Solar arrays on Princess ships?

[RDC1]

The lines HAVE looked into it, I know that for the most part they found it not practical for a couple of reasons.

 

1> There is surprisingly little 'space' to put solar panels. On many ships, any significant open deck or upper surface area either holds equipment or is used for passenger or crew space. There may only be 200-300 square feet on an entire ship that could support panels and they may not be contiguous.

 

2> Because of the ship's motion, the panels would constantly be facing different directions, which severely limits effectiveness.

 

3> The panels mostly produce low voltage power, not used in most places on the ship. That means it either needs to be stepped up to ship power (which will drastically reduce output) or separate wiring needs to be installed to lower power devices.

 

4> Salt water is not kind to solar panel coverings.

 

That's not to say its not doable, its just not a practical investment for the amount of power generated. Replacing the entire ship with LED lightbulbs would have the same net effect at probably a similar cost profile over 10 years.

 

BTW, wind turbines are not as bad an idea as it sounds at first glance. Because of the way the ship's hull shapes the air, it could be theoretically possible to recapture some of the energy used to move the ship without overly increasing drag, enough that you could reduce fuel usage a little. (Example, if you could recover 4 percent of the energy used to move the ship at a 1 percent drag increase, your net gain might still be 2.something percent. Not sure if that would justify the cost, but its not completely infeasible.

 

When you inject something into the wind flow, you disrupt the flow and that increases drag. If it worked the way you indicate then theoretically you could build a large enough ship, with enough wind turbines that once moving could generate enough power to keep itself moving (perpetual motion machine).

 

Wind mills work on land. They also work if a ship is not under power and there is normal wind. They will also work on a sail boat that is driven by the wind because the wind speed is faster then the boats speed. Thought they will be a drag on speed of the boat when tacking into the wind.

 

They will not and cannot work when the wind is generated by a boats movement, when the power is used to drive the boat. If it could work then a perpetual motion machine could be possible, which it is not.

Edited June 18, 2014 by RDC1

[RickEk]

I think that Princess' use of shore-based power connections in certain ports has the best potential for reducing a ship's carbon footprint. A ship in port must typically run a couple of their diesel engines to maintain power to the hotel. By connecting to shore-based power, those engines can be powered down, reducing air pollution and saving some significant dollars.

 

I know that RCI's Behemoth of the Seas twins have solar panels too, but those ships are so large that they actually have space for them. By the time we see more Princess new-builds, hopefully the technology will have improved enough for it to be more practical.

[Working 2 Cruise]

It is an interesting topic but the fact that OP says he is going to look elsewhere for his cruising needs because Princess isn't going to comply with his demands really detracts from the discussion.

 

OP, if you're really serious about this, then I suggest you compile a list of cruise lines that do involve eco cruising, what each cruise line is doing and any results thereof. Then, maybe, we can take you seriously.

[Astro Flyer]

On the other hand like so many "green" initiatives they are done, not because they really make any environmental or practical sense, but because people that don't know any better feel good about them. The list of such feel good, but more environmental results projects is extensive.

First of all thanks for taking the time to share your educated info which confirms my feelings about solar cells on cruise ships.

 

I've read many times that the amount of energy it takes to produce ethanol is greater than the energy it provides. Plus it's using corn that could be used to feed starving people around the world. I think that everyone wants more environmentally friendly things however truly efficient ones & not inefficient "feel good" ones.

 

How's this for a coincidence? Below my post is a sponsored ad about "your cost to go solar"! :eek:

Edited June 18, 2014 by Astro Flyer

[BruceMuzz]

I'm currently working on a design for a proposed Condo ship that will be the largest passenger ship in the world - at 250,000 tons.

We are working closely with a Hawaiian company that has discovered how to double the output of solar cells.

If we place these new doubly efficient (and doubly expensive) solar panels on every available space on the ship (meaning that we will appropriate space that passengers would like to use), we may be able to power all the hair dryers used by our passengers. But nothing more. And that only works when the sun is shining.

We will still be forced to purchase over $3 Million worth of heavy diesel fuel every month to power our latest generation fuel-efficient engines.

[Pam in CA]

"Simple" is not required; a multi-billion dollar industry has the wherewithal to find solutions to complex problems, and there are certainly more complex ones out there, too.

 

 

How? What does that mean, exactly?

 

 

The placement of specific solar panels would have to be carefully thought out, even without the need for cleaning. It could be carefully thought out.

Generally, though, the solar panels would be mostly on the upward-facing surfaces of the top level of the ship. To the extent that sea spray coats such surfaces anyway, and they have to be cleaned anyway, the difference would be one of degree, not of kind. It's not as though no one has thought of how to get up there.

 

OK. So the ship gets that equipment. Again, not an insurmountable barrier.

 

"It is still uncertain" does not equal "mostly for show." If they could supply even 1 or 2% of the ship's electrical power that was being supplied by burning bunker fuel before, that's not nothing. And, as you say, solar technology is improving all the time. It's no good to just say, "oh, we'll wait until some future time when things are better." That's always going to be an available excuse, but it's never going to be a good one.

You're assuming that they could be cleaned at some point during a cruise which is, of course, not always the case. There are many ports and regions where cleaning and window washing is not allowed.

 

The solar panels need sun and they need to be able to face the sun. Again, not always feasible. Storage and distribution systems would need to be designed and built. All of this is very costly and I'm sure Princess has done a cost analysis.

 

Don't forget that Celebrity has numerous environmental violations and doesn't have permission to sail in some areas with strict environmental regulations. Princess does. Just saying.

[Colo Cruiser]

I'm currently working on a design for a proposed Condo ship that will be the largest passenger ship in the world - at 250,000 tons.

We are working closely with a Hawaiian company that has discovered how to double the output of solar cells.

If we place these new doubly efficient (and doubly expensive) solar panels on every available space on the ship (meaning that we will appropriate space that passengers would like to use), we may be able to power all the hair dryers used by our passengers. But nothing more. And that only works when the sun is shining.

We will still be forced to purchase over $3 Million worth of heavy diesel fuel every month to power our latest generation fuel-efficient engines.

 

Please keep it in Hawaii. :rolleyes:

[bhopal21]

Fincantieri could probably use some of you engineers on their design team.:rolleyes:

 

Mike:)

[bdjam]

Personally I like the idea of alternatives when it comes to energy consumption. Contrary to a couple of posts that ignore the idea, Al Gore is right. The atmosphere of the earth is warming and that in turn increases the carbon dioxide that is released which in turn warms the atmosphere. It isn't something to be ignored.

 

But, I also have to agree that solar panels are not feasible on a cruise ship. While it is possible that obstacles could be removed and solar power could be generated, I would imagine that to be effective, the number of panels would be prohibitive. Maybe when solar panels advance in technology.

 

Meantime I like the idea of LED bulbs...and I'm sure there are other ways that cruising can be more green...just don't think solar is it at this time.

[Loonbeam]

That's not entirely true. The question is can you generate more power in a specific location than is needed to overcome the additional drag.

 

That's not perpetual motion, as you are not trying to generate the power to move the ship, you are only attempting to recapture some potentially wasted energy, more along the lines of regenerative braking in a car. Or using a thermocouple to leverage engine heat for power. Heck, theoretically you could put a small windmill inside the exhaust stack and let that wasted air move it -I don't think it would generate enough energy to warrant the cost of installation of course.

 

The design of the ship I am sure produces some concentrated airflow in some locations, and I can see where it would be feasible in those locations only to put a small turbine that would produce minimal drag but due to the higher velocity airflow would generate significant spin.

 

Whether the numbers would work out is another question, beyond my engineering skills, but its not impossible. I'm also not sure if there are any locations on a given ship that would meet the necessary criteria. That doesn't mean a ship couldn't be designed to leverage the tech.

 

When you inject something into the wind flow, you disrupt the flow and that increases drag. If it worked the way you indicate then theoretically you could build a large enough ship, with enough wind turbines that once moving could generate enough power to keep itself moving (perpetual motion machine).

 

Wind mills work on land. They also work if a ship is not under power and there is normal wind. They will also work on a sail boat that is driven by the wind because the wind speed is faster then the boats speed. Thought they will be a drag on speed of the boat when tacking into the wind.

 

They will not and cannot work when the wind is generated by a boats movement, when the power is used to drive the boat. If it could work then a perpetual motion machine could be possible, which it is not.

[AKman2495]

"Simple" is not required; a multi-billion dollar industry has the wherewithal to find solutions to complex problems, and there are certainly more complex ones out there, too.

 

You said in another post that solar was "low hanging fruit" it is not "low hanging fruit in this case". Princess said they were studying this issue. he fact that they are a multi billion dollar enterprise does not mean they want to solve a complex problem that has no cost benefit....

 

 

How? What does that mean, exactly?

 

It means that the placement of solar panels can be affected by winds and the placement may have problems with the position of the sun to make them worthwhile. The fact that you don;t like my answer is what it is.

 

 

The placement of specific solar panels would have to be carefully thought out, even without the need for cleaning. It could be carefully thought out.

Generally, though, the solar panels would be mostly on the upward-facing surfaces of the top level of the ship. To the extent that sea spray coats such surfaces anyway, and they have to be cleaned anyway, the difference would be one of degree, not of kind. It's not as though no one has thought of how to get up there.

 

Again, you keep forgetting the cost involved in keeping them clean and functional. Salt is highly corrosive and it may mean the panels might have a short life at sea-again cutting the economics of such a venture down significantly.

 

 

OK. So the ship gets that equipment. Again, not an insurmountable barrier.

 

Maybe not-but it just adds more costs. Also ships are designed with a premium of space. The odds that there is a nice empty wall in the generator room to install the controls is pretty slim. Adding the solar may mean redoing a portion of the generator rooms to accommodate the control. I do not know, but it is a real possibility. That is just another cost to consider in whether it is a good idea or not.

 

 

"It is still uncertain" does not equal "mostly for show." If they could supply even 1 or 2% of the ship's electrical power that was being supplied by burning bunker fuel before, that's not nothing. And, as you say, solar technology is improving all the time. It's no good to just say, "oh, we'll wait until some future time when things are better." That's always going to be an available excuse, but it's never going to be a good one.

 

I do not think current solar technology would reach the 1% margin. Figure in reductions for salt spray and lack of sun it could knock it down quite a bit more.

 

As for waiting for better technology, most businesses that operate conservatively do that. Remember a ship must be self sustaining and it is risky to install untested equipment on a ship and rely on it.

 

While it is a nice idea to think about, you are completely ignoring the cost involved. Putting solar panels on a ship just to be fashionable is not responsible. Yet that is what you are in effect saying.

 

I would rather have Princess wait until the technology can be useful to them at a good cost-which means that they save more in fuel costs that the costs of installing and maintaing the solar panels. They also need a return on the investment.

 

Princess has engineer that are studying the field-they told you as much I trust they will take that step when it makes sense for them.

[RickEk]

Personally I like the idea of alternatives when it comes to energy consumption. Contrary to a couple of posts that ignore the idea, Al Gore is right. The atmosphere of the earth is warming and that in turn increases the carbon dioxide that is released which in turn warms the atmosphere. It isn't something to be ignored.

 

But, I also have to agree that solar panels are not feasible on a cruise ship. While it is possible that obstacles could be removed and solar power could be generated, I would imagine that to be effective, the number of panels would be prohibitive. Maybe when solar panels advance in technology.

 

Meantime I like the idea of LED bulbs...and I'm sure there are other ways that cruising can be more green...just don't think solar is it at this time.

 

I agree... and from what I understand Royal/Regal Princess make extensive use of LED's (I'm sure recent Royal/Regal cruisers will confirm).

[shredie]

The way to make ships eco friedndly is go back to sails and eat dried biscuits.

 

 

Aye, matey, ahoy and all that. If an eco PR move is important to OP, then he will be waiting awhile for Princess. Hey, isn't that Greenpeace cruise line still around?:p

[RDC1]

That's not entirely true. The question is can you generate more power in a specific location than is needed to overcome the additional drag.

 

That's not perpetual motion, as you are not trying to generate the power to move the ship, you are only attempting to recapture some potentially wasted energy, more along the lines of regenerative braking in a car. Or using a thermocouple to leverage engine heat for power. Heck, theoretically you could put a small windmill inside the exhaust stack and let that wasted air move it -I don't think it would generate enough energy to warrant the cost of installation of course.

 

The design of the ship I am sure produces some concentrated airflow in some locations, and I can see where it would be feasible in those locations only to put a small turbine that would produce minimal drag but due to the higher velocity airflow would generate significant spin.

 

Whether the numbers would work out is another question, beyond my engineering skills, but its not impossible. I'm also not sure if there are any locations on a given ship that would meet the necessary criteria. That doesn't mean a ship couldn't be designed to leverage the tech.

 

Windmills work in an energy positive way when they tap into normal wind flow, when they are in any position to capture wind from a driven vehicle, the energy needed to overcome the drag will be more then the resulting energy generated, Any generation device is less then 100% efficient. Less energy is generated then the energy that is put in. The drag generated will be more then the energy generated. If you put it in high air flow areas, you generate more drag then if you put it in low air flow areas. Laws of Physics.

 

The point I was making about the ship is that if it worked as you say in the micro, and you were willing to spend enough money then it would also work in the macr and theoretically you could create a perpetual motion machine.

 

The only case where you would get more power out of it would be in those cases where you have a tailwind blowing faster then the ship is moving (the sailing ship model) in that case the drag actually works like a sail and provides both positive force as well as spins the windmill. But that is a very limited case.

[OzKiwiJJ]

Unless there is a massive leap in solar power technology, I sadly doubt that it would be a viable option for more than token power production on a cruise ship. Here’s why:

 

1. Solar panels are very large and each panel is capable of generating 250-327 watts of power depending on make (from brands available in Australia). There really isn’t much available space on a cruise ship to mount solar panels without impacting on passenger deck space.

 

2. Solar panels work on light, not heat, and the more sun, the more power is produced. Cloudy days don’t produce much power.

 

3. Solar panels work best at certain orientations to the sun, at an angle not on a flat surface. In the northern hemisphere a southerly aspect is best, and a northerly aspect is best in the southern hemisphere. It’s easy to arrange that on a house with parts of the roof facing in different directions but cruise ships move around a lot. They may be facing north one day, east the next, then south. To be fully effective, solar panels on a cruise ship would need to be mounted on platforms that could rotate 360 degrees.

 

4. Solar panels don’t start producing maximum power the moment the sun rises. It’s a bell curve. They start off producing trickle of power when the sun rises, reach maximum power production in the middle of the day and taper off as the sun moves to the west and sets. They don’t produce any power at night.

 

5. As others have said, solar panels work best when they are clean. A cruise ship floating on the ocean is a very hostile environment for a solar panel array, not only from salt spray crusting the array but also for the effects of the salt-laden air on the components. You can’t seal a solar array away from the elements. The panels would probably have to be cleaned daily to help maximise power production.

 

We installed a 4.9kW system at home last December. We’re very happy with it. It was very expensive to install and will take several years to pay for itself. We don’t have the maximum number of panels that could be fitted on to our roof as our state (NSW) legislation only permits systems of less than 5kW to be connect to the grid via single phase. However we have covered much of the useful part of our roof – we have 15 panels.

 

On a perfect day in mid-summer, clear blue sky, no clouds, and not too hot (heat affects how the panels perform) we produced just under 32kWh. On a dark, cloudy day we get less than 5kWh all day. We don’t produce enough power to completely offset our power bills but the summer/autumn quarterly bill was significantly reduced. I’m now waiting to see what the autumn/winter figures are.

 

I think solar power is absolutely wonderful but there are some places it just isn’t viable as a major source of power, and a cruise ship is one of those places. Perhaps in another decade or so the technology will have evolved to make it viable. I agree that, at this point in time, those ships that boast of having solar power are just doing so for PR purposes, as the cost of installing and maintaining those arrays would far outweigh the benefits.

[Pam in CA]

If an eco PR move is important to OP, then he will be waiting awhile for Princess. Hey, isn't that Greenpeace cruise line still around?:p

Now, there's a thought! The Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior runs not under solar power but wind power with an auxiliary electric engine.

 

I agree that, at this point in time, those ships that boast of having solar power are just doing so for PR purposes, as the cost of installing and maintaining those arrays would far outweigh the benefits.

Or they're powering a couple of lights. :)

[OzKiwiJJ]

Or they're powering a couple of lights. :)

 

That's a heck of an expensive way to power a couple of lights :D

 

Actually, since my cruise is at Christmas I will be using solar power on the ship. I'm planning on taking some solar powered LED lights to wrap around my balcony ;)

[donaldsc]

If you want to be green, I would suggest that you book on one of the lines to do sailing cruises. There are several of them out there and cruises on them would be both really exciting and green. You could even attach large windmills to the ship somewhere so as it sails powered by wind, the wind also generates electricity.

 

DON

Edited June 19, 2014 by donaldsc

[ar1950]

Full disclosure, I did not read all of the posts here so maybe this is a repeat. To the OP, why should Princess invest in an inefficient, and costly technology with no real benefit that everyone is going to have to pay extra for (fare costs) to finance? Not only that, most solar panels are produced using rare earth materials that come primarily from China, THE biggest polluter in the world today (anyone remember the videos from the Olympics in Beijing a couple of years ago?). Just because the pollution has been relocated to some where else in the world does not mean that the issue has been properly addressed. Good luck with your green technology convictions.

Edited June 19, 2014 by ar1950

[Loonbeam]

Ok. So in the interests of finding out if the idea would work, I spoke to an actual alternative energy engineer at one of my clients.

 

Short answers: Both solar and wind at sea are technically feasible, but the gains in energy are nowhere near sufficient to justify the cost, there are many other technologies that would be more effective.

 

Solar - every reason listed here is valid, but the biggest drawbacks are voltage levels and motion.

 

Wind - while it is technically possible to get more energy out of a wind turbine than you would need to propel to offset drag, the conditions to do so would need to be so perfect as to be effectively impossible. Also, the rig would only operate at fairly high speeds and the best return you could probably expect with current tech is around .01 % reclaim. Apparently they tried it on trains at some point with the idea of lighting passenger compartments using the slipstream. Because of the relative efficiency of the engine, they were able to generate lights at a net lower energy cost but only when the train was going over a certain speed, at lower speeds, the net energy cost was significantly higher than just on the engine.

[rocker57]

What I find fascinating about this idea, is let me get it straight, 1) for most people, to get to a cruise ship are either flying, or driving 2) we are taking a holiday, where despite good intentions, a lot of food goes to waste, we've all seen some of those dishes filled to overflowing at the buffet 3) when we get to a port, we are upsetting the natural balance, amt of people in the water, the amt of tour buses, all the people affecting the ecosystem. It seems to me, that cruise ships do a lot of recycling, and isn't the grey water filtered to be reused?

My point is, if one is that worried about cruise lines using solar power because of the environment, then perhaps staycations is a better use of your down time:rolleyes:

[insidecabin]

4. Limited surface area for installation. Installations negatively impact other uses (think sunroof in cars, Lido pool area, windows, sports deck, etc on ships)

 

In cars there is the use of solar to run ventilation in hot weather when parked up,

 

conveniently usually sunny/hot coincide.

 

Usually embedded in the sunroof

Edited June 19, 2014 by insidecabin

[pablo222]

This seemed to me to be an unacceptable answer

 

If you find the answer unacceptable, I suggest you take your business

somewhere else.

 

I ship being powered by a half dozen diesel generators is orders

of magnitude less efficient than a commercial power grid.

 

Why worry about a .001% improvement, when you can make a

significant improvement by not using the product at all?

 

You said you're green -- walk the walk.

[Potstech]

"Generally, though, the solar panels would be mostly on the upward-facing surfaces of the top level of the ship. To the extent that sea spray coats such surfaces anyway, and they have to be cleaned anyway, the difference would be one of degree, not of kind. It's not as though no one has thought of how to get up there."

 

And there inlies one of the biggest problems in putting them on a ship. Ships design take into account anything that makes a particular ship "top heavy". Any items that add to the uper structure weight must be compensated at the bottom of the ship. This is because at some point a ship has a point of no return, determined by top side weight, that it can not recover form in a tilt inn a storm. By adding the weight of solar panels to the top of a ship you decrease that angle by a good proportion thus putting the ship in greater danger in a storm. Solar Panels are NOT the total solution for energy problems and those that insist it is fail to take many things into consideration. Adding that much weight just to control elevators is NOT fiscally or structurally sound.

[Berliner]

:rolleyes: Is there something in the water?