 61) This was in the late 19th century and with modern materials, construction and of course... technology, I wonder how quickly that could be done today?

 

Is the biggest expense of a sail ship the crew? With modern, automated winches I am guessing the numbers required to safely operate these vessels could very easily be halved and maybe even fewer crew might be required.

 

My thoughts are that if this was profitable, it would already be done but I wonder how close we are to seeing modern day sailing ships carrying cargo on our main trade routes? I do accept that most cargo is now carried in very large shipping containers but adaptability is key ;)

 

61 days from Australia around the cape is not to be sneezed at and whilst folks talk about they are reliant on the wind, the average speeds of the fastest clippers is possibly around 14 knots. I am reading that modern day merchant ships are having to reduce their speeds because of fuel costs!!

 

I wonder how far away we are from this possibility?

 

[BlueRiband]

Thanks for that link, BlueRiband. I noticed with interest the first paragraph of the Executive Summary, to quote:

 

"International agreements on the need to combat climate change, the

fluctuating but generally rising costs of marine fuels which account for

a large proportion of the running costs of a ship, and developments on a

number of other fronts have led many in the industry to question whether

the present methods of ship propulsion are sustainable. These concerns

are enhanced by the introduction of environmental regulations intended

to reduce the impact of climate change – primarily MARPOL Annex VI and

the Energy Efficiency Design Index regulations together with the possible

introduction of carbon taxes."

 

Yes, the report summary indicates that they drank the "climate change" Koolaid. If there was such a thing there is not a damn thing humanity could do to halt or slow it. (Full disclosure: categorize me as an incandescent bulb burning, fireplace using, meat eating, fur and leather wearing cruise ship passenger.)

 

These so called "carbon taxes" are real money out of peoples pockets to pay for a phantom problem. Leave it to a government to invent something to tax after it runs out of things to tax.

[Jim Avery]

Yes, the report summary indicates that they drank the "climate change" Koolaid. If there was such a thing there is not a damn thing humanity could do to halt or slow it. (Full disclosure: categorize me as an incandescent bulb burning, fireplace using, meat eating, fur and leather wearing cruise ship passenger.)

 

These so called "carbon taxes" are real money out of peoples pockets to pay for a phantom problem. Leave it to a government to invent something to tax after it runs out of things to tax.

 

Amen!:D

[Cruise Liner Fan]

Yes, the report summary indicates that they drank the "climate change" Koolaid. If there was such a thing there is not a damn thing humanity could do to halt or slow it. (Full disclosure: categorize me as an incandescent bulb burning, fireplace using, meat eating, fur and leather wearing cruise ship passenger.)

 

These so called "carbon taxes" are real money out of peoples pockets to pay for a phantom problem. Leave it to a government to invent something to tax after it runs out of things to tax.

BlueRiband, You are 101% Right with your statement. Unfortunately some people have drank the "climate change" Kool-Aid that was served by a former vice president who some people also credit with inventing the internet when he really had nothing to do with it and of course I am referring to Al "The Cigar Store Indian" Gore. The same Al "The Cigar Store Indian" Gore who preaches to us that we should cut down on our use of fossil fuels while he flies around the USA in his own private lear jet and uses the same fossil fuels to heat his mansion in Tennessee. The Inconvienent Truth for Al "The Cigar Store Indian" Gore is that the alleged Global Warming that is now referred to as climate change is about as truthful as former President Bill Clinton claiming that he did not have sexual relations with the white house intern Monica Lewinsky when in reality he really did thanks to the evidence of a certain semin stained blue dress. I wish that Al "The Cigar Store Indian" Gore would just go away and stop it with this phony climate change nonsense Bull S***. So BlueRiband let me join you as a meat eating fossil fuel using wears leather shoes Cruise Ship Passenger and I do so with pride. Regards,Jerry Edited November 7, 2013 by Cruise Liner Fan