Horrible new scrubber funnels on Freedom class

[troykahack]

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.

 

 

Do these regulations apply world wide? Does the regulations cause operating in the US to be more expensive than other areas in the World?

 

How many were executive orders?

[John&LaLa]

Whatever happened to the OP?

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app

[wl2cruise]

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.

 

ECA requirements are not identical to CARB's and CARB's law was in effect before the ECA law

 

ECA law either you use low sulfur fuel or a scrubber to clean the exhaust. California law you use low sulfur fuel. CARB realized that the scrubbers are a alternative attempt in good faith to meet the requirements. They are currently testing and early results indicate they are not meeting the state requirements. So the law stays in effect and they will revisit the matter in 2 years.

 

What I think you are not understanding is the ECA law does not supersede CARB's law. ECA law also says vessels must comply with state law.

 

https://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/documents/marinenote2016_1.pdf

Edited October 5, 2016 by wl2cruise
add CARB link

[troykahack]

edited

Edited October 5, 2016 by troykahack

[troykahack]

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.

 

 

The EPA was sued buy Friends of the Earth environmental group sponsored by WHO? Did our current administration fight it? Do you not get it yet?

 

And you hit the nail on the head when you blamed the last administration. So you make your side obvious. You are for MORE Government regulations.... more restrictions on businesses....

Edited October 5, 2016 by troykahack

[setsail]

Whatever happened to the OP?

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app

 

Flunked out of scrubber class 101

[troykahack]

r.

 

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.

 

Then why are they still one of the worst polluters in the World?

[JuliaMS]

Maybe it will mean less complaints about soot on balconies. Every little bit less of pollution helps.

[RDC1]

Then why are they still one of the worst polluters in the World?

 

 

Did you actually read what I posted. Apparently not from your response.

[Arzeena]

"totally ruined" is an exaggeration to me. Much ado about nothing.

 

Yeah. What a tragedy!:rolleyes:

Perhaps Royal should give the OP some compensation :) :)

Edited October 5, 2016 by Arzeena

[KuffMUp]

Are you serious.... China has good air quailty?

 

The person said that China was accelerating their air cleanup to the pace of the EU. I did notice that China wasn't at the top of the list.

 

The reason a lot of our stuff is made in foreign countries is that their air quality standards are far below ours. The Pacific Northwest is now going through major changes in the art glass industry. Even with scrubbers, the DEQ is forcing stricter air standards. One just sold to another company who is moving the operation to Tijuana, Mexico just so they can produce glass.

[troykahack]

The person said that China was accelerating their air cleanup to the pace of the EU. I did notice that China wasn't at the top of the list.

 

The reason a lot of our stuff is made in foreign countries is that their air quality standards are far below ours. The Pacific Northwest is now going through major changes in the art glass industry. Even with scrubbers, the DEQ is forcing stricter air standards. One just sold to another company who is moving the operation to Tijuana, Mexico just so they can produce glass.

 

Exactly, stricter regulations in US, our industry packs up and moves elsewhere. Administration job elimination program.

 

My point about China is the are still a very high polluting country regardless of what changes they have made. They are 10x the US.

[troykahack]

Did you actually read what I posted. Apparently not from your response.

 

I'll read the act you posted but is China not in the top 10 worst polluters of the world??

[Rafa]

Earlier this year, RCI started adding scrubbers to their Freedom and Oasis-class ships in order to meet new emissions regulations.

 

 

These are not scrubbers!! These are 'speed up' time machines people. Many new complains about RCI cruises not long enough or that days run faster than normal.

 

RCI: remove them and return the ships back to normal time, or 'slow time down' -Us The Duo.

[RDC1]

I'll read the act you posted but is China not in the top 10 worst polluters of the world??

 

Reread what I posted. You may have read it, but clearly did not comprehend it. The posting which was not in response to you posting but someone elses.

 

Here I will explain it for you:

 

My original post:

 

"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."

 

 

"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."

 

This portion of the post means that China's production of CO2 is increasing

 

"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."

 

This portions means that in the 19 years since the Kyoto environmental treaty was signed the CO2 production in China has increased dramatically.

 

In fact is has tripled from around 3.5 billion metric tonnes to 10.5 billion metric tonnes. An amount that is equal to the entire output of the developed nations. In the same time frame, in response to the treaty those developed nations (the EU, North America, Russia, Japan) have reduced CO2 production less then 1.5 billion metric tonnes. So to put it simply after all of the actions, regulations since 1997, by the US and others China has increased CO2 production by over 4 times the amount that all of the cuts have accomplished.

Edited October 6, 2016 by RDC1

[John&LaLa]

Cabana ;)

[Fairsky84]

Wow. Some folks REALLY didn't like my OP. Didn't mean to offend or start a political debate about government regulations. A few clarifications:

 

1. I absolutely support cleaner air and the new regulations.

 

2. I applaud RCI for adding scrubbers to their ships and doing all they can to making cruising more environmentally friendly.

 

3. I am a fan of naval architecture and design. These ships, beyond offering a great vacation experience, are amazing engineering marvels and incredible examples of industrial design.

 

4. My OP was expressing disappointment that RCI didn't do more to preserve the design integrity of these ships when adding the scrubbers. (And, yes, I also lament the amusement parks being added to the top decks of many ships, but I understand the need to have them.)

 

5. For those who think this is a silly topic and the design of the funnels is irrelevant to their cruise experience—you're probably right.

[troykahack]

Reread what I posted. You may have read it, but clearly did not comprehend it. The posting which was not in response to you posting but someone elses.

 

Here I will explain it for you:

 

My original post:

 

"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."

 

 

"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."

 

This portion of the post means that China's production of CO2 is increasing

 

"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."

 

This portions means that in the 19 years since the Kyoto environmental treaty was signed the CO2 production in China has increased dramatically.

 

In fact is has tripled from around 3.5 billion metric tonnes to 10.5 billion metric tonnes. An amount that is equal to the entire output of the developed nations. In the same time frame, in response to the treaty those developed nations (the EU, North America, Russia, Japan) have reduced CO2 production less then 1.5 billion metric tonnes. So to put it simply after all of the actions, regulations since 1997, by the US and others China has increased CO2 production by over 4 times the amount that all of the cuts have accomplished.

 

Ok. My bad. I get it now. This is the concern many critics have over the new Paris Pact our Administration just signed along with China. Critics say China will just use this to increase their advantage over others as most will comply but not China. So it will cost many even more while China ramps up production of products.

Edited October 6, 2016 by troykahack

[bogofman]

and the water slides don't spoil the look?

[troykahack]

and the water slides don't spoil the look?

 

To me, it is hard to see the slide while looking at the side view of the ship.

 

If our current administration didn't order these regulations, the ship would not have changed. They can sail out of other ports without these scrubbers. So they just increase the price of a cruise out of the US. Hopefully one day we will be on equal footing with the other countries .

 

What the US does for a Green Planet matters not until the other polluting countries decide to adapt. Until then, it hurts US Jobs and business.

Edited October 6, 2016 by troykahack

[John&LaLa]

To me, it is hard to see the slide while looking at the side view of the ship.

 

If our current administration didn't order these regulations, the ship would not have changed. They can sail out of other ports without these scrubbers. So they just increase the price of a cruise out of the US. Hopefully one day we will be on equal footing with the other countries .

 

What the US does for a Green Planet matters not until the other polluting countries decide to adapt. Until then, it hurts US Jobs and business.

View of Liberty while in Cozumel.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

[troykahack]

View of Liberty while in Cozumel.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

 

Nice pictures John... You sure can see those big scrubbers in the one picture...

 

Royal is just testing these scrubbers, hoping to meet the emission standards by 2020... they have not yet got there... what will they do next... either way, it costs them lots of money and I am sure it is passed on to others... they are not required to meet these strict standards anyplace else other than within 200 miles of the US.

[alfaeric]

To me, it is hard to see the slide while looking at the side view of the ship.

 

If our current administration didn't order these regulations, the ship would not have changed. They can sail out of other ports without these scrubbers. So they just increase the price of a cruise out of the US. Hopefully one day we will be on equal footing with the other countries .

 

What the US does for a Green Planet matters not until the other polluting countries decide to adapt. Until then, it hurts US Jobs and business.

 

The MARPOL agreement was signed in 2008, prior to the election of the current administration.

[chengkp75]

To me, it is hard to see the slide while looking at the side view of the ship.

 

If our current administration didn't order these regulations, the ship would not have changed. They can sail out of other ports without these scrubbers. So they just increase the price of a cruise out of the US. Hopefully one day we will be on equal footing with the other countries .

 

What the US does for a Green Planet matters not until the other polluting countries decide to adapt. Until then, it hurts US Jobs and business.

 

Yes, the Marpol enabling legislation was passed in July 2008, and the ECA proposal was jointly presented by the US and Canada in March 2009. I don't believe that a regulation drawn up by two governments could be done from January to March 2009, so I believe the ECA was initiated by the Bush administration.

Edited October 6, 2016 by chengkp75

[chengkp75]

Nice pictures John... You sure can see those big scrubbers in the one picture...

 

Royal is just testing these scrubbers, hoping to meet the emission standards by 2020... they have not yet got there... what will they do next... either way, it costs them lots of money and I am sure it is passed on to others... they are not required to meet these strict standards anyplace else other than within 200 miles of the US.

 

Not sure where you are getting your information, but all ships, regardless of whether they are installing scrubbers or not, have to meet the emissions standards set for the US ECA as of 1 January, 2015 (for the newer sulfur level of 0.1%). Yes, they are testing the scrubbers to get them to meet the ECA requirements, but until they do, they have to meet the standards by burning low sulfur diesel fuel within the ECA. Depending on how much time the ship spends in the ECA, the scrubbers will have a payback period of 5-6 years.

 

The only mention of 2020 is that the worldwide sulfur limit is set to reduce to 0.5%.

Edited October 6, 2016 by chengkp75