Horrible new scrubber funnels on Freedom class

[Janet524]

They changed the funnels somehow? No big deal to me.

 

Sent from my SM-S820L using Forums mobile app

[troykahack]

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.

 

Ok Sorry.... but your analogy for emissions was for better health reasons.... yes, cleaner air is better for all. All sources...

 

I wonder how the EU countries regulates what happens on the ships. Our current Government wants to regulate everything, I just wonder why they didn't regulate smoking on the ships.

 

Maybe I should no longer refer to smoking in the Casino and just go after smoking indoors in a public area?

Edited October 5, 2016 by troykahack

[wl2cruise]

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

 

Sorry but you are wrong, read this.

 

http://www.kyl.com/2016/04/07/maritime-alert-california-air-emissions-rules-update/

[swim13]

Everyone seems to be freaking out over nothing. I understand where to OP is coming from. It's a simple observation that the Freedom class ships looked absolutely gorgeous externally when they first came out of the ship yard. Now with all of the additions, the ship is looking a bit off. It's simply not as beautiful as it once was, but it's not going to stop people from vacationing obviously.

 

Have you ever been to an extraordinarily beautiful place? It's all the small details an architect or designer put into that place. For people who are detail oriented like me, you would notice this. Could you imagine not noticing this when walking up to the ship? I would be worried that if I didn't notice these dramatic changes, I must not be noticing a lot of things in my life! :eek:

[troykahack]

 

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.

 

 

I'm sorry, I just don't believe this. What about the plants that manufacturer those products that come into the US? Their emissions are not regulated as are ours. So therefore, they don't have the restrictions and costs that regulation causes, even though they manufacturer a product that meets our standards. What about the plants that manufacturer electronic products, pc boards and all. It takes many chemicals and emissions to do this.

 

Labor is a big part but emissions is also less expensive on the manufacturer in those countries less regulated. Google any pollution map and you will see the countries that are polluting our air and the manufacturing plants doing the damage.

 

I am all for clean and healthy air, but we put so much regulations on the US and business as compared to other countries. Please, just look at a map of pollution. How can you not say they are polluting our air to send products into our country?

 

Obama just announced the Paris Pact and he says China has signed on to it. The critics say that China will not change and that this new clean air act will just let those countries farther ahead of us. If they adapt, then good.

[shellunderwater]

Uuummmm, this IS Cruise Critic.

 

Cruise....

 

Not a world affairs lecture series.

 

Stay on topic, please.

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Forums mobile app

[John&LaLa]

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.:(

 

Looks much better now that they have the covers over them.

[John&LaLa]

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

 

The view is nice from the 12th floor balconies. You really don't notice the profile of the ship then. ;)

[alfaeric]

I'm sorry, I just don't believe this. What about the plants that manufacturer those products that come into the US? Their emissions are not regulated as are ours. So therefore, they don't have the restrictions and costs that regulation causes, even though they manufacturer a product that meets our standards. What about the plants that manufacturer electronic products, pc boards and all. It takes many chemicals and emissions to do this.

 

Labor is a big part but emissions is also less expensive on the manufacturer in those countries less regulated. Google any pollution map and you will see the countries that are polluting our air and the manufacturing plants doing the damage.

 

I am all for clean and healthy air, but we put so much regulations on the US and business as compared to other countries. Please, just look at a map of pollution. How can you not say they are polluting our air to send products into our country?

 

Obama just announced the Paris Pact and he says China has signed on to it. The critics say that China will not change and that this new clean air act will just let those countries farther ahead of us. If they adapt, then good.

 

What is it that you don't believe?

 

It is a fact that cars sold in the US have to meet US and CARB emissions regulations, regardless of where they are made. So we have cars made all over the world sold here in the US, and the impact that they have on US air quality is reasonably equal.

 

Look at emissions caused by manufacturing- it's only high in certain industries. For cars, the gas emissions formed by their operation is worse than the manufacturing. Which is why there are rules. Cars were not made in California when they needed to regulate them.

 

And THIS issue for the ships is about the USE near US borders, not how it's made.

 

The scrubbers have nothing to do with the Paris act. Not at all. Red herring. This isn't about CO2 and global warming. It's about air quality. That has been posted more than once. Read that again- this is about air quality which is local, not global CO2. Got that?

 

Air pollution in China has less of an impact here in the US than US generated pollution.

 

The regulations are for anyone who wants to participate in our market- from anywhere. Local or foreign. There's no bias. RCI's cruise ships are made in Europe, flagged mostly in the Bahamas and still have to meet US air quality rules.

 

AGAIN, I work in one of the more heavily regulated industries. The air quality regulations don't bias imports over products made here.

 

One final thing- it appears that many on this board are ok with paying a little more to keep their air clean. Just sayn.

[davekathy]

Man the Liberty is a good looking ship.

[John&LaLa]

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.

 

FWIW, they've been working on Freedom for a year and a half and I don't think they are half way there yet. :eek:

[alfaeric]

Sorry but you are wrong, read this.

 

http://www.kyl.com/2016/04/07/maritime-alert-california-air-emissions-rules-update/

 

All that says is that California's 0.1% sulfur rule will remain in effect even with the EPA's ECA rule that also requires 0.1% sulfur fuel, for two more years.

 

Not sure how that makes anyone wrong.

 

Heck ECA requires 200 miles of the 0.1% sulfur fuel whereas CARB rules only extend to 24 miles....

[troykahack]

Looks much better now that they have the covers over them.

 

 

And I agree, looks better. Pretty big ugly thing without the cover, but it has a lot to do... if you read up on the scrubbers. I guess they use Salt Water or something similar to bombard the bad sulfur and turn it into muriatic acid, and the centrifuge it out before it leaves the stack. Maybe not exactly correct.

 

It says this is a testing phase as they must meet the standard by 2020? Must drop for current 3.5% to less than 0.5%... with an estimated cost of over $400 million. And note sure they are at the required level yet.

 

So maybe yet another change... the problem is the difference in fuel costs from the low sulfur fuel to what they are using now....

 

Not sure all this info is 100% correct but something like this..

[John&LaLa]

Ok Sorry.... but your analogy for emissions was for better health reasons.... yes, cleaner air is better for all. All sources...

 

I wonder how the EU countries regulates what happens on the ships. Our current Government wants to regulate everything, I just wonder why they didn't regulate smoking on the ships.

 

Maybe I should no longer refer to smoking in the Casino and just go after smoking indoors in a public area?

 

Have you considered cruising out of Australia? No smoking there.

[troykahack]

Have you considered cruising out of Australia? No smoking there.

 

Actually yes, we have already booked a cruise on Royal for the Med on the next Presidents cruise. Australia is on our bucket list.

 

I have said, the smoking on EN was tolerable. No longer smoking in the bar area and both areas are divided. SO even played... that is rare around smoking.... SO sees so many smokers.... it really costs the US so much $$$

[chengkp75]

Sorry but you are wrong, read this.

 

http://www.kyl.com/2016/04/07/maritime-alert-california-air-emissions-rules-update/

 

You misunderstood the article;

 

"Vessels operating within 24 nautical miles of the California’s coastline (“Regulated California Waters”) have been required to use distillate fuel with a sulfur content of 0.1% (1,000 ppm) since July 2009."

 

"As of January 1, 2015, Annex VI to the IMO’s International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (“MARPOL”) has required vessels to use fuel with a sulfur content of 0.1% when operating in the North American Emission Control Area (“ECA”). "

 

"The ECA encompasses Regulated California Waters as it extends 200 nautical miles off the West Coast of the United States, as well as the Gulf of Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and the East Coast of the United States."

 

 

So, as I said, as of 1/1/2015, the US ECA matches the the CARB sulfur limit.

 

Now;

 

"[CARB’s low-sulfur fuel requirements] shall remain in effect under this subsection until the Executive Officer issues written findings that federal requirements are in place that will achieve equivalent emissions reductions within the Regulated California Waters and are being enforced within the Regulated California Waters.” This language has generally been referred to as the “Sunset Provision.”"

 

" Since January 2015, the maritime community has awaited CARB’s determination on whether MARPOL Annex VI’s requirements “achieved equivalent emissions reductions within the Regulated California Waters and are being enforced within the Regulated California Waters,” and thus, whether or not it would trigger the Sunset Provision."

 

What this means is that while all ships are required to burn low sulfur fuel within the US ECA, California is waiting to decide whether to remove their identical requirement depending on whether their testing determines if the US ECA's enforcement equals the CARB enforcement.

[troykahack]

You misunderstood the article;

 

"Vessels operating within 24 nautical miles of the California’s coastline (“Regulated California Waters”) have been required to use distillate fuel with a sulfur content of 0.1% (1,000 ppm) since July 2009."

 

"As of January 1, 2015, Annex VI to the IMO’s International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (“MARPOL”) has required vessels to use fuel with a sulfur content of 0.1% when operating in the North American Emission Control Area (“ECA”). "

 

"The ECA encompasses Regulated California Waters as it extends 200 nautical miles off the West Coast of the United States, as well as the Gulf of Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and the East Coast of the United States."

 

 

So, as I said, as of 1/1/2015, the US ECA matches the the CARB sulfur limit.

 

Now;

 

"[CARB’s low-sulfur fuel requirements] shall remain in effect under this subsection until the Executive Officer issues written findings that federal requirements are in place that will achieve equivalent emissions reductions within the Regulated California Waters and are being enforced within the Regulated California Waters.” This language has generally been referred to as the “Sunset Provision.”"

 

" Since January 2015, the maritime community has awaited CARB’s determination on whether MARPOL Annex VI’s requirements “achieved equivalent emissions reductions within the Regulated California Waters and are being enforced within the Regulated California Waters,” and thus, whether or not it would trigger the Sunset Provision."

 

What this means is that while all ships are required to burn low sulfur fuel within the US ECA, California is waiting to decide whether to remove their identical requirement depending on whether their testing determines if the US ECA's enforcement equals the CARB enforcement.

 

Doesn't this mean a lot of Government Regulation, more executive orders?

[alfaeric]

Doesn't this mean a lot of Government Regulation, more executive orders?

 

Dude, most regulations come from people suing because they are being harmed in some way.

 

People were upset due to bad air quality, so they demanded that government does something. Then laws were passed to reduce the health effects of stuff that exhaust stuff into the air or water.

 

Geez.

 

I know it's fun to be anti government and regulation, but you should at least be aware of the point.

[chengkp75]

And I agree, looks better. Pretty big ugly thing without the cover, but it has a lot to do... if you read up on the scrubbers. I guess they use Salt Water or something similar to bombard the bad sulfur and turn it into muriatic acid, and the centrifuge it out before it leaves the stack. Maybe not exactly correct.

 

It says this is a testing phase as they must meet the standard by 2020? Must drop for current 3.5% to less than 0.5%... with an estimated cost of over $400 million. And note sure they are at the required level yet.

 

So maybe yet another change... the problem is the difference in fuel costs from the low sulfur fuel to what they are using now....

 

Not sure all this info is 100% correct but something like this..

 

Scrubbers generally cost $1-1.5 million per engine. The price difference in the fuel is that diesel fuel (the only fuel that meets the sulfur requirements) is twice the cost of residual fuel oil. Until the scrubbers are in place and tested, the ship must burn diesel fuel while in the ECA. The scrubbers will allow the ship to continue to burn the 3.5% sulfur residual fuel oil.

 

Current worldwide sulfur content is 3.5%, but the US ECA requires 0.1%. In 2020, worldwide sulfur content will drop to 1%.

 

It generally takes about a year to install a pair of these multi-engine scrubbers (the Freedom got set back because of the fire up there during installation), and then 6-8 months of adjusting of the system for testing to meet the standards.

 

Scrubbers take sea water and spray it into the exhaust to knock the emissions particles out of the gas and into the mist, which is collected at the bottom of the scrubber. The combination of sulfur dioxide in the exhaust gas and water forms sulfuric acid, so a caustic chemical is added to the sea water to neutralize the acid.

 

There are two methods of dealing with the pollutants that are taken out of the exhaust gas by the sea water, open system and closed system. The closed system is used only when necessary, due to initial system start up or local regulations, and takes the sea water and centrifuges the pollutants out and reuses the sea water in the scrubber over and over. The pollutants are transferred to the ship's waste oil tank for incineration or disposal ashore to licensed facilities. Open systems are what the cruise lines hope to achieve, and this is where the sea water's level of pollutants are low enough that the sea water is discharged overboard after being used in the scrubber once.

[bigque]

WOW! Before this thread I didn't have any idea what a scrubber is and still not really sure if I do! I have never really look at that kind of stuff like that! :confused:

[troykahack]

Dude, most regulations come from people suing because they are being harmed in some way.

 

People were upset due to bad air quality, so they demanded that government does something. Then laws were passed to reduce the health effects of stuff that exhaust stuff into the air or water.

 

Geez.

 

I know it's fun to be anti government and regulation, but you should at least be aware of the point.

 

 

Really... I really don't believe it involves lawsuits... the only one am aware of is the one is from Alaska suing our Goverement to stop the new ECA requirements for Alaska as most of their supplies come by boats.

 

I know where these regulations are coming from, if you don't, you really must have your head in the sand... sorry... that was not meant as an insult... I mean if you don't know who is pushing all this regulation then I guess you just don't know..

Edited October 5, 2016 by troykahack

[chengkp75]

Doesn't this mean a lot of Government Regulation, more executive orders?

 

Actually, as one who has to deal with the US ECA every working day of my life, since my ship is a Jones Act tanker and spends its entire time inside the US ECA, there is very little impact on the day to day operation of the ship. There is also very little regulation needed, since the refineries know that they need to produce the required fuel, and that selling the wrong fuel for use in the US ECA falls back on them, as the ship would refuse to load it, and the fuel supplier then has to pump it back off the bunker barge. Fuel testing for contaminants and sulfur content has been standard industry practice, worldwide, for the 40 years I've been sailing, so there's no change there, just a different number you have to look at.

 

As for regulation, its very simple. All ships are required to retain their fuel analysis reports onboard (again, standard industry practice for decades), and when the USCG (mandated by the EPA to enforce the ECA) boards a ship for a port state inspection they can look at the records to see that the proper fuel is being used. If the ship switches fuel when leaving or entering the ECA, there is one form to fill out with the position and the current amount of fuel onboard.

[alfaeric]

Really... I really don't believe it involves lawsuits... the only one am aware of is the one is from Alaska suing our Goverement to stop the new ECA requirements for Alaska as most of their supplies come by boats.

 

I know where these regulations are coming from, if you don't, you really must have your head in the sand... sorry... that was not meant as an insult... I mean if you don't know who is pushing all this regulation then I guess you just don't know..

 

Well, there belief and reality.

 

The EPA was SUED over their lack of CO2 rules. Which is why they exist today. Remember, that happened in the last administration, who had no interest in that regulation.

 

And there's the reality of making stuff- if you were right, our cars would be mostly made in places like China and India, but in fact, almost all of them come from Japan, South Korea, Europe, and North America- all of which have air quality regulations for cars and manufacturing.

 

I work in a heavily regulated industry. I've worked directly with the people negotiating upcoming rules. Sure, there's some stuff that you can't understand where it's coming from. But most are science based and the lower requirements are part of a rule that Congress made because someone wanted cleaner air.

 

AND the rules are so equally applied that they can be used to gain a competitive advantage.

 

No point in bashing my head against a brick wall.

[RDC1]

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).

 

Some air pollutants tend to be primarily local like diesel particulates. Others like sulfur compounds can result in increased acid rain thousands of miles from the source. That doesn't even get into items like CO2, and other green house gases or compounds that impact the ozone layer.

 

As a note the increase in the amount of CO2 produced per year, in China, since the Kyoto treaty is larger then all of the reductions accomplished by the US and all of the other developed countries combined in the same time period.

Edited October 5, 2016 by RDC1

[troykahack]

Actually, as one who has to deal with the US ECA every working day of my life, since my ship is a Jones Act tanker and spends its entire time inside the US ECA, there is very little impact on the day to day operation of the ship. There is also very little regulation needed, since the refineries know that they need to produce the required fuel, and that selling the wrong fuel for use in the US ECA falls back on them, as the ship would refuse to load it, and the fuel supplier then has to pump it back off the bunker barge. Fuel testing for contaminants and sulfur content has been standard industry practice, worldwide, for the 40 years I've been sailing, so there's no change there, just a different number you have to look at.

 

As for regulation, its very simple. All ships are required to retain their fuel analysis reports onboard (again, standard industry practice for decades), and when the USCG (mandated by the EPA to enforce the ECA) boards a ship for a port state inspection they can look at the records to see that the proper fuel is being used. If the ship switches fuel when leaving or entering the ECA, there is one form to fill out with the position and the current amount of fuel onboard.

 

So does this apply to ALL areas or just the US? Does this make it more expensive to conduct business in the US?