Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
wkrobi

Carnival funnel question

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, bakersdozen12 said:

On a related note, here is an interview with Joe Farcus where he talks all about the design of the whale tale. It wasn’t just about aesthetics; the design is functional as well. I don’t recall if he talks about the smoke coming out specifically, but it’s an interesting interview nonetheless. 

 

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/6/5/e/65e8dffccf80871b/CRR07JUL2119.mp3?c_id=47739194&cs_id=47739194&expiration=1570277765&hwt=70b2e2472003935d1ef445345e531229

Thanks for that share. What a great interview. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, evandbob said:

I'm just glad that progress is being made in cleaning up the exhaust.  When I first started sailing back in 2003, heavy particles of soot would belch out and litter the aft portions of the ship.

 

Now I don't see heavy black smoke while the ship is in US and most Caribbean ports, but do notice it while in international waters.  Does a ship switch the types of diesel fuel used depending on local environmental laws?  Say low sulphur fuel in ports and cheaper, heavy sulphur diesel when at sea? How about the scrubbers used to clean the exhaust?   Do they operate full or part time?

 

I realize a clear visual doesn't indicate that all particulates are removed, but that black sooty smoke exhaust was/still is awful.

 

When outside of restricted zones, the ships burn heavy fuel oil. Which is nasty, nasty stuff. Yes, they do switch fuels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BNBR said:

 

When outside of restricted zones, the ships burn heavy fuel oil. Which is nasty, nasty stuff. Yes, they do switch fuels.

It sure is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Essiesmom said:

I have seen smoke coming from both sides simultaneously. 

 

Picture worth 1000 words:

 

enhanceEM

I have seen smoke from both sides also especial while going at high speed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BNBR said:

 

When outside of restricted zones, the ships burn heavy fuel oil. Which is nasty, nasty stuff. Yes, they do switch fuels.

 

1 hour ago, jimbo5544 said:

It sure is

And yet, it is completely legal, and also helps to hold down the price of refined products like gasoline and home heating oil.  Three quarters of the world's refineries can only extract about 60-70% of each barrel of crude oil into any refined product (jet, gasoline, diesel, kerosene, lubricating oils), and the remainder is residual marine fuel oil.  If the ships did not burn this, what happens to this 30% of each barrel of crude oil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

And yet, it is completely legal, and also helps to hold down the price of refined products like gasoline and home heating oil.  Three quarters of the world's refineries can only extract about 60-70% of each barrel of crude oil into any refined product (jet, gasoline, diesel, kerosene, lubricating oils), and the remainder is residual marine fuel oil.  If the ships did not burn this, what happens to this 30% of each barrel of crude oil?

 

I am not in the oil business.  What they can do to deal with the residual from refining oil is outside of my expertise.  But burning obscene amounts of the nasty stuff at sea and polluting the air, and marine environment with it seems like maybe not the best solution.  It's illegal in certain areas because it's destructive and harmful.  Which is why ships have to carry multiple types of fuels.  But we should be fine with burning it out in the open ocean?  The emissions coming out of cruise ships and covering the funnels in black are particulate, and quite unhealthy.  Terrible for the environment.  They burn high sulfur HFO because it's cheaper.  No other reason.  And they do it out at sea where it's "legal."

 

You must be very concerned about these LNG ships...  What are we going to do with the oil that they aren't burning?

Edited by BNBR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BNBR said:

 

I am not in the oil business.  What they can do to deal with the residual from refining oil is outside of my expertise.  But burning obscene amounts of the nasty stuff at sea and polluting the air, and marine environment with it seems like maybe not the best solution.  It's illegal in certain areas because it's destructive and harmful.  Which is why ships have to carry multiple types of fuels.  But we should be fine with burning it out in the open ocean?  The emissions coming out of cruise ships and covering the funnels in black are particulate, and quite unhealthy.  Terrible for the environment.  They burn high sulfur HFO because it's cheaper.  No other reason.  And they do it out at sea where it's "legal."

 

You must be very concerned about these LNG ships...  What are we going to do with the oil that they aren't burning?

Not concerned at all with the LNG ships, as this is still a very small part of a very small part of the maritime industry.  Cruise ships as a whole are about 5% of world shipping, so why is everyone so worried about cruise ships burning residual fuel, but no one screams about that other 95%?  Because that would cause the price of their consumer goods, since 80+% of world economy travels by sea, to rise and hit everyone in the pocketbook.

 

The IMO has voluntarily decreed that marine fuels will only be able to have 0.5% sulfur after January 1st next year (less than 90 days from now), down from the 3.5% currently allowed.  One of the possible scenarios that the oil industry has envisioned as a result (in addition to rising fuel costs for all ships for the lower sulfur residual fuel, and higher demand for diesel fuel) is that power plants in developing countries, which currently see an economic advantage to using lower emission fuels will jump on the plummeting price (since no demand) of high sulfur residual fuel, and will revert to burning high sulfur fuels in unregulated markets (hence even more emissions than from ships).  Another option is for the refineries that cannot refine lower than residual fuel (2nd generation refineries) will ship the residual fuel to refineries that can refine this product (3rd generation), but that will require more cost and more fuel burned to transport this product.  Will the problem be solved?  Sure.  When?  Not even the oil industry knows that, this is a major shake up of their market.  How?  Again, no one is sure.  Will it cost the consumer?  You bet it will increase the cost of every gallon of gas.

 

Yes, ships burn residual fuel because it is cheaper.  Do you put premium gas in your car?  Or do you use regular because it is cheaper?  Should regular gas be made illegal, just because it may produce more emissions than premium?  If you are concerned that ships burn residual fuel at sea, then you need to attack the problem from where it can be addressed, your government and its representatives at the IMO, not cherry picking the cruise industry because it has high visibility and deep pockets.

 

And, how will you know whether a LNG fueled cruise ship is actually burning LNG, and not diesel or residual fuel?  The engines can burn any blend of gaseous and liquid fuel from 100% liquid fuel to 95% LNG.  It will always be burning 5% liquid fuel (diesel or residual) since marine diesels don't have glow plugs and need to "jump start" combustion with a fuel that will ignite under the heat of compression.

Edited by chengkp75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

There are two designs of scrubbers, single engine and multiple engine.  RCI has gone the multiple engine route, where two or three engines all exhaust into the same scrubber.  NCL has gone the single engine route, not sure which way Carnival has gone.  The single engine scrubber basically replaces the "silencer" (sort of a muffler) in-line in the exhaust pipe, so I think maybe Carnival has gone this route, though they may have space in the superstructure below the funnel itself to install a multiple engine scrubber.  There are pros and cons to each type.  The single engine one is cheaper, per unit, and is designed to be operated "dry" (no scrubber water when outside the ECA), and takes up very little footprint.  The multiple engine one is probably cheaper overall, since the ancillary equipment (pumps, chemical dosing, particulate filtering) is common for multiple engines, but it requires bypass valves in the exhaust pipes to physically bypass the scrubber when not in use, and these can be problematic for maintenance 


 

Thank you.  I appreciate the explanation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Not concerned at all with the LNG ships, as this is still a very small part of a very small part of the maritime industry.  Cruise ships as a whole are about 5% of world shipping, so why is everyone so worried about cruise ships burning residual fuel, but no one screams about that other 95%?  Because that would cause the price of their consumer goods, since 80+% of world economy travels by sea, to rise and hit everyone in the pocketbook.

 

The IMO has voluntarily decreed that marine fuels will only be able to have 0.5% sulfur after January 1st next year (less than 90 days from now), down from the 3.5% currently allowed.  One of the possible scenarios that the oil industry has envisioned as a result (in addition to rising fuel costs for all ships for the lower sulfur residual fuel, and higher demand for diesel fuel) is that power plants in developing countries, which currently see an economic advantage to using lower emission fuels will jump on the plummeting price (since no demand) of high sulfur residual fuel, and will revert to burning high sulfur fuels in unregulated markets (hence even more emissions than from ships).  Another option is for the refineries that cannot refine lower than residual fuel (2nd generation refineries) will ship the residual fuel to refineries that can refine this product (3rd generation), but that will require more cost and more fuel burned to transport this product.  Will the problem be solved?  Sure.  When?  Not even the oil industry knows that, this is a major shake up of their market.  How?  Again, no one is sure.  Will it cost the consumer?  You bet it will increase the cost of every gallon of gas.

 

Yes, ships burn residual fuel because it is cheaper.  Do you put premium gas in your car?  Or do you use regular because it is cheaper?  Should regular gas be made illegal, just because it may produce more emissions than premium?  If you are concerned that ships burn residual fuel at sea, then you need to attack the problem from where it can be addressed, your government and its representatives at the IMO, not cherry picking the cruise industry because it has high visibility and deep pockets.

 

And, how will you know whether a LNG fueled cruise ship is actually burning LNG, and not diesel or residual fuel?  The engines can burn any blend of gaseous and liquid fuel from 100% liquid fuel to 95% LNG.  It will always be burning 5% liquid fuel (diesel or residual) since marine diesels don't have glow plugs and need to "jump start" combustion with a fuel that will ignite under the heat of compression.

 

I'm not cherry picking the cruise industry, that's an assumption you made.  But we are talking about cruise ships here since it's a cruise forum.  Your post is quite accurate about what is going to happen, but that doesn't make any of it "right".  I simply made a comment, answering another question, concerning ships burning multiple fuels.   Again, just because it's legal, doesn't make it right. And really, nobody should be burning these fuels whether for marine or utility. 

 

Your comparison to regular vs premium auto fuel is not good, however. As premium doesn't pollute less.  But saving a few bucks at the expense of the environment is a different debate.  And obviously cruise companies have figured out that they can operate on LNG just fine, so they are proving you don't need HFO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

There are two designs of scrubbers, single engine and multiple engine. 

 

 

What is your take on the scrubbers?  Are they truly helping the environment or just trading one type of pollution for another?  I know they help with air pollution, but don't they produce a pretty toxic sludge that has to be disposed of?  I've read of some "accidents" where the sludge has been dumped in the ocean.  Not good.  Even disposed of correctly, I assume it has to be off loaded from the ship and probably ends up in a landfill.  Not sure that is good either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BNBR said:

And obviously cruise companies have figured out that they can operate on LNG just fine, so they are proving you don't need HFO. 

We will see whether they can operate on LNG "just fine".  I am still not convinced that they can carry sufficient LNG for a week long cruise on 95% LNG, so there may need to be further infrastructure needed to operate full time on LNG.  The ships are required to have a secondary fuel onboard as part of the "Safe Return to Port" requirements, so they will always be carrying diesel fuel at a minimum, in a sufficient quantity to bring the ship back to port.  And, as I've said, how will you know when they start burning 30% LNG and 70% HFO or diesel?

 

And while it is true that premium gas does not reduce emissions more than regular gas for cars as they are designed today, it is known that if the engines were designed to burn higher octane fuel (as marine engines are designed to higher IMO emission tier levels), then it would save 3-5% of gas consumption, cut gas costs by $6 million/year, and reduce CO2 emissions by 20-35 million tons/year (about 1-2%).  And as I've said, how will you know whether they are burning straight LNG or a blend, or straight HFO when outside an ECA?

 

Also, the economic advantages of LNG is most pronounced in the US, while less in Europe, and it switches the other way so that LNG is more expensive than residual fuel in Asia.  Let's face it, the only reason the cruise lines are switching to LNG is not for environmental reasons, but because of the price difference in North America.

Edited by chengkp75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eroller said:

 

 

What is your take on the scrubbers?  Are they truly helping the environment or just trading one type of pollution for another?  I know they help with air pollution, but don't they produce a pretty toxic sludge that has to be disposed of?  I've read of some "accidents" where the sludge has been dumped in the ocean.  Not good.  Even disposed of correctly, I assume it has to be off loaded from the ship and probably ends up in a landfill.  Not sure that is good either.  

Scrubbers can do a good job, and have been used for decades in stationary power plants.  Marine scrubbers can be operated in either open or closed configuration, depending on where the ship is operating, and how the scrubber has been certified and tested.  Open systems simply discharge the scrubber water to the sea, after it has been neutralized with chemicals (the combination of water and sulfur dioxide in the exhaust creates sulfuric acid), and this discharged water is monitored for various levels of particulates and pH, to prevent major problems, plus the ship is moving at sea, so the discharge is spread over large areas, further diminishing any concentrations.  Closed systems use chemicals and centrifuges to separate out the sludge from the scrubber water, which is recycled through the scrubber.  This sludge is mixed with the ship's "normal" sludge (residuals from the fuel treatment, used lube oil) which is then discharged ashore to certified disposal agents, or incinerated onboard.  Typically, the shore disposal is either back to a refinery for re-refining, or incineration.  At least in the US, I don't know of any landfill that can legally take oily waste sludges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Scrubbers can do a good job, and have been used for decades in stationary power plants.  Marine scrubbers can be operated in either open or closed configuration, depending on where the ship is operating, and how the scrubber has been certified and tested.  Open systems simply discharge the scrubber water to the sea, after it has been neutralized with chemicals (the combination of water and sulfur dioxide in the exhaust creates sulfuric acid), and this discharged water is monitored for various levels of particulates and pH, to prevent major problems, plus the ship is moving at sea, so the discharge is spread over large areas, further diminishing any concentrations.  Closed systems use chemicals and centrifuges to separate out the sludge from the scrubber water, which is recycled through the scrubber.  This sludge is mixed with the ship's "normal" sludge (residuals from the fuel treatment, used lube oil) which is then discharged ashore to certified disposal agents, or incinerated onboard.  Typically, the shore disposal is either back to a refinery for re-refining, or incineration.  At least in the US, I don't know of any landfill that can legally take oily waste sludges.

We love aft wrap cabins, and in the past have seen ‘residue’ on our balcony.   Lately not so much, is that due to scrubbers, or am I reading into it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone for your replies!

 

Why I asked the question is we were on the Carnival Elation 9/21/19 sailing and it had a propulsion problem and couldn't get to full speed. We had to miss Amber Cove and Grand Turk and go to Nassau only. Other passengers were very upset and they said they knew there was a problem because the smoke only came out of 1 side of the whale tail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jimbo5544 said:

We love aft wrap cabins, and in the past have seen ‘residue’ on our balcony.   Lately not so much, is that due to scrubbers, or am I reading into it?

Typically, the soot residue that you see on the aft balconies is due to cleaning the engines and boilers and not from normal operation.  With residual fuel (and to a lesser extent with diesel fuel as well), soot builds up on the turbocharger turbine blades, reducing the energy that is transferred from the hot exhaust gas to spin the turbocharger.  This soot is cleaned off using ground walnut shells injected into the exhaust at the turbocharger, daily.  These walnut shells (which start out around 1-1.5mm in size) are reduced by impact with the turbine, and also tend to burn in the exhaust gas.  However, they are heavier than the normal small particulate matter that normal combustion of residual fuel creates, so these tend to drop out closer to the funnel, like on the aft balconies.  Boilers need to be cleaned of soot for thermal efficiency daily as well, this is done using steam to clean the tubes, but the soot particles are large as well, and these will drop quickly like the engine walnut shells.  Scrubbers will reduce the amount of walnut shell particles, when the scrubber is in use.

 

The general standard for the industry is to change course as needed at night during cleaning to place the prevailing wind on one side or the other, so that the soot particles have less distance to travel to be away from the ship, but this is not always possible.  Blowing tubes and walnut cleaning only take about 20-30 minutes, so a course deviation is not a great distance.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wkrobi said:

Thank you everyone for your replies!

 

Why I asked the question is we were on the Carnival Elation 9/21/19 sailing and it had a propulsion problem and couldn't get to full speed. We had to miss Amber Cove and Grand Turk and go to Nassau only. Other passengers were very upset and they said they knew there was a problem because the smoke only came out of 1 side of the whale tail.

Yes, for a ship to get to full speed, they generally need to run at least 5 of the 6 diesel engines, so at full speed there will be exhaust from both sides, but if full speed is not needed to get to the next port on time, they may only run 3 engines, and those could be on one side of the funnel, and there would be no problem, just operational necessity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Scrubbers can do a good job, and have been used for decades in stationary power plants.  Marine scrubbers can be operated in either open or closed configuration, depending on where the ship is operating, and how the scrubber has been certified and tested.  Open systems simply discharge the scrubber water to the sea, after it has been neutralized with chemicals (the combination of water and sulfur dioxide in the exhaust creates sulfuric acid), and this discharged water is monitored for various levels of particulates and pH, to prevent major problems, plus the ship is moving at sea, so the discharge is spread over large areas, further diminishing any concentrations.  Closed systems use chemicals and centrifuges to separate out the sludge from the scrubber water, which is recycled through the scrubber.  This sludge is mixed with the ship's "normal" sludge (residuals from the fuel treatment, used lube oil) which is then discharged ashore to certified disposal agents, or incinerated onboard.  Typically, the shore disposal is either back to a refinery for re-refining, or incineration.  At least in the US, I don't know of any landfill that can legally take oily waste sludges.

 

 

Very interesting read and I feel a bit more knowledgable now.  Based upon your brief explanation the open scrubber system sounds better to me.  Just more self contained.  I guess with LNG on the horizon scrubbers are not needed on those ships as the fuel is so clean burning.  Overall is LNG still more expensive compared to using scrubbers?  I'm guessing yes but I don't know.  I remember years ago when Celebrity/Royal Caribbean were moving ahead with gas turbines on the Millennium and Radiance Class ships.  For a time it was felt this would be the next best thing.  Even QM2 has a couple installed.  I understand the fuel ultimately proved too expensive and now the gas turbines were either removed or not used (QM2 still has hers but they are rarely used).  Do you think the same possibility could happen with LNG?  That it just becomes too expensive to be viable?  I know environmental regulations are getting tougher and tougher so perhaps there isn't much choice?   I don't know the cost difference between LNG and the high grade jet fuel required for the gas turbines.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gas turbine engines do not require jet fuel, just airplanes, because of the conditions that jet aircraft operate in.

 Fact is, the will burn almost any  that can be pumped. a lot of ground installations run with natural gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eroller said:

 

 

Very interesting read and I feel a bit more knowledgable now.  Based upon your brief explanation the open scrubber system sounds better to me.  Just more self contained.  I guess with LNG on the horizon scrubbers are not needed on those ships as the fuel is so clean burning.  Overall is LNG still more expensive compared to using scrubbers?  I'm guessing yes but I don't know.  I remember years ago when Celebrity/Royal Caribbean were moving ahead with gas turbines on the Millennium and Radiance Class ships.  For a time it was felt this would be the next best thing.  Even QM2 has a couple installed.  I understand the fuel ultimately proved too expensive and now the gas turbines were either removed or not used (QM2 still has hers but they are rarely used).  Do you think the same possibility could happen with LNG?  That it just becomes too expensive to be viable?  I know environmental regulations are getting tougher and tougher so perhaps there isn't much choice?   I don't know the cost difference between LNG and the high grade jet fuel required for the gas turbines.  

As I said, it all depends on where the ship is sailing as to the cost differential between LNG and residual fuel.  A scrubber costs about $1 million/engine in capital cost.  LNG costs far more to build the necessary tankage, and reliquifaction equipment, but in the US, the cost of LNG is less than residual fuel with a scrubber.

 

The ships that have gas turbines in them do not burn jet fuel like an airplane, but either diesel fuel or JP-5, which is the US Navy's fuel for both aircraft and marine gas turbines, and it is a lower grade of jet fuel than airlines use.  The problem with gas turbines is that they are only really efficient when running at full load.  The Celebrity ships installed the gas turbines to reduce emissions when in port, but that is when the engines are under the least load, so they were burning way more fuel than the diesels had.  This is why they had diesels installed, for port use, and use the gas turbines for underway.  QM2 uses her gas turbines only when it's needed to make top speed, which since the lengthening of the crossings to 6 or 7 days, she does not need.  They are appropriate on QM2 because of the large amount of power provided from a small package, when that small power package is only needed occasionally.

 

LNG used in diesel engines has been around for several decades, mostly in stationary plants (and home generators), and offshore installations.  There is really very little technical difference between a diesel running on LNG or on residual fuel oil.  Scrubbers will still be an acceptable solution to meet emission standards in the near future, and it is merely a question of fuel price as to whether ships will be built for LNG or liquid fuel.  For instance, my tanker works exclusively within the North American ECA, so we are limited to either low sulfur diesel fuel (0.1% sulfur) or a scrubber.  Since the charterer (the company that owns the oil we transport) pays for the fuel, our company has no desire to convert to scrubbers (the capital cost would be ours), when the fuel cost savings would go to the charterer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

As I said, it all depends on where the ship is sailing as to the cost differential between LNG and residual fuel.  A scrubber costs about $1 million/engine in capital cost.  LNG costs far more to build the necessary tankage, and reliquifaction equipment, but in the US, the cost of LNG is less than residual fuel with a scrubber.

 

The ships that have gas turbines in them do not burn jet fuel like an airplane, but either diesel fuel or JP-5, which is the US Navy's fuel for both aircraft and marine gas turbines, and it is a lower grade of jet fuel than airlines use.  The problem with gas turbines is that they are only really efficient when running at full load.  The Celebrity ships installed the gas turbines to reduce emissions when in port, but that is when the engines are under the least load, so they were burning way more fuel than the diesels had.  This is why they had diesels installed, for port use, and use the gas turbines for underway.  QM2 uses her gas turbines only when it's needed to make top speed, which since the lengthening of the crossings to 6 or 7 days, she does not need.  They are appropriate on QM2 because of the large amount of power provided from a small package, when that small power package is only needed occasionally.

 

LNG used in diesel engines has been around for several decades, mostly in stationary plants (and home generators), and offshore installations.  There is really very little technical difference between a diesel running on LNG or on residual fuel oil.  Scrubbers will still be an acceptable solution to meet emission standards in the near future, and it is merely a question of fuel price as to whether ships will be built for LNG or liquid fuel.  For instance, my tanker works exclusively within the North American ECA, so we are limited to either low sulfur diesel fuel (0.1% sulfur) or a scrubber.  Since the charterer (the company that owns the oil we transport) pays for the fuel, our company has no desire to convert to scrubbers (the capital cost would be ours), when the fuel cost savings would go to the charterer.

 

 

I've been following this industry (and have been a part of it off and on) for 30+ years but I still learn something new all the time.  I love the technical aspects of passenger ships so I've really enjoyed learning about scrubbers, gas turbines, and fuel from you.  I didn't know the gas turbines were able to use a lower grade and cheaper fuel.  I always thought it was jet fuel.  I knew they were more expensive to operate but I always thought it was because of the fuel price.  I guess that is true in part, but the fact they are most efficient at full load is really why they never became mainstream.  I've sailed QM2 a lot, and I've heard that executives at Carnival Corp. have to approve use of the gas turbines unless it's an emergency.  So they pretty much collect dust these days.  I miss the shorter crossings, even more so on QE2 which were 5 days for many years.  

 

I find it interesting that Carnival Corp. has essentially two versions of its XL Class ships running LNG.  The bow design is different on the two designs.  I think this might be because of the service speeds required (slower for Carnival & P&O - faster for AIDA and Costa) but I'm not sure.  I know different bow designs are optimized for slower or faster speeds.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I feel bad that I'm sitting in a Texas State Park now and got here in a motor home that gets about 7 mpg on a good day?

I would have liked to have seen a more universal adoption of nuclear energy used for commercial propulsion. When you've been involved in that industry for more than 40 years you can see the benefits. If it had been more universally adopted, the research and development applied to fine-tuning the use of that power source would be light years ahead of where we are now. It can be clean, efficient and safe with proper oversight and dedicated crews. While in the Navy I witnessed first-hand how efficient it is as a motive power. Working at a nuclear power station now that could replace 10 coal or 12 natural gas stations, I know how much power is available to our customers on a daily basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DryCreek said:

Should I feel bad that I'm sitting in a Texas State Park now and got here in a motor home that gets about 7 mpg on a good day?

I would have liked to have seen a more universal adoption of nuclear energy used for commercial propulsion. When you've been involved in that industry for more than 40 years you can see the benefits. If it had been more universally adopted, the research and development applied to fine-tuning the use of that power source would be light years ahead of where we are now. It can be clean, efficient and safe with proper oversight and dedicated crews. While in the Navy I witnessed first-hand how efficient it is as a motive power. Working at a nuclear power station now that could replace 10 coal or 12 natural gas stations, I know how much power is available to our customers on a daily basis.

I think one of the main reasons that commercial ships don't use nuclear power, particularly cruise ships, is the realization that in today's society anyone who had ever sailed on a nuclear powered ship and subsequently developed cancer would sue, years to decades later.  I just don't think maritime insurance underwriters would be willing to risk that.

 

11 hours ago, eroller said:

 I didn't know the gas turbines were able to use a lower grade and cheaper fuel.

The big difference between Jet A (Jet A-1) that airlines use around the world, and JP-5 is the flash point.  Jet A-1 has a flash point of 100*F, while JP-5 is 140*F.  It was mainly developed because the Navy wanted a "universal" fuel, and one that had a high enough flash point that fire onboard risk was reduced.  JP-5 is a yellowish fuel, unlike the "water white" of Jet A-1, and looks far more like gas oil (MGO, the marine equivalent of #2 diesel or home heating oil).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I think one of the main reasons that commercial ships don't use nuclear power, particularly cruise ships, is the realization that in today's society anyone who had ever sailed on a nuclear powered ship and subsequently developed cancer would sue, years to decades later.  I just don't think maritime insurance underwriters would be willing to risk that.

 

 

Banning ships for polluting the air "one ship exhausts more SO2 than all cars in our city combined!", which does have its merits, is nothing compared to "they're sending nuclear power stations to our port!!" When it comes to nuclear power, coherent reasoning unfortunately comes to a halt. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The big difference between Jet A (Jet A-1) that airlines use around the world, and JP-5 is the flash point.  Jet A-1 has a flash point of 100*F, while JP-5 is 140*F.  It was mainly developed because the Navy wanted a "universal" fuel, and one that had a high enough flash point that fire onboard risk was reduced.  JP-5 is a yellowish fuel, unlike the "water white" of Jet A-1, and looks far more like gas oil (MGO, the marine equivalent of #2 diesel or home heating oil).

It's interesting the Navy hasn't gone to JP-8. We use JP-8 or Jet A+ in the Black Hawk now, and if we take JP-5 we have some operating limitations and I'm not sure if we can mix the two. I've done ship deck quals before on a LHA and a DDG where I took fuel....I just assumed it was JP8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I think one of the main reasons that commercial ships don't use nuclear power, particularly cruise ships, is the realization that in today's society anyone who had ever sailed on a nuclear powered ship and subsequently developed cancer would sue, years to decades later.  I just don't think maritime insurance underwriters would be willing to risk that.

Nah, I think that it is the cost of regulatory compliance - and the subsequent arm wrestling over jurisdiction.  That's what put the NS Savannah out of business.  Trust me, the regulations are numerous, and sometimes not as clear as one would hope.  Plus, imagine the cost of manning the engineering section for one of those beasts!  Those of us in nuclear power don't work for table scraps.  And, it's because of our backgrounds and training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Q&A: Cruise Insurance with Steve Dasseos of TripInsuranceStore.com
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...