Bigger Royal Princess soot concerns.

[thinfool]

I read in one article that pods save 30% fuel but cost more to build and maintain.

 

That's interesting....can you list the reference so I can read it myself?

 

Thanks!

[bhopal21]

That's interesting....can you list the reference so I can read it myself?

 

Thanks!

 

I am interested as well as I never knew that azipods were that efficient.

 

Mike:)

[Loonbeam]

I could have sworn the Coral at least uses azipods...

 

The cruise lines do have input on the engineering of the ship.

They set the specs to be met by the engineers and designers.

They have the final say on the power train installed read the attached article.

 

The cruise line is responsible to ensure the ship they have built for their fleet complies with the regulations for the areas they sail them in. They modify them to comply or they will be find.

 

These are not new regulations the cruise industry knew they were coming for a long time if Bush introduced the legislation.

 

Princess made the decision to not use pod engines which are more fuel efficient ( less fuel less pollution ) .

I read in one article that pods save 30% fuel but cost more to build and maintain.

You can read about the problems Celebrity has had with pods on their ships so what they save on fuel they pay for maintenance and repair. They have insurance for when they break.

 

Princess saves on build cost and up keep but pays more for fuel. Sounds like Princess is using modified tried and true technology.

 

This is an interesting article as it appears Royal requires about the same power at speed as a Grand class.

 

http://www.ferrypubs.co.uk/excursions_details.asp?article=1111&offset=

 

Appears the cruise lines can put on scrubbers to solve the problem ( Aida did it for Germany ) so maybe Princess is just waiting until legislation forces them to have to install

them.

[bhopal21]

I could have sworn the Coral at least uses azipods...

 

 

The Coral has conventional fixed shaft propeller propulsion.

 

Mike:)

[baldercash]

That's interesting....can you list the reference so I can read it myself?

 

Thanks!

 

I will try to find it again but have been reading a lot of articles and pdf's.

However even the posted article states.....

John Gunner, senior vice president of technical operations explained, “ In principle, the pods are more fuel efficient. But there are trade-offs both inside the ship in terms of configuration and outside on the hull form. We believe that the shaft lines provide the best solution for us and in terms of longevity. The seawater lubricated shaft requires much less maintenance than pods."

 

This is long time marine technology but does not give the maneuverability of pods.

Pods are electric motors and the diesel motors are used as generators to power them.

Edited January 25, 2014 by baldercash

[baldercash]

Still searching... Lots of differences in Princess to RCI & X

 

Royal Princess has four Wartsila F-series marine diesel engines with high output power at low rpm. Two of the engines are 12-cylinders and the other two are 14-cylinders.

 

Ships that use diesel engines are required to carry exhaust-treatment systems and catalytic-reduction equipment to reduce the environmental impact.

 

HFO (heavy fuel oil) is used by diesel engines, while MGO (marine gas oil) is used by gas turbine engines. The MGO is similar to the jet airplanes’ fuel.

 

The first company that fitted cruise vessels with gas turbines, was Royal Caribbean. Gas turbines are greener than diesel engines and allow ships sailing with reduced inventory and smaller maintenance crew. Gas turbines drive generators which in turn provide electricity to propeller motors. They recover heat from gas turbines’ exhaust, which then is used to produce the electricity needed for onboard services (air conditioning, water heating).

 

The first large vessel to use a new gas-turbine cruise ship propulsion system was Celebrity Millennium. This system will be more frequently used in new cruise ship buildings. It’s innovative and, besides new activities available, economy of scale, marketing, represents an important element of ship design. System’s advantages include:

 

lower vibrations and noise level, better comfort, lower probability of failure;

lower exploitation costs because of the easier maintenance;

nocive emissions reduction, which is partially owed to gas oil instead of fuel (-90% oxide of sulphur; -80% oxide of azote).

considerable gain of weight and volume, especially when with Azipod marine propulsion system (900 tons, 70 cabins added).

 

Celebrity Eclipse gets 56 feet to gallon.

 

Advantages of Azipod propulsion marine systems

 

A lot of space is saved by Azipod cruise ship propulsion system in the engine room – there is no propeller, engine, shafting or other arrangements. This saved space can be used for storing cargo.

Great maneuverability – the propeller can turn in all directions and enables crash maneuvering stop distance that is better than conventional system’s.

Azipod cruise ship propulsion system can be placed below ship’s height and provide more efficiency than conventional systems.

In case the ships have large breadth, two (or more) azipod systems, independent from one another, can be used to provide subtle maneuvering.

Side thruster’s use is eliminated as pods can be used to provide side thrust.

Low lube oil and fuel consumption.

Lower vibrations and noise than conventional systems.

Because emissions are low, it’s environment friendly.

 

It is all relative I am sure.

[caribill]

The EPA tells the auto industry what the emissions standards will be on a given future date and they design new cars and innovate to meet that standard. This is why Ford will introduce an aluminum bodied truck since less weight ( 700pounds ) equals less fuel consumption.

 

 

Exactly. That is why Ford is coming up with a totally new truck design.

 

What you are suggesting for Princess is the equivalent of requiring all current Ford truck owners to have their truck body replaced with an aluminum one in order to meet a standard that did not exist when their trucks were built.

 

New auto engines are more efficient than ones used in previous years.

 

Can I assume you will take your car to the dealer to have them replace your engine with a new design one so your car will be more efficient and less polluting?

[caribill]

You can read about the problems Celebrity has had with pods on their ships so what they save on fuel they pay for maintenance and repair. They have insurance for when they break.

 

You can also read about the thousands of Celebrity passengers who have had their vacations ruined or cancelled while the ships are unexpectedly having to be taken out of service to have the propulsion systems repaired.

[The Big Booper]

You can also read about the thousands of Celebrity passengers who have had their vacations ruined or cancelled while the ships are unexpectedly having to be taken out of service to have the propulsion systems repaired.

 

The M class has had several pod breakdowns over the years which is one of the reasons why, when going on =X=, we only go on the S class ships.

 

The 4 Radiance class ships are GTV and have been far more reliable over their service life; they are also built on the same hull as the M class..

[Alaskanb]

My big question is how can Princess fix the soot and fume problem on the Royal before I sail in April 2015? Any ideas?

Edited January 25, 2014 by Alaskanb

[Sea-debris]

You can also read about the thousands of Celebrity passengers who have had their vacations ruined or cancelled while the ships are unexpectedly having to be taken out of service to have the propulsion systems repaired.

You can read about the Carnival passengers that were stranded at sea when more conventional systems break down.

X made the decision to cancel the trip, it did not strand at sea the pax, the ship then went from Alaska to the Caribbean.

Oasis, Freedom class and Solstice have Pods.

M class was the 1st but others don't seem to have the problems.

 

Royal may meet the new standards but from the reports of soot on the aft likely they are having problems.

The current system is likely malfunctioning.

If they use cleaner more expensive fuel and install expensive scrubbers they can comply.

 

Interesting that it forecasted increased cost pp may be why of all the cost cutting on the ships and explains why the ships are getting bigger.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Sea-debris

[baldercash]

What you are suggesting for Princess is the equivalent of requiring all current Ford truck owners to have their truck body replaced with an aluminum one in order to meet a standard that did not exist when their trucks were built.

 

New auto engines are more efficient than ones used in previous years.

 

Can I assume you will take your car to the dealer to have them replace your engine with a new design one so your car will be more efficient and less polluting?

 

I have to take my car in every 2 years for an emissions test and if I am not compliant I pay to fix it or my car is removed from the road and I buy a new one, forget a new motor.

 

I am betting Royal if not compliant to 2015 EPA standards can be brought up to those standards it just costs money and maybe they don't want to spend it until forced to.

 

I think she has a problem at present and that is why she is spewing oily soot into the air and it is falling on the aft decks.

 

You can also read about the thousands of Celebrity passengers who have had their vacations ruined or cancelled while the ships are unexpectedly having to be taken out of service to have the propulsion systems repaired.

I think I read that Royal had a bit of a sputter in the Med but that is not the issue we are speaking to.

Edited January 25, 2014 by baldercash

[POA1]

Most Hong Kong smog is generated by cruise ships idling in port.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/global-observer/hong-kong-contends-with-pollution-from-a-growing-cruise-industry/

 

According to the Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department, it's vehicles and power plants, with Power Plants coming in at #1.

 

http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/air_maincontent.html

 

The Hong Kong EPD piece is more thoroughly sourced, by a large margin.

[A1A]

The OP contends that most Hong Kong smog is generated by cruise ships idling in port.

 

However the article he provides does not support that contention

 

"Emissions from berthed ships are considered the No. 1 contributor to Hong Kong’s severe air pollution problem and are said to account for 40% of greenhouse gases within its borders. Coming from cruise and cargo ships, these emissions outdo that of power plants and road vehicles."

 

There are clearly more cargo ships in Hong Kong, wonder why this contention was made?

 

Ken

[baldercash]

Could be a cruise ship idling away at a port maintaining systems to support thousands of passengers and crew spew more pollution into the air then a cargo ship that is ported with a crew of a few hundred?

[Loonbeam]

Assuming they cannot connect to shoreside power and water, this would be correct.

 

The per ship emission for a cruise ship is probably higher. The per class total emissions for cargo overall would vastly exceed that of the cruise ship class on most days.

 

Lots of variables of course, including the type of cargo ship.

 

BTW, the crew size on a bulk cargo ship is closer to 20-30. Tankers are a little higher, not sure on containers.

 

Could be a cruise ship idling away at a port maintaining systems to support thousands of passengers and crew spew more pollution into the air then a cargo ship that is ported with a crew of a few hundred?

[susiefay]

Does anyone know if the port side aft cabins are affected by the soot problem?

[capriccio]

Does anyone know if the port side aft cabins are affected by the soot problem?

 

The soot problems - at least when we were on the ship in December - were on the aft FACING balconies. The owner' suites (we were in D727) have a wrap around balcony -- there wasn't any soot on the side - it was all on the aft part of the balcony.

[susiefay]

The soot problems - at least when we were on the ship in December - were on the aft FACING balconies. The owner' suites (we were in D727) have a wrap around balcony -- there wasn't any soot on the side - it was all on the aft part of the balcony.

 

thanks for the info :D