Horrible new scrubber funnels on Freedom class

[alfaeric]

Are you serious.... China has good air quailty? They are one of the worst countries as are most of Asia and the Middle East.

 

Where is so much of our goods produced? Asia countries..... Don't understand the difference in producing something in a country with little regulation, especially pollution control. It is simple economics, burden business with added expenses and regulations, the cost of their product goes up, thus is it much cheaper to buy from those countries without regulation who are doing 90% of the damage. China is ranked as the 9th worst polluting country. US is ranked 90th.

 

Where do we get our fuel from?? Lots of it anyway, the Mid East and look at their pollution.

 

Stop ALL pollution in the US and it will have little improvement of our climate and pollution.

 

 

I didn't say China had good air quality.

 

I said they are quickly installing regulations to improve their air quality.

 

And if you really think there isn't an improvement in air quality due to local regulations, where have you been for the last 50 years? Relative to 1970, our air and water are MASSIVELY better than they were back then.

 

Almost not even fair to compare.

 

Our population has gone up, but the air and water pollution has gone down. And that's even with countries just starting to try to catch up our regulations.

 

As for usage- you imply that you would travel to a different country just to have a cheaper cruise that doesn't comply with US regulations. Would you really do that?

 

We still make cars and trucks in the US, but also cars made in other countries pass our air quality rules. And many foreign country manufacturers MAKE cars in the US. All with the burden of meeting the laws for both the plants AND the cars. So that's not exactly what your theory comes up with.

 

This is a good thing for our coastal water air quality. Done.

[alfaeric]

Actually, the US ECA extends 200 miles from the entire North American coast. And it was the 3rd ECA enacted, after the North Sea and Baltic areas, and was followed by the ECA restrictions while in EU ports, and soon to be Med ECA. In fact, the IMO has made the regulations so that emissions worldwide by ships will tighten up in 2020, nearly to what the ECA's require, and then further study may tighten them even more worldwide.

 

Thank you for the correction.

 

One note about the stacks vs. the ECA rule- as I understand it, the rule was for ships to use low sulfur fuel within the boundary. But RCI negotiated the alternative of using scrubbers and keep using the bunker fuel.

[shellunderwater]

Well, my two cents....

 

Some folks care about where the bed is located, who is the Captain and CD. Some care about what beer, wine or liquor will be aboard ship.

 

OP apparently has an affinity for ships. I get that. I have friends who also have affinity for ships. We all have things we enjoy. Apparently the OP likes ship or design features.

 

As with much, to each his own.

 

Do I personally care? Not really. Do I care the OP took the time to post? Nope.

 

Give me a drink in my hand and a bench/chair to sit on at the pool, I'm happy.

[chengkp75]

Thank you for the correction.

 

One note about the stacks vs. the ECA rule- as I understand it, the rule was for ships to use low sulfur fuel within the boundary. But RCI negotiated the alternative of using scrubbers and keep using the bunker fuel.

 

No, the original law stated that ships could either burn low sulfur fuel (diesel fuel) or install scrubbers. There was no negotiation, it is a cost/benefit decision for all shipowners as to which direction to go, based on how much time is spent in the ECA.

[troykahack]

Don't quite get your point. Whether or not China or the Middle East has health issues due to pollution has little effect on air quality in the US. Since we are talking about cruise ship fuel, and cruise ships that sail in US waters, what does industrial pollution in other countries have to do with the argument? Do you think that the cruise lines will import fuel oil from those other countries, pay to ship it all the way here, and then use it in their ships? And what does regulation of the air quality from cruise ships mean to driving the industry away? Do you really think that conforming to the US ECA will drive the cruise industry (or all shipping, since the ECA applies to every ship of whatever type that enters the ECA) from the US? Carnival tried that with Baltimore, and look what it got them, nothing, and they are back sailing from Baltimore with scrubbers.

 

My point is, the amount of pollution the US causes is a drop in the bucket compared to many countries.

 

Due to our regulations, it puts US based industries at a disadvantage to other countries that do not regulate. It costs us more to produce the same product with the added expenses and cost to meet the regulation.

 

Even if the US had ZERO emissions, it would really do nothing to stop pollution until such time as all countries reduce their emissions. Right now, it is a waste of money on our part. Similar to the regulation on Coal, a less expensive fuel product.

 

The US continues to fail as our costs to build a similar like product is so much more than those countries that have very little regulation.

[epcopres]

I think the 12th deck they added forward during the dry docks look worse than the funnels. Its just something weird looking about that section of new rooms on freedom class.

[Clarea]

I think the 12th deck they added forward during the dry docks look worse than the funnels. Its just something weird looking about that section of new rooms on freedom class.

I feel the same way, that section has diminished the forward line of the ship for me.

[setsail]

Scrubbing a funnel is not as easy as it looks

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=216458&d=1325001885

[123funcruiser]

Going by the OP´s pics I have to say they did a good Job on the funnels. It Looks fine to me, but yeah those slides at the back...:eek:they really ruin the ships appearance.:(

[123funcruiser]

My point is, the amount of pollution the US causes is a drop in the bucket compared to many countries.

 

Due to our regulations, it puts US based industries at a disadvantage to other countries that do not regulate. It costs us more to produce the same product with the added expenses and cost to meet the regulation.

 

Even if the US had ZERO emissions, it would really do nothing to stop pollution until such time as all countries reduce their emissions. Right now, it is a waste of money on our part. Similar to the regulation on Coal, a less expensive fuel product.

 

The US continues to fail as our costs to build a similar like product is so much more than those countries that have very little regulation.

 

What an ignorant statement:eek::eek::eek:

 

 

Oops, just noticed who posted this. So nevermind. :rolleyes:

 

Bella, where are you?

Edited October 5, 2016 by 123funcruiser

[troykahack]

What an ignorant statement:eek::eek::eek:

 

What part is not fact?

[sky0000547]

It's currently being installed on Independence and part of the port side is all boarded up and inaccessible to the public.

 

[Pickels]

Are you kidding me? How many cruisers are capable of identifying a scrubber on a cruise ship? I know I couldn't; and really don't care. :rolleyes:

[setsail]

Are you kidding me? How many cruisers are capable of identifying a scrubber on a cruise ship? I know I couldn't; and really don't care. :rolleyes:

 

There are 2 scrubbers in post 33:p

 

Easy to spot

Edited October 5, 2016 by setsail

[BillOh]

I feel the same way, that section has diminished the forward line of the ship for me.

 

I almost always agree with Bob. Who should I vote for in Nov? (Kidding) I agree about cruise related topics. Gratefully enjoying this site free of politics most of the time. Soon I'll see what Adventure looks like.

[Espn]

Now if you wore one of those scrubbers to the MDR on formal night you would get a totally different reaction here. :D

[123funcruiser]

Scrubbing a funnel is not as easy as it looks

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=216458&d=1325001885

 

Well I still don´t think the scrubbers ruin the ships appearance.:D:D:D

[chengkp75]

My point is, the amount of pollution the US causes is a drop in the bucket compared to many countries.

 

Due to our regulations, it puts US based industries at a disadvantage to other countries that do not regulate. It costs us more to produce the same product with the added expenses and cost to meet the regulation.

 

Even if the US had ZERO emissions, it would really do nothing to stop pollution until such time as all countries reduce their emissions. Right now, it is a waste of money on our part. Similar to the regulation on Coal, a less expensive fuel product.

 

The US continues to fail as our costs to build a similar like product is so much more than those countries that have very little regulation.

 

Yes, but even looking at it parochially, our health is better because the air is cleaner here, where most of the pollution in your other nations pretty much remains there. We are not talking green house gases here, we are talking carcinogens in the air. That stuff doesn't travel thousands of miles.

 

The thought of the US as a manufacturing country belongs in the last century. Even if you took away the one, single most important regulation regarding the cost of manufacturing in the US; the minimum wage, you still would not find people willing to do the manufacturing jobs at the wages necessary to compete with the labor in the rest of the world. Due to our standard of living, we have to transition into a service and intellectual economy or we will perish. Trying to cling to manufacturing is the way to failure as well.

 

Sorry, shouldn't get into politics here, apologies.

[TwoTravelin]

My understanding is all ships will be getting scrubbers and it will take a few years and be done in phases. With that in mind, I do believe there will be cosmetic updating and they will not stay this look.

[troykahack]

Yes, but even looking at it parochially, our health is better because the air is cleaner here, where most of the pollution in your other nations pretty much remains there. We are not talking green house gases here, we are talking carcinogens in the air. That stuff doesn't travel thousands of miles.

 

The thought of the US as a manufacturing country belongs in the last century. Even if you took away the one, single most important regulation regarding the cost of manufacturing in the US; the minimum wage, you still would not find people willing to do the manufacturing jobs at the wages necessary to compete with the labor in the rest of the world. Due to our standard of living, we have to transition into a service and intellectual economy or we will perish. Trying to cling to manufacturing is the way to failure as well.

 

Sorry, shouldn't get into politics here, apologies.

 

Is it not more hazardous to our health to have smoking in a public indoor area of a ship such as a Casino?

 

I don't deny that cleaner air is better for one. We just need to be on equal footing with the other countries. Don't punish the US Business or burden with excess regulation.

 

I guess it is a difference of opinion what would better balance income and wages. I know there are many who think all should have equal pay. But then you would need to get on a wait list for a cruise.

 

Still trying to figure out how my statement was ignorant. Sort of like name calling. I believe the statements I made are indeed the truth and factual.

Edited October 5, 2016 by troykahack

[wl2cruise]

Thank you for the correction.

 

One note about the stacks vs. the ECA rule- as I understand it, the rule was for ships to use low sulfur fuel within the boundary. But RCI negotiated the alternative of using scrubbers and keep using the bunker fuel.

 

Only California law requires ships to burn low sulfur.

[chengkp75]

Only California law requires ships to burn low sulfur.

 

Nope, as of August 2012, the US ECA went into effect, limiting sulfur content in marine fuels to 1% within the ECA, which is defined as being 200 miles from the coast of the North American continent, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the USVI. On January 1st, 2015, the sulfur limit on marine fuels within the US ECA was reduced to 0.1%, which matches what California has had in effect for many years. So, while California used to be the only place, now the entire US and Canada are the same.

 

Here is the EPA notice of regulation:

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjdoJyYrcTPAhWk24MKHfdQBsMQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww3.epa.gov%2Fnonroad%2Fmarine%2Fci%2F420f10015.pdf&usg=AFQjCNETeBMBOcTKqS1tQyIM0BdBfK_P_Q

[chengkp75]

Is it not more hazardous to our health to have smoking in a public indoor area of a ship such as a Casino?

 

 

But, again, the US can regulate what happens outside a foreign flag ship, but they cannot regulate what happens inside a foreign flag ship, so the comparison of stack emissions to smoking in the casino is flawed.

[alfaeric]

Is it not more hazardous to our health to have smoking in a public indoor area of a ship such as a Casino?

 

I don't deny that cleaner air is better for one. We just need to be on equal footing with the other countries. Don't punish the US Business or burden with excess regulation.

 

I guess it is a difference of opinion what would better balance income and wages. I know there are many who think all should have equal pay. But then you would need to get on a wait list for a cruise.

 

Still trying to figure out how my statement was ignorant. Sort of like name calling. I believe the statements I made are indeed the truth and factual.

 

Health related air and water pollution are very, very local. You can see that in areas like LA and Houston. So when products sold here are able to clean up that local air, we benefit.

 

AGAIN, cars made in the US or not all have to meet the rules here in the US- the emission rules they have to meet have nothing to do with some advantage another country's rules allow. Chinese cars have to meet CARB and EPA emissions just like cars made in the US. There's no advantage that you make up. For ships- the rules apply whether the ship comes from China, is flagged in the Bahamas, or is shipping stuff from Italy. Everyone equally has to meet the rules.

 

The burden is on anyone who wants to participate in our market. And there are more companies that want to participate globally, than not.

 

So, no, your statements are not truthful nor accurate.

 

My industry is one of the regulated ones- and it works quite well. The rules are so even across all companies that one can use the regulations to gain an advantage if you put enough work in it. And we have products from Asia and Europe being sold here, plus some of those products from Asian and European countries are MADE here in the US.

 

Heck, thanks to the regulations, our products are light years better than they were before the regulations. far, far, far less impact on society, so that we can keep using them.

 

As for smokers, I'm sure a lot of people would love to ban them from casinos.

 

So- in summary- air pollution is far more local than global, and thes regulations are equally applied to all who want to participate in the US (not biased against US companies).

Edited October 5, 2016 by alfaeric

[alfaeric]

Nope, as of August 2012, the US ECA went into effect, limiting sulfur content in marine fuels to 1% within the ECA, which is defined as being 200 miles from the coast of the North American continent, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the USVI. On January 1st, 2015, the sulfur limit on marine fuels within the US ECA was reduced to 0.1%, which matches what California has had in effect for many years. So, while California used to be the only place, now the entire US and Canada are the same.

 

Here is the EPA notice of regulation:

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjdoJyYrcTPAhWk24MKHfdQBsMQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww3.epa.gov%2Fnonroad%2Fmarine%2Fci%2F420f10015.pdf&usg=AFQjCNETeBMBOcTKqS1tQyIM0BdBfK_P_Q

 

Which links to here- https://www3.epa.gov/nonroad/marine/ci/420f10015.pdf