Cunard ships and LNG

[mcloaked]

I have been reading a bit about the new LNG ships which are coming in to service, and for Cunard from 2022. It seems all to be due to new strict rules about low sulphur emissions for shipping from the beginning of 2020.  The question I wondered about is what will happen to the current Cunard fleet which are powered by diesel or light/heavy fuel oil at present when the new rules come into force?  Shipping operators will be heavily fined if their ships exceed the emissions limits, so to avoid those fines they will have to use low sulphur fuels or have sulphur scrubbers on the exhausts that cost quite a bit of money. Does that mean prices will rise to pay for fines or will the current three Queens be sold off?  Does anyone know?

[majortom10]

Read an article last week that said  so called sulphur scrubbers are not as good as made to believe. Yes apparently they stop sulphur from entering the atmosphere but instead redirect the sulphur into the oceans and therefore doing untold sea life damage.

[zider]

Carnival are at present converting the Ocean Terminal in Southampton for refuelling their ships  with L.N.G so all Cunard have to do is put converters in to the ships so no need for any  new ships. 

Edited November 16, 2018 by zider

[Underwatr]

Where will they put the LNG tank on the ship??

[zider]

1 hour ago, Underwatr said:

Where will they put the LNG tank on the ship??

same place that they use now+ they will also install a cooling system as it needs to be kept very cold

[Underwatr]

That's not an easy conversion.

[foodsvcmgr]

Curious as to whether LNG has any efficiencies as well as cost benefits that might allow QM2 to operate at her design speed again?

[Underwatr]

From an article comparing LNG be diesel for heavy trucks:

 

"While a gallon of LNG generally is less expensive than a gallon of diesel, natural gas contains less energy than does diesel per unit volume... One gallon of LNG contains about 60 percent of the energy in a gallon of diesel fuel"

 

https://www.waste360.com/mag/waste_trucks_fueling_diesel

[Yoshikitty]

8 hours ago, foodsvcmgr said:

Curious as to whether LNG has any efficiencies as well as cost benefits that might allow QM2 to operate at her design speed again?

 

Imo, it's more the potential threat that port cities won't allow cruiseships using their diesel engine running when being in port very soon.

 

 

[chengkp75]

Okay, here's a few facts about maritime use of LNG.  First off, it is economically unfeasible to convert a ship with the power requirements of a cruise ship to LNG fuel.  Unlike conventional fuel, where the tanks are integral parts of the hull, either in the bottom of the ship, or along the side of the ship, since the LNG tanks are pressurized, they are not allowed to be on the sides where they could be damaged by collision.  They must also be kept a very low temperatures (-260*F), so the tank is essentially surrounded by a vacuum space (like a thermos bottle), and therefore cannot be built as integral parts of the hull, and therefore take up more space, as well as the above noted fact that LNG has less energy per gallon, which means even more tankage space is needed.  Add in the machinery to take the natural "boil off" gas from the tanks and cool it to re-liquify it and return it to the tank, and the machinery needed to inert the fuel tanks (this replaces the atmosphere above the LNG in the tank with non-flammable nitrogen instead of air), and you've used up quite a bit of "real estate" in the already crowded engine rooms.

 

And, you can't totally get rid of the conventional fuel anyway.  Marine diesels that operate on LNG are called "dual fuel" engines, as they can work on any blend of liquid (diesel or residual) fuel and gaseous fuel (LNG), except for 100% LNG.  Buses that operate on LNG use a spark plug for ignition, while larger diesels require injection of a small amount (<5%) of diesel to initiate combustion.  Also, the Safe Return to Port requirements of SOLAS for passenger ships requires a backup fuel supply for the LNG.

 

LNG makes economical sense, at the moment, in the US due to cost advantages over conventional fuels.  In Europe, the price difference is less, so there is less cost advantage, and in Asia, due to limited supply and demand, there is almost no advantage in using LNG that would cover the initial capital expense of building a new LNG fueled ship.

 

Now, as to sulfur limits and scrubbers and marine fuels.  The upcoming sulfur limits in 2020 will not preclude the use of conventional marine fuels, so long as they meet the sulfur requirements.  Currently, there are several ECA's (Emission Control Areas)(North America, Baltic Sea, North Sea, and EU ports) that require sulfur limits on fuel well below the upcoming worldwide sulfur limits (0.1% sulfur in ECA's, vs the proposed 0.5% sulfur in 2020).  This is accomplished using what is known as "ultra low sulfur MGO (marine gas oil, or #2 diesel fuel), but the worldwide limits could be met using merely "low sulfur MGO", which is less expensive, full time.  

 

There are currently available residual fuel oils for use by ships that have reduced sulfur contents (current world wide limit is 3.5%, and these "low sulfur fuel oils" are at 1%).  Naturally, these low sulfur fuels cost more than a non-low sulfur fuel, but still less than MGO.  And there really isn't any reason that 1% sulfur residual fuel blended with 0.1% sulfur MGO could not produce a "thinner" residual fuel that meets the 0.5% limit.

 

Now, to scrubbers.  Yes, "open cycle" scrubbers take sulfur dioxide out of the exhaust, and puts it in the ocean as sulfuric acid.  Is this simply "moving the problem"?  To a degree.  The atmosphere and the oceans react differently to sulfur compounds in them, and it has been studied that the sulfur going into the sea is less harmful than the atmosphere.  Further, there are many "closed cycle" scrubbers that take the sulfur out of the exhaust by a water mist, and then centrifuges the water to remove the particulates (sulfur and others), and re-use the water.  The removed particulates are then sent to the ship's sludge tank for disposal ashore along with all the other waste oil products currently being disposed of at approved facilities ashore.  This is no different than the catalytic converter in your car, which collects and holds the sulfur, and must be disposed of when the car is junked.

 

Back to the OP's question.  Scrubbers cost about $1 million per engine, and depending on the fuel prices at the time, and the amount of time the scrubber is in operation, it can have a pay-back of 5-6 years by using the lower cost fuels.  So, will cruise prices rise?  Likely, as fuel prices for all fuels rise.  Will the ships get fined routinely?  Very few ships have been fined for fuel emission violations in the 6 years the North American ECA has been in effect, monitored by the USCG and CCG, or the 15/16 years that the Baltic/North Sea ECA's have been in force.  Ship owners are virtually 100% compliant, and there is no problem meeting the requirements.  Will the Queens be sold off?  Nope, they will be fitted with scrubbers and continue sailing.

 

And finally, as to whether there are efficiencies that would allow the QM2 to operate at full speed?  No.  In fact, due to the lower energy content of LNG, it would require more fuel space to operate at the higher speeds than the ship currently has, so I doubt she could carry that much (even if all the difficulties I mentioned above could be overcome to convert her to LNG).

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Yoshikitty said:

 

Imo, it's more the potential threat that port cities won't allow cruiseships using their diesel engine running when being in port very soon.

 

 

If the port city doesn't allow the ships to run their engines in port, then the port needs to provide the infrastructure to allow the ship to connect to shore power, and this is expensive, both for the ship (about $1 million) and the city, many millions per shipping berth.  And cruise ships represent only a small fraction of ship's engines running in any port over a year's time.  The cruise industry represents about 5% of total world shipping, and 80% of world trade travels by sea.

[Host Hattie]

The Queens are already fitted with scrubbers.

 

 

Carnival has Scrubbers fitted to 60 ships

 

[Yoshikitty]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

If the port city doesn't allow the ships to run their engines in port, then the port needs to provide the infrastructure to allow the ship to connect to shore power, and this is expensive, both for the ship (about $1 million) and the city, many millions per shipping berth.  And cruise ships represent only a small fraction of ship's engines running in any port over a year's time.  The cruise industry represents about 5% of total world shipping, and 80% of world trade travels by sea.

 

I was speaking about ships in ports.

Surely a cruiseliner needs significantly more power ( and though emits significantly more) to aircondition the entire hotel complex, light everything up, heat the pools and keep the kitchens running etc.  compared to a freighter airconditioning only somes dozen of crew cabins?

 

Think of Venice, it‘s certainly not the containerships that pollute the air in the city.

 

 

Edited November 17, 2018 by Yoshikitty

[Underwatr]

I don't know about other ports, but Brooklyn was one of the first ports to upgrade the shore power infrastructure to allow cruise ships to obtain all hotel loads from shore power while docked.

 

https://www.workboat.com/news/passenger-vessels/brooklyn-cruise-terminal-shore-power-cut-emissions/

 

Edit: Or not...

http://www.aviewfromthehook.com/2018/01/2017-year-of-frustration-at-brooklyn.html

 

Hopefully I'll think to look in December to see whether the shore power cables are connected.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Underwatr

[chengkp75]

57 minutes ago, Yoshikitty said:

 

I was speaking about ships in ports.

Surely a cruiseliner needs significantly more power ( and though emits significantly more) to aircondition the entire hotel complex, light everything up, heat the pools and keep the kitchens running etc.  compared to a freighter airconditioning only somes dozen of crew cabins?

 

Think of Venice, it‘s certainly not the containerships that pollute the air in the city.

 

 

A cargo ship in port does not just run power to air condition a few cabins.  They power the refrigerated containers the ship is carrying (up to 1000 or more) as well as any cargo machinery (cranes and the like) that the ship may be using.  About 8 container ships equals the power of one cruise ship while in port.  And I would bet that the air pollution in Venice pre-dates the cruise ship phenomenon, due to their industrialization and Italy's poor record on air quality.

 

Yep, looked it up, and the refinery and petro-chemical complex in nearby Porto Marghera, which has been in operation since 1950 has been putting sulfur and nitrous oxides into the air for decades.

Edited November 17, 2018 by chengkp75

[chengkp75]

34 minutes ago, Underwatr said:

I don't know about other ports, but Brooklyn was one of the first ports to upgrade the shore power infrastructure to allow cruise ships to obtain all hotel loads from shore power while docked.

 

https://www.workboat.com/news/passenger-vessels/brooklyn-cruise-terminal-shore-power-cut-emissions/

 

Edit: Or not...

http://www.aviewfromthehook.com/2018/01/2017-year-of-frustration-at-brooklyn.html

 

Hopefully I'll think to look in December to see whether the shore power cables are connected.

Since that was initiated only in the last two years, I'd be surprised if all the Cunard ships are fitted with shore power connections, or the same for Princess.  This is a major drydock type conversion, so I would suspect this would only be happening as ships go for their scheduled dockings.  Another note that the second author gets wrong is that when on shore power, there are "no emissions" from the stacks.  The ships still need boilers to heat hot water and make steam for various uses, so those boilers will still be running, even when on shore power.  Heating boilers are generally exempt from the shore power requirements, even in severely restrictive places like California.

[Underwatr]

An excerpt from "Cunard's Commitment to the Environment" on the Cunard website.

 

Ship shore power capacity is on course, with over 43% of Carnival Corporation and plc's fleet – including Cunard's Queen Mary 2 - now capable of using shore-based power when in port. On her current itineraries, Queen Mary 2 uses power from the local grid in New York and Boston, with Carnival ready to increase shore power coverage of its fleet wide capacity in relation to future port capabilities.

 

QM2 is the only Cunard ship that calls on New York with any regularity.

 

 

[Fairgarth]

Do these ships have auxiliary diesels for use while tied up?  i.e. the main propulsion engines are shut down while in port.  Would these be subject to the same low-sulfur requirement?  Could they run on LNG?

[chengkp75]

33 minutes ago, Fairgarth said:

Do these ships have auxiliary diesels for use while tied up?  i.e. the main propulsion engines are shut down while in port.  Would these be subject to the same low-sulfur requirement?  Could they run on LNG?

Cruise ships are diesel electric.  That means all their diesel engines drive electrical generators, not the ship itself.  All of these diesel generators feed to a common switchboard (think the power grid on land), so their output can be used for whatever is needed, hotel load, propulsion, etc.  The propulsion is done by electric motors.  They run more diesels when underway, and less (typically one) when in port.  The sulfur limit on fuels are for all marine diesel engines, even the emergency generators, which only run an hour a month.  As noted,  if the ship has the auxiliary equipment necessary (tankage, inert gas system, re-liquifaction equipment) to run on LNG, then virtually any diesel can be converted to run on LNG.  Heck, the original diesel engine ran on coal dust, and you can run one on flour dust.

[foodsvcmgr]

Thanks Chengkp as usual for another insightful answer to our layman’s technical questions.

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, Underwatr said:

An excerpt from "Cunard's Commitment to the Environment" on the Cunard website.

 

Ship shore power capacity is on course, with over 43% of Carnival Corporation and plc's fleet – including Cunard's Queen Mary 2 - now capable of using shore-based power when in port. On her current itineraries, Queen Mary 2 uses power from the local grid in New York and Boston, with Carnival ready to increase shore power coverage of its fleet wide capacity in relation to future port capabilities.

 

QM2 is the only Cunard ship that calls on New York with any regularity.

 

 

Funny that they mention taking power from the grid in Boston, since that terminal's shore power infrastructure is only now being voted on in the Mass. Assembly, according to an article in July.  According to the most recent EPA study of shore power installations in the US, shows for Boston only the low capacity one at the fish pier.  That's quite different from the 10,000 volt systems that cruise ships use.