Jump to content
AmazedByCruising

Why not use diesel to run the engines directly?

Recommended Posts

If I understand it correctly, cruise ships use fuel to generate electricity, which in turn is used to run the engines that move the ship.

 

Why the step of generating electricity in between? To me it seems to would just add more reasons for failure, more space to be used, and especially useless heat created while going from fuel to electricity to propulsion. Maybe the extra fuel costs are limited to just a very small percentage but even in that case I can't see a reason why electrical propulsion could do a better job than the diesel engine itself. So why's that? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I understand it correctly, cruise ships use fuel to generate electricity, which in turn is used to run the engines that move the ship.

 

Why the step of generating electricity in between? To me it seems to would just add more reasons for failure, more space to be used, and especially useless heat created while going from fuel to electricity to propulsion. Maybe the extra fuel costs are limited to just a very small percentage but even in that case I can't see a reason why electrical propulsion could do a better job than the diesel engine itself. So why's that? :)

 

1 - Electricity gives them better control of the ships speed

2 - The heat is use to generate fresh water and heat the laundry system

3 - The bulk of everything is runs electricity.

4 - Most ships have 4 to 6 diesels to generate electricity.

5 - Direct coupling diesels to the propellers is very expensive to do and maintain.

6 - Are more fuel efficient when run at one speed or load

 

There are many other reasons but I can't remember call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most ships use Azipods for propulsion instead of direct drive propellers. You can't drive Azipods with direct drive shafts.

 

DON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was gonna say that they couldn't find anyone big enough to step on the clutch to shift gears...:) but on a more serious note...

 

Diesel-electric is a very mature technology. Over the years it has only gotten better.

 

Control is the main issue, as stated in the above post.

 

Virtually all drives for very large equipment are diesel-electric. Locomotives, container ships, navy vessels (tho some are nuclear), excavating machinery, to name a few.

 

Point of fact....if direct drive was cheaper, industry would be using it.

Edited by thinfool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many container ships still use direct drive of the propellers from the diesel.

 

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Forums mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another form of propulsion used on some cruise ships and navy ships is gas turbine. A jet engine that drives a generator that powers an electric motor to power and drive the ship. The advantage of gas turbines is much smaller size and higher power output compared with huge Diesel engines. The down side is that they are not as fuel efficient as Diesels.

 

Going back to 1935, the French Line's "Normandie" used turbo-electric propulsion, with steam turbines running generators to power electric motors to propel the ship. While she eventually lost the Blue Ribband to Queen Mary she was using far less fuel, and was far more efficient as a ship of similar size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another form of propulsion used on some cruise ships and navy ships is gas turbine. A jet engine that drives a generator that powers an electric motor to power and drive the ship. The advantage of gas turbines is much smaller size and higher power output compared with huge Diesel engines. The down side is that they are not as fuel efficient as Diesels.

 

Going back to 1935, the French Line's "Normandie" used turbo-electric propulsion, with steam turbines running generators to power electric motors to propel the ship. While she eventually lost the Blue Ribband to Queen Mary she was using far less fuel, and was far more efficient as a ship of similar size.

 

 

The Destroyer I was on in the Navy had 7 gas turbines. 3 "small" ones used for electric power and 4 big ones used for propulsion. The propulsion ones (2 for each shaft) were connected to the shaft by reduction gears. You needed to have a reversable pitch prop to change direction as the shafts only spun one way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RCI tried gas turbines on two of their ships a few year ago as an experiment. Maintenance costs where high and the crews had a hard time doing maintenance.

 

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Forums mobile app

Edited by Kamloops50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your elaborate answers. It find it quite amazing that a site like this has experts on every detail regarding cruising, not just experts on tipping behavior or formal nights, and so many people willing to take the time to answer each and every question.

 

Point of fact....if direct drive was cheaper, industry would be using it.

 

I'm totally sure of that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked in the shipyard for 12 years during the 1970's & 80's. I worked on many World War II era oil tankers that were powered by electric motors. These tankers were designed during World War II when steel was at a premium. Steam turbines were used to turn generators and the electricity was used to turn electric motors that drove the propellers. By doing it this way, the ships did not need the heavy reduction gears necessary to take the high-speed turbine revolutions and slow them down to drive a propeller. I was also involved with converting the QE2 to diesel electric drive. The main purpose there was fuel savings and reliability. They could run as few as 1 diesel generator to provide power to the electric drive. As more speed was necessary more generators were put online. The QE2 has 9 diesel generators for propulsion, so even if 8 generators were not capable of running, the ship would be able to maneuver at a very slow speed. The biggest advantage to diesel electric drive is reliability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RCI tried gas turbines on two of their ships a few year ago as an experiment. Maintenance costs where high and the crews had a hard time doing maintenance.

 

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Forums mobile app

 

It turned out to be a lot more than an experiment! Actually RCI has 4 ships, the Radiance class that are powered solely by gas turbines and Celebrity has 4 ships in the Millennium class powered by the same gas turbines as well. Originally the gas turbines supplied all electrical power for propulsion and hotel use. Using the gas turbines to supply hotel power while in port was so inefficient that a few years ago Royal retro fitted all of the Radiance class ships with diesel generators to operate for hotel use while in port. I think they did the same for the Millennium class ships too.

 

Princess on the other hand was a bit more conservative in their use of gas turbines. The Island and the Coral have 1 gas turbine installed, they are used in conjunction with diesel engines to provide electricity for propulsion and hotel needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While in the Coast Guard in the '70s, I served on a 311' which was a former WWII Navy ship. It had four 16-cylinder direct drive diesel engines in two engine rooms. Two engines in one engineroom drove the starboard shaft, and the other two in the other engineroom drove the port shaft. To go from forward to reverse the engines had to be brought to a stop by the throttleman, and then started again in the opposite direction. Some ports required numerous changes which really was a workout manhandling the throttles. We could run combinations of engines from two to four, if required for maintenance.

 

With a diesel-electric ship, they essentially turn a knob. It allows numerous combinations of engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diesel (and gas) engines run efficiently only over a narrow range of RPMs. However, ships have to be able to travel at various speeds. In addition, they need a lot of electricity for other services.

 

The solution is to have engines, typically gas turbine engines, similar to jet engines, running at optimal RPM. These are very efficient, and can be used to generate electricity at low fuel costs. Standard diesel engines can also be used, and most ships also have smaller diesel engines for use while in port.

 

Electric Azipods are extremely efficient as the propeller faces forward and has no turbulence from the connecting structures. This would be difficult or impossible with a direct drive system. Azipods can be rotated 360 degrees to provide thrust in any direction for docking or maintaining station. This would be difficult or impossible with a direct drive system.

 

Most large scale propulsion systems such as freight trains, and cargo ships use the more efficient electric drive supported by fossil fuel power generation systems. Separating the power generation from power usage allows the engines to run at maximum efficiency, while providing flexibility and fine control over thrust direction and power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you all for your elaborate answers. It find it quite amazing that a site like this has experts on every detail regarding cruising, not just experts on tipping behavior or formal nights, and so many people willing to take the time to answer each and every question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm totally sure of that :)

 

 

Engineers need vacations too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This also how rail engines work. And interestingly rail engines are never shut down. Many large item of heavy equipment also run off of electric motors. Electric motors have higher torque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Internal combustion engines have a narrow range of RPMs where they are most efficient. The diesel-electric configuration allows the engines to run a optimal RPMs most of the time thus saving fuel. This also allows for engines to be easily taken offline for maintenance and servicing without impacting propulsion or ship services. When energy needs are lower, fewer engines can be run. When more speed is needed, extra engines can be turned on....all running at optimal RPMs.

 

Also, many engines on ships are turbine engines which do not operate well at low RPMs. This would cause problems during low speed operations, or when accelerating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention long stroke diesels have reached efficiency levels of 50 to 55%, in other words, 50 to 55% of the heat produced by burning fuel is converted to work. They then use the waste exhaust heat to flash evaporate sea water into fresh water and heat the hot water used on the ship.

 

Turbines have great efficiency at full power, but use nearly as much fuel at idle as they do as full power, That's why you'll see airliners only use one engine to taxi now, and start the second engine just before turning onto the runway. Gas turbine cruise ships (Radiance and Millenium) used waste exhaust heat to run a steam generator that powered another steam turbine, as well as making fresh water and hot water.

 

Another thing, diesels can burn bunker oil, #5 or #6 diesel, which is essentially the tar left over from distilling crude oil, while gas turbines need relatively highly refined kerosene distillates. Bunker oil has to actually be heated to 150F to make it thin enough to inject into the engine cylinders, and is very cheap compared to kerosene.

 

Direct drive is more efficient, that's why cargo ships use it, a huge engine and screw that turn at 105 RPM, but cargo ships drive a straight line between ports, at constant speed.

 

http://newatlas.com/go/3263/

Edited by wraithe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
navy vessels (tho some are nuclear)

 

US Navy vessels are either steam turbines coupled directly to the shafts and propellors. Steam can be generated by boilers burning Bunker fuel (VERY thick oil, almost asphalt thick) or by nuclear.

 

Others are gas turbine powered, think turbo prop airplane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another form of propulsion used on some cruise ships and navy ships is gas turbine. A jet engine that drives a generator that powers an electric motor to power and drive the ship. The advantage of gas turbines is much smaller size and higher power output compared with huge Diesel engines. The down side is that they are not as fuel efficient as Diesels.

 

What cruise ship uses gas turbines?

 

And US Navy gas turbine ships are typically direct drive, gas turbine, through transmission to shafts and props. Not gas turbine to electric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What cruise ship uses gas turbines?

 

 

 

And US Navy gas turbine ships are typically direct drive, gas turbine, through transmission to shafts and props. Not gas turbine to electric.

 

 

 

RCL and Celebrity have a few ships that use gas turbines. Many ships use Asa turbine as an auxiliary power source.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What cruise ship uses gas turbines?

 

And US Navy gas turbine ships are typically direct drive, gas turbine, through transmission to shafts and props. Not gas turbine to electric.

 

RCCL Radiance class and Celebrity Millenium class use hybrid, gas turbines with steam generated from the exhaust running another turbine. The turbines all generate eectricity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbines require good and expensive fuel to run. Diesels can run lower grade and cheaper fuel.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare the price of IFO 380 ( The fuel diesel cruise ships burn) to the cost of MGO (the fuel that gas turbine ships burn ) and you will see why both Royal and Celeberty changed back to diesel power for their new ships (oasis class and solistce class ships).The website ship and bunker will tell you current prices of the 2 fuels for comparision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some jusrisdictions it has been made compulsory that Marinediesl instead of bunker oil be used. The big one for this is Alaska.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got off the Celebrity Millennium a few days ago. Was claimed by the ship officers that the ship was quiet due to being powered by 2 gas turbines (claimed to be the marine equivalent of a 757 engine, so either a R-R or less likely, P&W engines). The other was a 16 cylinder Wartsilla diesel. All I heard for most of the cruise (a TPAC) was the rather-distinct thump of a large diesel, and this was in the top deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just got off the Celebrity Millennium a few days ago. Was claimed by the ship officers that the ship was quiet due to being powered by 2 gas turbines (claimed to be the marine equivalent of a 757 engine, so either a R-R or less likely, P&W engines). The other was a 16 cylinder Wartsilla diesel. All I heard for most of the cruise (a TPAC) was the rather-distinct thump of a large diesel, and this was in the top deck.

 

The diesels are usually down in the bowels of the ship because of the weight .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's why you'll see airliners only use one engine to taxi now, and start the second engine just before turning onto the runway.

 

http://newatlas.com/go/3263/

 

I'm a retired pilot (B-757, B-767, B-727) and there's no way in hell I would roll onto the active for takeoff with one of my engines running for less than a minute. That is a recipe for a disaster, losing one on takeoff. We start up both engines right after pushback, dump the APU, and the pilot not taxiing keeps a close eye on the engine instruments to detect anything strange. Yes, after landing, we will occasionally shutdown one engine to save fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a retired pilot (B-757, B-767, B-727) and there's no way in hell I would roll onto the active for takeoff with one of my engines running for less than a minute. That is a recipe for a disaster, losing one on takeoff. We start up both engines right after pushback, dump the APU, and the pilot not taxiing keeps a close eye on the engine instruments to detect anything strange. Yes, after landing, we will occasionally shutdown one engine to save fuel.

 

Maybe at your airline.

 

But several airlines taxi on one, and start the other close to takeoff. Not one minute, but not more than maybe 5.

 

I am former AF, and alert birds can be in the air within 5 minutes of the call out. In the old days, I remember SAC aircraft were running down the runway within a minute or two of crew boarding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe at your airline.

 

But several airlines taxi on one, and start the other close to takeoff. Not one minute, but not more than maybe 5.

 

I am former AF, and alert birds can be in the air within 5 minutes of the call out. In the old days, I remember SAC aircraft were running down the runway within a minute or two of crew boarding.

 

That single-engine taxi policy started with my carrier when the price of Jet-A went through the roof. Some carriers were also saving money by allowing reverse-thrust pushback from the gate. No tugs needed. That also stopped when the prices increased. Maintenance was not happy about full thrust TO's with a partially warmed engine. So, when the fuel cost dropped, the brass cancelled the single engine taxi policy. 5 minutes is a sufficient time for application of TO power, but unless there were very long delays getting to the business end of the active, we usually started both after tug release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, different policies for different airlines.

 

I fly a lot for business, and a number of carriers, they obviously start another one on the taxi out. Yes, if there are no delays, they might start after push back.

 

AFAIK, power backs were only used on aircraft with tail mounted engines.

 

I just ride on a lot of airlines. I never wanted to be a bus driver. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said, different policies for different airlines.

 

I fly a lot for business, and a number of carriers, they obviously start another one on the taxi out. Yes, if there are no delays, they might start after push back.

 

AFAIK, power backs were only used on aircraft with tail mounted engines.

 

I just ride on a lot of airlines. I never wanted to be a bus driver. :D

 

Yes, we did reverse thrust push-backs only with the "3 holer" (B-727). The wing mounted engines would throw too much crud at the terminal due to their low mounting. Some airports squashed it in the notams for certain gates or terminals due to large glass windows. And I considered my 81,000 hours flying my passengers with zero incidents as much more than a "bus driver" and I'm damn proud of it. Some guys I flew with felt that way, and their attitude on the flight deck was definitely depressing. I bid different routes when I knew my FO had a "bus driver" attitude. But many times I had no choice. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not mean bus driver as demeaning, but as a job satisfaction issue. Like an F1 driver switching to driving a Greyhound.

 

And too many hours on United, listing to the cockpit radios with HOURS of nothing but "is there a smoother altitude" calls. :)

 

81,000 hours? Wow, at an FAA max of 1,000 hours per year, you flew for 81 years. Not bad with a mandatory retirement at 65. :D

 

I have about 1,800 hours. But less than 1 hour total time on autopilot. All the rest hand flown. From a Super Cub to jets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did not mean bus driver as demeaning, but as a job satisfaction issue. Like an F1 driver switching to driving a Greyhound.

 

And too many hours on United, listing to the cockpit radios with HOURS of nothing but "is there a smoother altitude" calls. :)

 

81,000 hours? Wow, at an FAA max of 1,000 hours per year, you flew for 81 years. Not bad with a mandatory retirement at 65. :D

 

I have about 1,800 hours. But less than 1 hour total time on autopilot. All the rest hand flown. From a Super Cub to jets.

 

The FAA max is probably closer to 4000 miles per year . A 1000 hours is about 90 hours a month. Probably should be 90 hours every two weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did not mean bus driver as demeaning, but as a job satisfaction issue. Like an F1 driver switching to driving a Greyhound.

 

And too many hours on United, listing to the cockpit radios with HOURS of nothing but "is there a smoother altitude" calls. :)

 

81,000 hours? Wow, at an FAA max of 1,000 hours per year, you flew for 81 years. Not bad with a mandatory retirement at 65. :D

 

I have about 1,800 hours. But less than 1 hour total time on autopilot. All the rest hand flown. From a Super Cub to jets.

I was speaking of DUTY HOURS, not flight hours. In my 31 years of airline flight, I averaged about 35 hours per week But before my airline career started, I flew privately starting at age 19, then commercially, towing banners along the FL beaches. Then thousands of hours of private and instrument instructor time, and business flying. I retired at 60, and I'm still flying today, an Aerostar 601P.

And I'm done with this thread, because there always seems to be a snarky comment. Let's let this thread get back to the OP's topic of ships, engines and fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was speaking of DUTY HOURS, not flight hours. In my 31 years of airline flight, I averaged about 35 hours per week But before my airline career started, I flew privately starting at age 19, then commercially, towing banners along the FL beaches. Then thousands of hours of private and instrument instructor time, and business flying. I retired at 60, and I'm still flying today, an Aerostar 601P.

And I'm done with this thread, because there always seems to be a snarky comment. Let's let this thread get back to the OP's topic of ships, engines and fuel.

 

Not trying to be snarky. Just wondering, as I have many active and retired airline friends. Never had one count duty hours. And they are mostly somewhere in the 20K hours.

 

I just knew that airline flying was not for ME. As I said, may friends who did it, and loved it. Including one, who has probably the most PIC 747 time ever. He started as PIC on 747 about age 30 and flew it as Captain for 30 years.

 

I am jealous, Aerostar is a sweet airplane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The FAA max is probably closer to 4000 miles per year . A 1000 hours is about 90 hours a month. Probably should be 90 hours every two weeks.

 

4000 miles? WHAT are you talking about?

 

FAA limits airline pilots to a maximum of 1000 flying hours per year. Look it up. PArt 121 regulations.

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
      • Victory Cruise Lines Sweepstakes - Enter now for a chance to win a free 9-night cruise on Victory II
      • Holiday Exchange - Jingle and Mingle 2018
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Community Contests
      • 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
×