Solar panels

[soremekun]

Viewing aerial shots of Oasis and Allure of the Seas reveal use of solar power. However, this is not visible on Harmony of the Seas. Any reason why there is no solar on Harmony? Will a solar array return for Symphony? Any other ships in the Royal fleet use solar?

[elainemasey61]

Soremekun- I was looking at Ariel photos earlier today as well, and on another ship- don't remember which. I thought it was pretty cool that they had solar panels.

Ignore the haters- some people are just****

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[broberts]

Viewing aerial shots of Oasis and Allure of the Seas reveal use of solar power. However, this is not visible on Harmony of the Seas. Any reason why there is no solar on Harmony? Will a solar array return for Symphony? Any other ships in the Royal fleet use solar?

 

Interesting question. Perhaps the solar panels on Oasis and Allure were not cost effective. Oasis and Allure were built within a year or so of each other. Harmony was built several years later. RCI wanted a less expensive and more energy efficient Oasis class ship.

[lucymorgan]

Interesting question. I don't have expertise in this but perhaps they are for emergency use (eg to provide basic lighting if there is a big failure of the ships power generating capability). Maybe with the introduction of LED lights etc which can be powered from battery for a long time, they are no longer required for newer ships.

 

 

Here is a 2012 article that mentions solar power on Oasis and Allure http://www.worldcruise-network.com/features/featuresolar-power-here-comes-the-sun/

[steamboats]

From the article:

 

"The panels cover 2,000m2, produce 111,108kWh of energy a year and are used to supply electricity to the ships' shopping districts."

 

The Solstice class ships have solar panels too. I don´t remember whether it was on a Solstice class ship or Oasis class where they told us that the solar power is enough to run the elevators.

 

And every ton of fuel not burned to producing power is saving the cruise line money. And that´s the main reason the cruise lines are doing this (not to save the environment - that´s a nice side effect that the can reduce their CO2 footprint).

 

Haven´t heard whether or why Harmony doesn´t have any solar panels especially as the technique improved quite a bit since they buildt Oasis/Allure.

 

steamboats

[chengkp75]

From the article:

 

"The panels cover 2,000m2, produce 111,108kWh of energy a year and are used to supply electricity to the ships' shopping districts."

 

The Solstice class ships have solar panels too. I don´t remember whether it was on a Solstice class ship or Oasis class where they told us that the solar power is enough to run the elevators.

 

And every ton of fuel not burned to producing power is saving the cruise line money. And that´s the main reason the cruise lines are doing this (not to save the environment - that´s a nice side effect that the can reduce their CO2 footprint).

 

Haven´t heard whether or why Harmony doesn´t have any solar panels especially as the technique improved quite a bit since they buildt Oasis/Allure.

 

steamboats

 

I remember when the solar panels were announced, and thought at that time that they would be more of a "wash" on energy cost, and more about PR. The 111,108 kwh figure for an entire year, equates to about 27 tons of fuel saved over the year, or a cost savings of $8000/year. Now, even granting a lot of slow steaming, operating with only about 50% of the generators running while at sea, and 8 hours/day in port, the annual fuel bill is in the $15-20 million range, so that fuel savings is 0.05%. Using a rough figure of $9/watt for the installed cost of solar panels (and that is for shore based), you get a capital cost of $114k (which I think is low, from what I remember about the install), but even this figure along with the above fuel savings gives a payback period of 14-15 years (not counting maintenance cost).

 

I believe RCI realized that while it was good PR at the time, it has not paid the dividends it expected, and has quietly dropped the idea on further ships.

[constable145]

I remember when the solar panels were announced, and thought at that time that they would be more of a "wash" on energy cost, and more about PR. The 111,108 kwh figure for an entire year, equates to about 27 tons of fuel saved over the year, or a cost savings of $8000/year. Now, even granting a lot of slow steaming, operating with only about 50% of the generators running while at sea, and 8 hours/day in port, the annual fuel bill is in the $15-20 million range, so that fuel savings is 0.05%. Using a rough figure of $9/watt for the installed cost of solar panels (and that is for shore based), you get a capital cost of $114k (which I think is low, from what I remember about the install), but even this figure along with the above fuel savings gives a payback period of 14-15 years (not counting maintenance cost).

 

I believe RCI realized that while it was good PR at the time, it has not paid the dividends it expected, and has quietly dropped the idea on further ships.

Thanks again for your unrivalled insight.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[soremekun]

Yes, it was just a question based on noticing a visual difference between ships in the same class. It has been reported that Harmony is 20% more efficient even without solar. So maybe due to this, they feel as if solar is not needed in addition to its long break even period. I was curious because there isn't much info on this topic.

http://crew-center.com/harmony-seas-20-more-energy-efficient-her-sister-ships

 

Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using Forums mobile app

[chengkp75]

Yes, it was just a question based on noticing a visual difference between ships in the same class. It has been reported that Harmony is 20% more efficient even without solar. So maybe due to this, they feel as if solar is not needed in addition to its long break even period. I was curious because there isn't much info on this topic.

http://crew-center.com/harmony-seas-20-more-energy-efficient-her-sister-ships

 

Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using Forums mobile app

 

The two technologies mentioned in your link are the largest contributors to the energy efficiency. The air lubrication is probably the majority of the savings (as well as any hydrodynamic changes made to the underwater hull). About 10 years ago, NCL was changing from CFL to LED lights in many locations, and now that there are LED replacements for 2' and 4' linear flourescent tubes, this process can go further. My ship is currently testing various linear LED's as flourescent replacements and expect to see a 40-50% reduction in our lighting load.

[xpcdoojk]

The two technologies mentioned in your link are the largest contributors to the energy efficiency. The air lubrication is probably the majority of the savings (as well as any hydrodynamic changes made to the underwater hull). About 10 years ago, NCL was changing from CFL to LED lights in many locations, and now that there are LED replacements for 2' and 4' linear flourescent tubes, this process can go further. My ship is currently testing various linear LED's as flourescent replacements and expect to see a 40-50% reduction in our lighting load.

 

Yes LED technology is improving rapidly. I assume that the engineering folks are keeping an eye out for additional harmonic distortions in the electrical system because of more non-linear loads?

 

I manage a facility that was operating regularly at about 1100 amps, where the lighting was traditional 4 and 8 foot fluorescent and 400 watt Metal Halide fixtures. We converted the 400 watt fixtures to a much more efficient T5 fluorescent that generated more light, and about half the amperage, and we put them on motion sensors and day light harvesting, in the warehouse portion and we reduced our load to just under 700 amps. We further replaced in the showroom portion all of the little MR16 halogen lights with LED MR16 going from 50 watts to 7watts and reduced another 100 amps. We are slowly converting the 4 foot and 8 foot fluorescent to LED fixtures, we are still not a fan of the LED tubes, but they do make a much easier conversion albeit less efficient that fixture replacement.

 

Ten years ago, LED was expensive and had dubious benefits over other traditional but efficient designs. That is rapidly changing. LED is still overkill in a lot of applications, think of your hallway closet, where a 30cent bulb that burns for a minute or two a few days a week, is still crazy to replace that with an LED bulb, but our government thinks we are too stupid to make that choice ourselves.

 

JC

[chengkp75]

Yes LED technology is improving rapidly. I assume that the engineering folks are keeping an eye out for additional harmonic distortions in the electrical system because of more non-linear loads?

 

I manage a facility that was operating regularly at about 1100 amps, where the lighting was traditional 4 and 8 foot fluorescent and 400 watt Metal Halide fixtures. We converted the 400 watt fixtures to a much more efficient T5 fluorescent that generated more light, and about half the amperage, and we put them on motion sensors and day light harvesting, in the warehouse portion and we reduced our load to just under 700 amps. We further replaced in the showroom portion all of the little MR16 halogen lights with LED MR16 going from 50 watts to 7watts and reduced another 100 amps. We are slowly converting the 4 foot and 8 foot fluorescent to LED fixtures, we are still not a fan of the LED tubes, but they do make a much easier conversion albeit less efficient that fixture replacement.

 

Ten years ago, LED was expensive and had dubious benefits over other traditional but efficient designs. That is rapidly changing. LED is still overkill in a lot of applications, think of your hallway closet, where a 30cent bulb that burns for a minute or two a few days a week, is still crazy to replace that with an LED bulb, but our government thinks we are too stupid to make that choice ourselves.

 

JC

 

We deal with frequency converters and variable speed drives, etc, so harmonic distortion is a fact of life on ships, along with poor power factors.

 

We have retrofitted LED explosion proof fixtures out on deck (tanker) and these are very good, as are the LED floodlights replacing the HPS and halogen floods. In the interior is where we are going with the tubes, just so we don't have to change fixtures, but we're finding that the 4' tubes are very flexible and vibrate like crazy at certain harmonics of engine speeds.

[xpcdoojk]

We deal with frequency converters and variable speed drives, etc, so harmonic distortion is a fact of life on ships, along with poor power factors.

 

We have retrofitted LED explosion proof fixtures out on deck (tanker) and these are very good, as are the LED floodlights replacing the HPS and halogen floods. In the interior is where we are going with the tubes, just so we don't have to change fixtures, but we're finding that the 4' tubes are very flexible and vibrate like crazy at certain harmonics of engine speeds.

 

I can only imagine. Since the tubes they are replacing are glass and are super rigid, versus the LED tubes which are metal (flexible) and probably some form of plastic or poly product.

 

I am an economist working in the world of electricity, which means I am only semi technical, unlike you, but LED has come a long way, but it is way more technical than the old resistance lighting and causes all sorts of issues. There is no doubt that flood lighting is the LED sweet spot. LED fixtures are really getting reasonable replacing 4 and 8 foot tubes, I think even though they are more expensive than the LED tubes that they are a better option. I still haven't replaced all of our 4 foot fixtures, I am still waiting for another generation or two, but we are actually getting close enough that I am considering it strongly. Which if you had asked me 5 years ago, I would have laughed.

 

JC

[soremekun]

A little more info on ship efficiency and a brief mention of glass window solar panels:

http://www.rclcorporate.com/from-cruising-to-clean-water-electricity-drives-rcl-ships/

 

Sent from my Z981 using Forums mobile app

[chengkp75]

A little more info on ship efficiency and a brief mention of glass window solar panels:

http://www.rclcorporate.com/from-cruising-to-clean-water-electricity-drives-rcl-ships/

 

Sent from my Z981 using Forums mobile app

 

It's funny that they claim that reverse osmosis watermakers are more energy efficient than flash evaporators, since everyone in the maritime industry knows that just the reverse is true. RO units require a very large motor to drive a very high pressure pump to force the water through the RO membrane. A multi-stage flash evaporator only uses two small pumps, one for seawater and one for distilled water, totaling about 1/10th of the power of a comparable sized RO unit. The most energy used in a flash evaporator is the heat to boil the water, and on a ship this comes from the diesel engine cooling water, which if not used to make water, that heat is rejected to the sea as wasted energy. So, the heat for a flash evaporator is "free" energy, or what we call in the maritime industry "waste energy". Now, with ships steaming slower, and less diesel generators running to power the ship at the slower speed, there is less "waste energy", so the cruise ship cannot make enough water to meet demand. So, they install RO units, which don't rely on heat energy, and only on electrical energy, which is a very small percentage of the total electricity generated. So, RO units are not added to save energy, but to make up for loss of water making capacity from sailing slower to save energy.

[Biker19]

So, RO units are not added to save energy, but to make up for loss of water making capacity from sailing slower to save energy.

During our Oasis sailing a few weeks ago, we went way out of the way and at 10+ knots between Cozumel and Costa Maya which according to the Captain was because the ship makes water better at higher speed (we had spent about 34 hours in port at Cozumel and were apparently somewhat low on water).

[chengkp75]

During our Oasis sailing a few weeks ago, we went way out of the way and at 10+ knots between Cozumel and Costa Maya which according to the Captain was because the ship makes water better at higher speed (we had spent about 34 hours in port at Cozumel and were apparently somewhat low on water).

 

Yes, I would say that 10 knots is about the minimum speed that they engineers could get one flash evaporator running. Typically, the ship will have two evaporators, and 2-4 reverse osmosis units. I don't know what the Oasis' water making plant is, but to give an example from my personal experience on the NCL Pride of Aloha (Sky), there were two 600 ton/day flash evaporators and two 200 ton/day RO units. So, even at 10 knots, we could get one evaporator running and more than double the production of the RO units alone.

[OSUZorba]

During our Oasis sailing a few weeks ago, we went way out of the way and at 10+ knots between Cozumel and Costa Maya which according to the Captain was because the ship makes water better at higher speed (we had spent about 34 hours in port at Cozumel and were apparently somewhat low on water).

That's interesting, because last October I saw Allure taking on Water in Cozumel.

[chengkp75]

That's interesting, because last October I saw Allure taking on Water in Cozumel.

 

If the source has been tested, at the hydrant where the water is taken from, within the last month, and it meets WHO standards for drinking water, then it is okay. Given the rain and flooding in the area, the water may not be acceptable to load. There may also be pressure issues that make it so that the ship cannot make up for an extended port stay.

[heatherwillis]

I saw your post while looking for info on solar panels myself, and it got me thinking. It's interesting that Harmony of the Seas doesn't have visible solar panels like Oasis and Allure.

[Biker19]

11 minutes ago, heatherwillis said:

It's interesting that Harmony of the Seas doesn't have visible solar panels like Oasis and Allure.

Solar panels are passe. 

 

Be prepared for resurrection feedback.

[ravensbad]

31 minutes ago, heatherwillis said:

I saw your post while looking for info on solar panels myself, and it got me thinking. It's interesting that Harmony of the Seas doesn't have visible solar panels like Oasis and Allure.

 

You posted on a 7 year old post to say "that's interesting"? Not sure why I was following this one to start with but guess this is a good time to unfollow it, lol.

[heatherwillis]

1 hour ago, heatherwillis said:

I saw your post while looking for info on solar panels myself, and it got me thinking. It's interesting that Harmony of the Seas doesn't have visible solar panels like Oasis and Allure.

Who knows? Maybe they found other ways to save energy, or it just wasn't worth the cost for that ship.
With newer ships, they might bring back solar panels as the tech improves. If anyone's interested in solar panels, we've had great results here in Dublin, Ireland. The tech has come a long way, so check out the options for solar panels Dublin Ireland.

[chengkp75]

5 hours ago, heatherwillis said:

Who knows? Maybe they found other ways to save energy, or it just wasn't worth the cost for that ship.
With newer ships, they might bring back solar panels as the tech improves. If anyone's interested in solar panels, we've had great results here in Dublin, Ireland. The tech has come a long way, so check out the options for solar panels Dublin Ireland.

Unless there is a massive breakthrough in technology, solar panels will never be cost effective on ships, especially cruise ships.  Solar panels are "low density" power producers, meaning it takes a large area or volume to generate a specific amount of energy.  Meanwhile, cruise ships are "high density" power consumers, meaning you suck up a whole lot of power in a small volume.  

 

A solar panel today generates around 180 watts/square meter, so to generate the amount of power that a diesel generator on a cruise ship can generate (in a volume smaller than a semi-trailer truck) would require over 80,000 square meters of panels.  Add in that solar panels are at best 25-30% efficient in converting the solar energy, while the diesel engine is around 80% efficient due to waste heat usage (evaporators and fuel heating as noted in the above, aged, thread) and waste heat boilers, the cost/benefit of solar panels on a ship just are not there.

 

Solar panel efficiency has only improved from about 15% to the current 25% over the last 40 years.

Edited August 19 by chengkp75

[soremekun]

6 hours ago, heatherwillis said:

Who knows? Maybe they found other ways to save energy, or it just wasn't worth the cost for that ship.
With newer ships, they might bring back solar panels as the tech improves. If anyone's interested in solar panels, we've had great results here in Dublin, Ireland. The tech has come a long way, so check out the options for solar panels Dublin Ireland.

Some ways they increase energy savings / efficiency: hull design, hull paint, LED lighting, and empty stateroom power down.

[loman]

Wind turbines , thats where its at . Lots of wind on a cruise ship .🙂