Air Quality (Pollution) on Cruise Ships - HOW BAD IS IT ?

[stefmo]

Just seen a report on TV about air quality on cruise ships. Seems that levels of pollution on some cruise ships' decks are worse than in the world's most polluted cities.

One cruise ship can emit as much particulate matter as a million cars in a day. Air on the deck downwind of, and directly next to the ship's funnels, had 84,000 ultra-fine particulates per cubic centimetre. Directly next to the funnels on the deck, the numbers rocketed to 144,000 with a peak at 226,000. (n)(n)

These are levels that you would expect to see in the most polluted cities in the world like Shanghai, Delhi and so on. These particulates are harmful for health and the environment.

This came to me as a shock. Always thought being in the middle of the ocean on a cruise ship was very healthy

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/pollution-cruise-ships-po-oceana-higher-piccadilly-circus-channel-4-dispatches-a7821911.html

https://en.nabu.de/news/2017/21870.html

https://www.ship-technology.com/features/polluted-cruises-bad-air-quality-ships/

[A&L_Ont]

Chief, where are you?

 

The ships exhaust doesn't remind me of Delhi, but this question is right in your ball park.

[schmeed]

I've watched soot coming out of the stacks, but never smelled it or been bothered by it. The back of the ship (sports deck) is the most susceptible and I've never had a problem there either.

 

As I see it, your choices are three:

1. Don't cruise at all.

2. Wear a respirator (that would be amusing).

3. Don't worry about it.

[azarak]

One can only assume any sort of exhaust coming from anything is polluting the air--especially if that exhaust is as black as coal like the ships exhaust. I've never been bothered by the smell or even residual soot in all of the cruises I've taken and probably won't be bothered by it next month. The way I see it is I'm on there for 7 days. My biggest worry while on board should be whether or not I have enough sunscreen to last the week and am I applying often enough because the sun is far more dangerous than being downwind of the smokestack. Of course that's my personal opinion for my little family.

[bouhunter]

 

As I see it, your choices are three:

1. Don't cruise at all.

2. Wear a respirator (that would be amusing).

3. Don't worry about it.

 

Perfect:p

[SRF]

So how much time to you stand next to the stacks?

 

People worry about the damnedest things.

[boscobeans]

I am nowhere near an expert but using common averages I see a flaw in their numbers.

 

If a modern cruise ship burns 200 tonnes of fuel in a day, that equals about 50,000 gallons.

 

If using 12,000 miles as a yearly average number of miles driven in a car that breaks down to about 32 miles per day.

 

Let's take 32 miles and say that equals about ONE gallon of fuel per day.(32 Mpg)

 

ONE million cars would therefore burn about ONE MILLION gallons per day.

 

If a cruise ship burns 50,000 gallons a day and cars burn 1,000,000. gallons a day their million car comparison appears to be flawed.

 

I am sure someone more versed in this will have a much better answer.

 

boso

[nealstuber]

Just seen a report on TV about air quality on cruise ships. Seems that levels of pollution on some cruise ships' decks are worse than in the world's most polluted cities.

 

 

One cruise ship can emit as much particulate matter as a million cars in a day. Air on the deck downwind of, and directly next to the ship's funnels, had 84,000 ultra-fine particulates per cubic centimetre. Directly next to the funnels on the deck, the numbers rocketed to 144,000 with a peak at 226,000. (n)(n)

 

These are levels that you would expect to see in the most polluted cities in the world like Shanghai, Delhi and so on. These particulates are harmful for health and the environment.

 

 

This came to me as a shock. Always thought being in the middle of the ocean on a cruise ship was very healthy

 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/pollution-cruise-ships-po-oceana-higher-piccadilly-circus-channel-4-dispatches-a7821911.html

 

https://en.nabu.de/news/2017/21870.html

 

https://www.ship-technology.com/features/polluted-cruises-bad-air-quality-ships/

 

 

 

 

From the first article you cited:

It’s a residual product from the refining industry, so after the refiners have produced the petrol and diesel we put in our cars, they’re left with what is essentially a waste product.

 

What would you have the refineries do with the waste that is currently burned in the middle of the ocean?

 

If it wasn’t getting burned at sea for a profit, it would be burned on land for a cost.

 

Comparing the air quality of 30,000 swift foot area of a ship to a random area of a city is laughable. 30 cruise ships to all the cars in England? 30 ships is roughly 40% of the total industry -while the UK has about 3.5% of the worlds cars.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[gilboman]

it's pretty bad especially when it's far from port and cruising, it's nauseating especially on the upper decks with the fumes

[alfaeric]

From the first article you cited:

It’s a residual product from the refining industry, so after the refiners have produced the petrol and diesel we put in our cars, they’re left with what is essentially a waste product.

 

What would you have the refineries do with the waste that is currently burned in the middle of the ocean?

 

If it wasn’t getting burned at sea for a profit, it would be burned on land for a cost.

 

Comparing the air quality of 30,000 swift foot area of a ship to a random area of a city is laughable. 30 cruise ships to all the cars in England? 30 ships is roughly 40% of the total industry -while the UK has about 3.5% of the worlds cars.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Ship emissions are now controlled, even at sea. It's an international agreement. So you know.

 

They are a little tighter when near land in the US.

 

The "waste product" can be cracked and turned into better HC's to burn- it's just cheaper to sell to the cruise lines. But thanks to international agreements, that cheapness is going to end, and better fuel will be used even far out at sea.

[Eslader]

 

I am sure someone more versed in this will have a much better answer.

 

boso

 

The measurement was emissions, not fuel use. Modern cars are so emissions-tight that they can actually *clean* the air in particularly dirty areas. What comes out the tailpipe has fewer pollutants than what went in the air intake.

 

Despite regulations on ships, I doubt they're as tight as regulations on cars.

 

 

That said, "downwind of the smokestacks" is pretty funny, since the vast majority of the ship is upwind of the smoke stacks. I imagine you'd find it harmful if you got a ladder and climbed up to the top of the exhaust stack and stuck your face in there, but standing on the deck? You probably get worse particulate exposure at truck stops.

 

Plus, for most of us this is something we do occasionally. The lucky ones do it 2 or 3 times a year. Ever burn food on the stove? You worried about dying early from the smoke? No, because unless you cook like my dad did, you only burn food occasionally. And you're only exposed to cruise ship exhaust occasionally too. I highly doubt it's a big deal, health-wise, even if the measurements are accurate.

[Jenjer]

I have severe asthma. My family calls me "The Canary" because if something is in the air my lungs freak out before anyone else. I also have a really really great sense of smell. Like crazy good.

 

We cruise because its one of the best, safest and easiest way for me to travel. If I have a issue I can not handle with my medications I have medical center just a elevator ride away. If I have issues the whole families trip is not ruined.

 

I have never had a issue on or in the deck of any ship, that was caused by the ship. The air quality in the casinos is bad, so guess what I avoid them....problem solved. The outdoor smoking sections are not even that bad to walk by because the wind blows it away. My worst asthma attack ever was not caused by a ship or a smoker but by a little old lady who bathed in her perfume.

 

Everyone has different irritants....or as most people call them allergies. But for me, my lungs get better with the sea air. My o2 stat is usually 100 on cruises (better than at home) as long as I avoid the well perfumed.

[alfaeric]

Another way of looking at the relative emissions is the regulated allowed amount...

 

For a car, right now, PM is roughly 3-10 mg/mi. 1,000,000 x that would be 3-10 kg/mi. Which is a HUGE amount, well over the regulated 0.15 g/kW-hr. Considering ships are 30-50 gal of fuel/mi (roughly), I just don't see the kind of output that would be that much.

 

Same goes for the gas emissions- ships are ~6 g/kWhr of NOx + HC, where cars are roughly 0.05-0.120 g/mi- so again, to have the output per mile with just 50gal/mi- the math seems pretty tough to add up.

 

BTW, those are US limits, as they were easier to find.

 

All in all- yes, marine diesels are much dirtier than gas cars. But nowhere near 1M*.

 

But it's also why the rules are getting tighter, and that many areas have in port specific rules (like California), as it can be quite harmful to workers.

[Mikeandliz]

Just seen a report on TV about air quality on cruise ships. Seems that levels of pollution on some cruise ships' decks are worse than in the world's most polluted cities.

 

 

One cruise ship can emit as much particulate matter as a million cars in a day. Air on the deck downwind of, and directly next to the ship's funnels, had 84,000 ultra-fine particulates per cubic centimetre. Directly next to the funnels on the deck, the numbers rocketed to 144,000 with a peak at 226,000. (n)(n)

 

These are levels that you would expect to see in the most polluted cities in the world like Shanghai, Delhi and so on. These particulates are harmful for health and the environment.

 

 

This came to me as a shock. Always thought being in the middle of the ocean on a cruise ship was very healthy

 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/pollution-cruise-ships-po-oceana-higher-piccadilly-circus-channel-4-dispatches-a7821911.html

 

https://en.nabu.de/news/2017/21870.html

 

https://www.ship-technology.com/features/polluted-cruises-bad-air-quality-ships/

 

 

 

 

Great, another environmental scientist heard from. Why don’t you stay home and home reduce your own carbon footprint. You are hear-by BANNED FROM CC!!!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[steveru621]

Just seen a report on TV about air quality on cruise ships. Seems that levels of pollution on some cruise ships' decks are worse than in the world's most polluted cities.

One cruise ship can emit as much particulate matter as a million cars in a day. Air on the deck downwind of, and directly next to the ship's funnels, had 84,000 ultra-fine particulates per cubic centimetre. Directly next to the funnels on the deck, the numbers rocketed to 144,000 with a peak at 226,000. (n)(n)

These are levels that you would expect to see in the most polluted cities in the world like Shanghai, Delhi and so on. These particulates are harmful for health and the environment.

This came to me as a shock. Always thought being in the middle of the ocean on a cruise ship was very healthy

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/pollution-cruise-ships-po-oceana-higher-piccadilly-circus-channel-4-dispatches-a7821911.html

https://en.nabu.de/news/2017/21870.html

https://www.ship-technology.com/features/polluted-cruises-bad-air-quality-ships/

 

So based on 2 cruise lines, that are not RCI. All cruise ships are the same???

[alfaeric]

Great, another environmental scientist heard from. Why don’t you stay home and home reduce your own carbon footprint. You are hear-by BANNED FROM CC!!!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Why is it so evil to want to be environmentally friendly?

 

If you do the math- you would find out that ships are actually pretty good- just counting passengers, they get north of 60 passenger MPG if they are running at full steam- which they rarely do. So to take people from place to place, they do it quite efficiently.

 

That, and is there a problem to reducing the harm to the ocean? Let alone around the port areas, where people live....

 

Not sure why people are so interested in ignoring their impact.

[AlanF65]

Why is it so evil to want to be environmentally friendly?

 

If you do the math- you would find out that ships are actually pretty good- just counting passengers, they get north of 60 passenger MPG if they are running at full steam- which they rarely do. So to take people from place to place, they do it quite efficiently.

 

That, and is there a problem to reducing the harm to the ocean? Let alone around the port areas, where people live....

 

Not sure why people are so interested in ignoring their impact.

 

They measure output of cars at the factory or when getting emissions tests in a controlled environment. Putting a meter on a ship without a defined methodology is flawed test. Older ships are polluting, not all ships are polluting.

Older cars pollute more.

 

 

Measuring particulate mater in a city is different than measuring it next to the stack. measure the air for 100 or 500 Meters around the ship and at other distances.

 

I would be interested in accurate tests per ship but not all ships are bad because we measured an old ship with a flawed method.

[alfaeric]

They measure output of cars at the factory or when getting emissions tests in a controlled environment. Putting a meter on a ship without a defined methodology is flawed test. Older ships are polluting, not all ships are polluting.

Older cars pollute more.

 

 

Measuring particulate mater in a city is different than measuring it next to the stack. measure the air for 100 or 500 Meters around the ship and at other distances.

 

I would be interested in accurate tests per ship but not all ships are bad because we measured an old ship with a flawed method.

I get that. And I also know that there is an agreed upon measurement system for marine diesels. So that most old ships are retrofitted to be much cleaner than they were new (you see the scrubbers on some ships).

 

The ARTICLE is flawed, sure. But the idea of reducing the impact of ships is not, and there are international agreements in place to do that.

[gilboman]

So based on 2 cruise lines, that are not RCI. All cruise ships are the same???

 

pretty much yes.

 

the newest ship that will have a difference is the AidaNova (Carnival owned) cruise ship that is powered by LNG which is a lot cleaner than the dirty fuel used by other cruise ships (including RCI)

[Merion_Mom]

I have severe asthma. My family calls me "The Canary" because if something is in the air my lungs freak out before anyone else. I also have a really really great sense of smell. Like crazy good.

 

We cruise because its one of the best, safest and easiest way for me to travel. If I have a issue I can not handle with my medications I have medical center just a elevator ride away. If I have issues the whole families trip is not ruined.

 

I have never had a issue on or in the deck of any ship, that was caused by the ship. The air quality in the casinos is bad, so guess what I avoid them....problem solved. The outdoor smoking sections are not even that bad to walk by because the wind blows it away. My worst asthma attack ever was not caused by a ship or a smoker but by a little old lady who bathed in her perfume.

 

Everyone has different irritants....or as most people call them allergies. But for me, my lungs get better with the sea air. My o2 stat is usually 100 on cruises (better than at home) as long as I avoid the well perfumed.

(y)(y)(y)

[chengkp75]

I'll say the same thing I say every time this "study" shows up. It is based on one or two sets of readings on one or two ships. There is no documentation of the atmospheric conditions at the time the samples were collected, nor regarding the ship's operation at the time. There is no way to determine if the sample collecting was a reasonable sampling of various conditions, or whether the samplers waited until just the right conditions existed to "prove" the worst possible scenario. This is not science, it is simply environmental PR.

 

Yes, cruise ship exhausts do emit black smoke on occasion, most notably when starting an engine, just like when a diesel truck starts up from a stop light. The turbocharger needs to spin up from exhaust gas, so there is a lag between demand for power and the necessary air for complete combustion.

 

While cruising is not a true form of transportation, as a whole seaborne transportation is the most economical way to move things, better mileage per ton of fuel than cars, trucks, train, or airplanes.

 

As for residual marine fuel, it is in fact the end product of most of the refineries around the world. About 75% of the world's refineries are "2nd generation" which can only refine about 75% of each barrel of crude into clean refined product (gas, diesel, jet, kerosene, lube oil, etc). The remainder is residual marine fuel, and those refineries are not equipped to "crack" this into more refined product. The other 25% of the world's refineries are "3rd generation", which can in fact, refine about 98% of each barrel of crude to refined product. The remainder is solid coke, used in steel production. It is an extremely costly upgrade to retrofit a refinery from 2nd gen to 3rd gen, and while it is being done, the refinery is shut down, not producing revenue. So, while the demand for residual fuel may decrease in the future, there will be a need to transport this residual from the refinery that cannot refine it to the refinery that can, resulting in even more burning of hydrocarbon fuel.

 

The IMO has mandated that by 2020, all ships, worldwide, reduce fuel sulfur levels to 0.5%, from the present level of 3%. In certain ECA's (Emission Control Areas), the sulfur limit is even lower, down to 0.1% today, for the North American, North Sea, Baltic ECA's and while docked in EU ports.

 

This requirement to control SOX (sulfur dioxide) and NOX (nitrogen dioxide) are the only requirements currently, or planned for marine fuel. There is no particulate regulation for ship's exhausts.

 

Now, with the use of an exhaust gas scrubber, the SOX and NOX levels while burning high sulfur residual fuel (3% sulfur) can be lowered to meet the current and planned requirements, so there is no requirement to stop burning residual fuel anytime in the future.

 

Now, as to the air quality onboard the ship, this will of course depend on the conditions I mentioned at the beginning of this post. The wind speed and direction in relation to ship speed and course along with the air pressure and humidity will have a lot to do with it, but generally, the stack gases are lighter than air (because they are hotter), so they rise, and the vessel's forward motion will send the gases astern before they cool and drop to a lower level. Now, when docked, of course, there is no forward motion, but then again the ship is burning about 1/4 to 1/5 of the amount of fuel that it does when underway.

[PCWalton1]

Great stuff, thanks chengkp75 :D

[AlanF65]

I'll say the same thing I say every time this "study" shows up. It is based on one or two sets of readings on one or two ships. There is no documentation of the atmospheric conditions at the time the samples were collected, nor regarding the ship's operation at the time. There is no way to determine if the sample collecting was a reasonable sampling of various conditions, or whether the samplers waited until just the right conditions existed to "prove" the worst possible scenario. This is not science, it is simply environmental PR.

 

Yes, cruise ship exhausts do emit black smoke on occasion, most notably when starting an engine, just like when a diesel truck starts up from a stop light. The turbocharger needs to spin up from exhaust gas, so there is a lag between demand for power and the necessary air for complete combustion.

 

While cruising is not a true form of transportation, as a whole seaborne transportation is the most economical way to move things, better mileage per ton of fuel than cars, trucks, train, or airplanes.

 

As for residual marine fuel, it is in fact the end product of most of the refineries around the world. About 75% of the world's refineries are "2nd generation" which can only refine about 75% of each barrel of crude into clean refined product (gas, diesel, jet, kerosene, lube oil, etc). The remainder is residual marine fuel, and those refineries are not equipped to "crack" this into more refined product. The other 25% of the world's refineries are "3rd generation", which can in fact, refine about 98% of each barrel of crude to refined product. The remainder is solid coke, used in steel production. It is an extremely costly upgrade to retrofit a refinery from 2nd gen to 3rd gen, and while it is being done, the refinery is shut down, not producing revenue. So, while the demand for residual fuel may decrease in the future, there will be a need to transport this residual from the refinery that cannot refine it to the refinery that can, resulting in even more burning of hydrocarbon fuel.

 

The IMO has mandated that by 2020, all ships, worldwide, reduce fuel sulfur levels to 0.5%, from the present level of 3%. In certain ECA's (Emission Control Areas), the sulfur limit is even lower, down to 0.1% today, for the North American, North Sea, Baltic ECA's and while docked in EU ports.

 

This requirement to control SOX (sulfur dioxide) and NOX (nitrogen dioxide) are the only requirements currently, or planned for marine fuel. There is no particulate regulation for ship's exhausts.

 

Now, with the use of an exhaust gas scrubber, the SOX and NOX levels while burning high sulfur residual fuel (3% sulfur) can be lowered to meet the current and planned requirements, so there is no requirement to stop burning residual fuel anytime in the future.

 

Now, as to the air quality onboard the ship, this will of course depend on the conditions I mentioned at the beginning of this post. The wind speed and direction in relation to ship speed and course along with the air pressure and humidity will have a lot to do with it, but generally, the stack gases are lighter than air (because they are hotter), so they rise, and the vessel's forward motion will send the gases astern before they cool and drop to a lower level. Now, when docked, of course, there is no forward motion, but then again the ship is burning about 1/4 to 1/5 of the amount of fuel that it does when underway.

 

We had an OSHA inspection about 25 years ago and the former employee complained about the exhaust from the LPG forklift indoors.

 

The OSHA inspector came with an assistant who had a measurement device for Carbon monoxide. He walked up to the forklift and put it on the tailpipe, ran and got the primary inspector explaining how bad the reading was.

 

The inspector came over and told him to measure again and when he watched him he told him to measure for 10' feet away and we were in compliance.

[A&L_Ont]

Chief, you should copy that and save it as a document. You are bound to use it again somewhere.

[boscobeans]

I knew this post would get an answer from someone more in the know than most responding, including myself.

 

Thank you Chief.

,

 

bosco