Are our beloved cruiseships contributing to global warming and if so by how much?

[chengkp75]

Such great information to think about.

 

4-6 million per ship seems like a drop in the bucket to me . If it's only that much I wonder what's holding companies back?

 

It's all about time and money. Installing scrubbers requires planning as most times it requires carving space out of the guest areas near the funnels (RCI's ships like Freedom have removed some guest public spaces, and had to redo the "fairing" with the RCI logo around the funnels to accommodate the large scrubbers, and then there is machinery required in the engine room, which is typically pretty crowded right from new build, as the idea is to maximize guest spaces. Even if installed in a shipyard (and RCI is doing them while in service), it still requires months of testing and adjusting to get the proper performance out of the scrubber.

 

And, again, it all depends on how much time the ship spends inside an ECA. NCL's Pride of America spends all of its time in the ECA, so she fitted scrubbers a couple of years ago, and with the 100% utilization time, her payback period will be 4-6 years. Ships that spend considerable time outside the North American ECA (and most of the Caribbean is outside, only Puerto Rico and the USVI are included), can operate without a scrubber during that time, so the payback period stretches to 8-12 years. And many companies are waiting to see if the fuel refiners can meet the proposed IMO standards of 1% sulfur content in all marine fuels, worldwide, by 2020 which could have an effect on the cost of scrubber technology (i.e. a less thorough scrubber, since the fuel is better to start with).

 

And, ships that call in EU ports, outside of the North Sea or Baltic ECA's (some of France, Spain, and the Med) only need to burn low sulfur diesel when actually in port, and scrubbers are not allowed as an alternative. So, ships that alternate between the Caribbean and the Med have even less incentive to install scrubbers.

[Floridiana]

This would include cargo ships as well then.

 

It seems that stricter rules are being made but it's still confusing to me as to how all of this is enforced.

 

I would assume that it can be enforced by the restriction on the sale of low quality fuel. It works so far in certain areas where all countries cooperate such as the Baltics.

[MCC retired]

Each cruise ship sailing may be keeping thousands or cars off the streets for the length of the cruise . Sounds like cruising is good for reducing the human effects on global warming .

 

Also , when I was young I learned that their were 4+ Billion people on earth . It is now 7+ Billion.

IMO , The earth doesn't stand a chance unless we curtail population.

[swedish weave]

Atmospheric CO2 passed 400 ppm in 2013. The highest levels over the past 400,000 years were 200 ppm during the ice ages and 280 ppm during the tropical periods.

 

This*rise*in CO2 shows a relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be accounted for based on the premise that about 60 percent*of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air.*

 

Brazil is burning the rain forest (nature's co2 scrubber) to make pasture to raise beef cattle to sell to China.

 

So, man is burning fossil fuel and burning the planetary scrubbers at rate never seen.

 

And it is said that humans are not implicated in climate change. Ha ha.

 

Again, concentrate on the chemistry, the cause, not the temperature data, the result.

 

Who measured the CO2 levels during the Ice age, and how did they do it?

 

I didn' t realize they had sophisticated equipment during that time.

[DirtyDawg]

....Also , when I was young I learned that their were 4+ Billion people on earth . It is now 7+ Billion.

IMO , The earth doesn't stand a chance unless we curtail population.

 

:confused: Hmmmm, where to start curtailing population? Are you volunteering? ;)

[chengkp75]

Who measured the CO2 levels during the Ice age, and how did they do it?

 

I didn' t realize they had sophisticated equipment during that time.

 

CO2 levels from prehistoric times are measured by looking at trapped air bubbles in Antarctic or Greenland ice cores, the earliest of which dates back 800,000 years, though as with most science there is discussion about the meaning of the findings.

[swedish weave]

The cruise industry is banking on "if they build it, they will come" as far as LNG infrastructure is concerned. At present, there is virtually no infrastructure to bunker LNG to ships in the US. Two notable examples are Tote, which have proprietary (only for their ships) facilities in Seattle and Jacksonville. From what I've seen, the first few Carnival Corp ships being built as LNG capable (still not convinced they will burn LNG exclusively, due to technological restraints) will be for Carnival's European lines (Aida and Costa), where the LNG infrastructure is better than the US, but nowhere near universal, or even sufficient to proposed needs.

 

As of March this year, 72 passenger carrying vessels were in service and on order that use LNG. 40 in service and 32 on order.

 

Also, the total number of LNG burning vessels (freight and passenger) reached 200. At least two were built in San Diego to haul containers between Jacksonville and San Juan.

[chengkp75]

As of March this year, 72 passenger carrying vessels were in service and on order that use LNG. 40 in service and 32 on order.

 

Also, the total number of LNG burning vessels (freight and passenger) reached 200. At least two were built in San Diego to haul containers between Jacksonville and San Juan.

 

Yes, those are the two Tote ships that bunker LNG in Jacksonville. It is still a pretty crude affair, with tank trucks coming to a special built loading manifold.

 

And, of those 40 passenger carrying vessels, nearly all of them are short haul ferries, where the amount of LNG needed to complete the voyage is not great, and the engine sizes are small. Considering that in order to load an equal amount of calorific value (the heat energy in fuel) between residual fuel oil and LNG, you need to load 6 times the volume of LNG, cruise ships will have significant issues with loading enough fuel for an entire cruise, given the restrictions in place by the classification societies as to LNG tank placement in passenger vessels. Again, the cruise ships will be hoping that others will pay for LNG bunkering infrastructure not only in the US but in the islands as well.

 

Most of the cargo ships burning LNG do so in "dual fuel" engines, which burn both liquid fuel (diesel or residual) and LNG at the same time, with the ability to vary the proportions of the two fuels almost completely, and most do not burn straight LNG unless they are within an ECA.

[jaxonboy]

Who measured the CO2 levels during the Ice age, and how did they do it?

 

I didn' t realize they had sophisticated equipment during that time.

Ha ha. Core samples in the ice give a historic atmospheric record. We picked up a group of scientists at palmer station one year (2012) and that is one of the things they were working on.

I would assume that it can be enforced by the restriction on the sale of low quality fuel. It works so far in certain areas where all countries cooperate such as the Baltics.

 

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Forums mobile app

[SRF]

To be clear, I believe in science and so I believe in global warming. Idk exactly what you're saying but I want my position to be clear.

 

Those two things are mutually exclusive.

 

SCIENCE is forming a hypothesis and then testing it, and if the data does not fit, modifying the hypothesis.

 

Global warming/climate change proponents have been proven to discard any data that does not fit their hypothesis. Therefore, it is NOT science.

 

Oh, and BTW global warming is now "climate change" because for the past 17+ years, there has been no statistically significant temperature increase.

[cruzincurt]

Some 2,000 passengers on the ship are not driving their cars around back home. If you are concerned, you can stay home in bed, turn off the lights and air conditioning and cook your dinner over a wood stove. Oops, that won't work because you will have to chop down trees for firewood and then there's all that smoke.

 

Sent from my B3-A30 using Forums mobile app

[jaxonboy]

Some 2,000 passengers on the ship are not driving their cars around back home. If you are concerned, you can stay home in bed, turn off the lights and air conditioning and cook your dinner over a wood stove. Oops, that won't work because you will have to chop down trees for firewood and then there's all that smoke.

 

Sent from my B3-A30 using Forums mobile app

From a greenhouse gas perspective, it would be much better for the 2,000 people to drive the cars than run the ship for a week.

 

The cruise lines need to invest in technology that would eliminate burning thousands of tons of residual oil per day in the ships we enjoy so much.

 

Fuel cell technology might work.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Forums mobile app

[jaxonboy]

Those two things are mutually exclusive.

 

SCIENCE is forming a hypothesis and then testing it, and if the data does not fit, modifying the hypothesis.

 

Global warming/climate change proponents have been proven to discard any data that does not fit their hypothesis. Therefore, it is NOT science.

 

Oh, and BTW global warming is now "climate change" because for the past 17+ years, there has been no statistically significant temperature increase.

After looking at the temperature plots I have to question your understanding of statistical significance. It is not random at all.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Forums mobile app

[chengkp75]

From a greenhouse gas perspective, it would be much better for the 2,000 people to drive the cars than run the ship for a week.

 

The cruise lines need to invest in technology that would eliminate burning thousands of tons of residual oil per day in the ships we enjoy so much.

 

Fuel cell technology might work.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Forums mobile app

 

My question is, if the ships don't burn residual fuel oil, what do you do with it? The majority of refineries in the world are 2nd generation refineries that can only extract about 70% of each barrel of crude oil into distilled product (gas, jet, kerosene, lube oils). The remainder is residual fuel oil. Third generation refineries can extract about 95% of that barrel of crude, leaving only solid coke as the byproduct, which is used in steel production. So, what do all the 2nd generation refineries do with residual fuel oil if the ships can no longer use it? They will have to ship it to 3rd generation refineries with attendant shipping cost, and the need to burn more fuel to transport the fuel to the new refinery, which will drive up the cost of refined products. Well, lets upgrade the refineries; all well and good but it takes a couple of years to do this, and no refinery wants to be out of production (not making any money) for two years, and especially when they are operating at maximum capacity already. How about new refineries? Again, a good idea, but no one wants an oil refinery in their backyard, which is why there have been no new refineries built in the US in years.

 

And while fuel cells look great, where do you get the hydrogen from to fuel it? The most common ways are to split hydrocarbon fuel (LNG, coal, diesel) or biomass (also hydrocarbon based) which results in release of CO2 during the production of the hydrogen, so while it may reduce CO2 emissions, particularly at the end user (like a car), the production is not zero green house gas production.

[AmazedByCruising]

Take my tanker for example. We operate 100% of the time within the North American ECA, so you would think that it would be to our advantage to install scrubbers. However, since fuel cost is paid by the charterer (tanker companies do not buy and sell the product they carry, they charter the vessel to a petroleum company to carry that company's product), it would be up to the charterer to decide if they wanted to invest in a scrubber, and since the charters are typically not long enough to fulfill the payback period, they instead choose to fuel us exclusively with low sulfur diesel fuel.

 

You are saying that it actually would be worthwile to install scrubbers aren't you? I get less than a percent interest on my savings account, a 6, 10, even 20 years investment before earning is worthwhile these days.

 

So I wonder why your ship or line doesn't invest in scrubbers themselves, or have someone else pay for it. It sounds like a decent investment to me.

[pris993]

There is no factual science regarding cruising and GW. You'll just get opinions and political discourse on this topic.

 

agree, science does not support man caused GW.

[jaxonboy]

My question is, if the ships don't burn residual fuel oil, what do you do with it? The majority of refineries in the world are 2nd generation refineries that can only extract about 70% of each barrel of crude oil into distilled product (gas, jet, kerosene, lube oils). The remainder is residual fuel oil. Third generation refineries can extract about 95% of that barrel of crude, leaving only solid coke as the byproduct, which is used in steel production. So, what do all the 2nd generation refineries do with residual fuel oil if the ships can no longer use it? They will have to ship it to 3rd generation refineries with attendant shipping cost, and the need to burn more fuel to transport the fuel to the new refinery, which will drive up the cost of refined products. Well, lets upgrade the refineries; all well and good but it takes a couple of years to do this, and no refinery wants to be out of production (not making any money) for two years, and especially when they are operating at maximum capacity already. How about new refineries? Again, a good idea, but no one wants an oil refinery in their backyard, which is why there have been no new refineries built in the US in years.

 

And while fuel cells look great, where do you get the hydrogen from to fuel it? The most common ways are to split hydrocarbon fuel (LNG, coal, diesel) or biomass (also hydrocarbon based) which results in release of CO2 during the production of the hydrogen, so while it may reduce CO2 emissions, particularly at the end user (like a car), the production is not zero green house gas production.

Most land based combustion of residual oil has been outlawed. Large buildings in New York were heating with it, steam locomotives used it, no more. So I guess the new ships have to pick up some slack.

 

You know far better than I the dangers and challenges using a corrosive and sometimes explosive fuel. Crankcase explosions have disabled cruise ships. An offset is the price of course, cheap for the reasons you point out. Especially when the cost does not include the cost of putting the pollutants in the air.

 

But what to do with it? The ships using residual oil are not going to stop tommorow, barring regulation. Can the tier II refiners convert to a tier III process over time?

 

The EPA imposed a reduction in the sulphur content of on highway diesel fuel. I wonder what the refiners did with the sulphur, is it blended into the Marine fuels?

 

There is a process to convert atmospheric CO2 into methanol which can power fuel cells. Talk about bang for the buck. This may save our hash.

 

I think cruise ships do contribute to global warming. How much? Somewhere it was opined that the airline and cruise industries contributed 3%, or more than Germany and the UK combined.

 

Hope you haul some gasoline to Florida, they sure will need it as they get back on their feet.

[chengkp75]

You are saying that it actually would be worthwile to install scrubbers aren't you? I get less than a percent interest on my savings account, a 6, 10, even 20 years investment before earning is worthwhile these days.

 

So I wonder why your ship or line doesn't invest in scrubbers themselves, or have someone else pay for it. It sounds like a decent investment to me.

 

Why should we invest in scrubbers? It doesn't matter one iota to us whether the charterer pays $300/ton for residual fuel or $600/ton for diesel. Fuel is a cost for the charterer, not the tanker company. And even if we were to get a long term charter, say 5 years (not real common in today's market), if the charterer wanted to invest in scrubbers (pay to have them installed on our ships), he may not reach a payback even at the end of the charter.

 

And while you may only get a 1% or less return on your savings, when you're talking in the millions, you can get a much higher return when investing that money.

[chengkp75]

Most land based combustion of residual oil has been outlawed. Large buildings in New York were heating with it, steam locomotives used it, no more. So I guess the new ships have to pick up some slack.

 

You know far better than I the dangers and challenges using a corrosive and sometimes explosive fuel. Crankcase explosions have disabled cruise ships. An offset is the price of course, cheap for the reasons you point out. Especially when the cost does not include the cost of putting the pollutants in the air.

 

But what to do with it? The ships using residual oil are not going to stop tommorow, barring regulation. Can the tier II refiners convert to a tier III process over time?

 

The EPA imposed a reduction in the sulphur content of on highway diesel fuel. I wonder what the refiners did with the sulphur, is it blended into the Marine fuels?

 

There is a process to convert atmospheric CO2 into methanol which can power fuel cells. Talk about bang for the buck. This may save our hash.

 

I think cruise ships do contribute to global warming. How much? Somewhere it was opined that the airline and cruise industries contributed 3%, or more than Germany and the UK combined.

 

Hope you haul some gasoline to Florida, they sure will need it as they get back on their feet.

 

I believe you mean that residual fuel oil is "outlawed" in the US? Because there are thousands of huge power plants around the world that have diesels powered by residual fuel. In fact, Hawaii gets most of its electricity from oil, and the majority of the oil used in Hawaiian power plants is residual fuel.

 

Actually, the corrosive nature of residual fuel has long been handled with engine design and proper operation, and it is in the scrubbers where the corrosive elements really become active, which is why the scrubber water needs an alkaline additive. To be honest, I've seen far more crankcase explosions in engines running on diesel fuel than on residual fuel, in my 42 years at sea.

 

It takes a couple of years, and millions of dollars to change a refining line from 2nd gen to 3rd gen, as I've said, time that the refinery is spending millions and not making a penny.

 

Low sulfur diesel fuels, like low sulfur residual fuels go through a sulfur scrubbing process at the refinery, which of course raises the cost and the price for the customer. I remember when I was a kid, and diesel fuel was half the price of gasoline. Not now. Much of the sulfur created in the world today (for fertilizers, matches, etc) comes from refinery's de-sulfurization processes. The big problem is that with current technology, there is a limit to the amount of sulfur that can be removed, and when you start with a higher concentration like in residual fuel compared to diesel, you can't get down as low. For instance, the low sulfur diesel fuel used in the US for marine use is 0.1% (100ppm) sulfur, and road diesel is 0.015% (15ppm) in the US. Low sulfur residual fuel is 1% (1000ppm).

 

But, the methanol created from atmospheric CO2 is broken down in the fuel cell to water and CO2 again. Not sure of the exact chemistry to see whether the CO2 in equals the CO2 out, and whether the energy required to create the methanol (again possibly burning fossil fuel to provide the heat for the reaction) is less than the energy obtained from the fuel cell.

 

There have been several gasoline tankers into PEV since Irma, we've done one load of jet, and are loading another load of jet for Tampa and PEV. We also have one of our tankers sitting outside PEV with a full load of jet, because their tanks onshore are full.

[AmazedByCruising]

Why should we invest in scrubbers? It doesn't matter one iota to us whether the charterer pays $300/ton for residual fuel or $600/ton for diesel. Fuel is a cost for the charterer, not the tanker company. And even if we were to get a long term charter, say 5 years (not real common in today's market), if the charterer wanted to invest in scrubbers (pay to have them installed on our ships), he may not reach a payback even at the end of the charter.

 

And while you may only get a 1% or less return on your savings, when you're talking in the millions, you can get a much higher return when investing that money.

 

Unfortunately, I'll have to stick with 0.80% for now :D

 

When I rent a car I'm willing to pay more if that is (more than) compensated in lower fuel costs, so Hertz has an incentive to invest in cars that use less or cheaper fuel. Mutatis mutandis, I'd expect your company to have a similar incentive.

[SRF]

There is a process to convert atmospheric CO2 into methanol which can power fuel cells. Talk about bang for the buck. This may save our hash.

 

And how much energy is required to do that? And where does that energy come from.

 

TANSTAAFL

[LA_CA_GAL]

What impact does cruising have on global warming? I hope to hear that it only contributes a very little bit.

 

These huge ships have made the oceans rise (water displacement), so the oceans are closer to the sun, and get warmer, and cause fish to swim faster, generating more heat. and further, 1,000 years from now, life as we know it will not matter.

[Goodtime Cruizin]

I appreciate this thread. It clearly has brought light to the subject of Climate Change and Cruise Ships. Because of this, I have cancelled my two future cruises and have elected to no longer vacation via Cruise Ships.

 

Not.

[jaxonboy]

And how much energy is required to do that? And where does that energy come from.

 

TANSTAAFL

You can ask Mr Google.

 

My impression is that the recent breakthroughs involve catalysts that are effective at low temperatures.

 

With the advent of solar and wind power there is benefit in using the clean electricity to produce a more portable clean fuel such as methanol. Then power fuel cells with the methanol.

 

Watch this develop. There is a huge amount of methanol being produced now. This is a different way.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Forums mobile app

[jaxonboy]

I appreciate this thread. It clearly has brought light to the subject of Climate Change and Cruise Ships. Because of this, I have cancelled my two future cruises and have elected to no longer vacation via Cruise Ships.

 

Not.

Why is Carnival building LNG powered cruise ships?

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Forums mobile app