Cunard's New Conservation and Sustainability Modifications

[Underwatr]

Tetra packs are one of the few items still accepted for recycling in my community, which suggests that there is a ready non-Chinese recycling market for them in the US (they have abandoned any feel-good statements about recycling and tell us to discard something if we're unsure whether it meets the more limited recyclables list, yet they invite juice boxes and the like).

[Underwatr]

On 6/13/2019 at 11:13 PM, Bigmike911 said:

Well they could replace small plastic bottles of toiletries with small recyclable glass bottles. When I stayed at the old Waldorf in NYC their Penhaligon toiletries came in glass bottles. I still have a couple. 

The Cunard letter does say they will be reducing PLASTIC waste from toiletry containers, so that's a possibility. I'm reminded however of the experience of dropping a full-sized glass shampoo bottle in the shower in the early 1970s and do not wish to return to that era.

[Underwatr]

1 hour ago, ew101 said:

Water bottle filling stations on cruise ships seem to be one of the most challenging engineering, public health and economic issues of our time 

I've seen bottle-filling stations at ballparks and in the secure area of airports. Is there something the USPHS needs to tell us about those?

[ew101]

1 hour ago, TheOldBear said:

 

With today's technology, Sam Cunard would commission a Brayton Cycle, 'pebble bed' nuke powered ship.

This technology is more mature than steam power was when he commissioned the original Britannia 

Based on the careful analysis from ChengKP, you are right.  For a large, fast, energy intensive ship that is all that is on the shelf today.  I remember reading the long reports on the huge electric power demands for the Ford-class aircraft carriers.  

 

What I was thinking would be a more modest, retro model- like a "Windstar" experience.  Open windows, 7-8 knots, lower passenger density.  I do not require 65 degree AC, unlimited ice water, 3500 fellow passengers  and 24 knots to enjoy a cruise.    But I might be alone.  

 

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by ew101

[eroller]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

The "LNG hybrid" for Princess is no different from the AIDA NOVA or any other marine LNG fueled diesel powered ship.  Burning straight LNG requires a spark ignition (auto-ignition temp for natural gas is 750*C), while diesel fuel auto-ignites (the principal of a diesel engine) at 210*C and residual fuel at 400*C.  So, on land, buses use spark plugs to ignite the LNG fuel, while marine diesels use 5% diesel fuel injected along with the LNG to "start the ignition along".  This ability to inject gaseous and liquid fuels at the same time, make these "dual fuel" engines.  They can operate on blends from 95% LNG/5% diesel to 0% LNG and 100% diesel (and residual fuel rather than diesel).  AIDA NOVA can operate completely on LNG (well, 95%), but not sure if she does, as the LNG bunkering infrastructure is still not as developed as cruise lines would like.  Further, the IMO's Safe Return to Port requirements of SOLAS require a second fuel for LNG powered passenger vessels, so there will always be a reserve of diesel fuel onboard.

 

 

There is some technical difference with the Princess newbuild.  I’m not sure what it is as details are scarce, but apparently it is not a true sister to the XL LNG class of ships Carnival is building for various brands.  

[Bigmike911]

3 hours ago, Underwatr said:

The Cunard letter does say they will be reducing PLASTIC waste from toiletry containers, so that's a possibility. I'm reminded however of the experience of dropping a full-sized glass shampoo bottle in the shower in the early 1970s and do not wish to return to that era.

The glass bottles I am referring to are small 50ml and I supposed if you threw them with some force to the floor of the shower, you could break them, but I have dropped them on my tile bathroom floor more than once and they didn't shatter or break. 

[VintageCCG]

7 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Sadly, most of these things are just not feasible for a cruise ship ...

 

 

In an environment of misinformation, ill-informed opinions, and guesses stated as facts, I always welcome occasions when a legitimate expert provides clarity, accuracy, and insight.

 

Chengkp75, Cruise Critic should put you on the payroll in acknowledgement that you raise the IQ of the room every time you offer a comment.

 

Cheers!

[ew101]

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 8:46 AM, chengkp75 said:

Sadly, most of these things are just not feasible for a cruise ship.  

I am not sure if this project is still moving ahead, but they are taking a wholistic view of total shipboard environmental/carbon impact.  There is data that younger people are more interested in all things environmental = future passengers.  

 

http://ecoship-pb.com/technology/ 

 

And there is reference to a term I have not seen before from the world of shipping- EEDI

 

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Technical-and-Operational-Measures.aspx

 

 

[chengkp75]

16 hours ago, ew101 said:

I am not sure if this project is still moving ahead, but they are taking a wholistic view of total shipboard environmental/carbon impact.  There is data that younger people are more interested in all things environmental = future passengers.  

 

http://ecoship-pb.com/technology/ 

 

And there is reference to a term I have not seen before from the world of shipping- EEDI

 

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Technical-and-Operational-Measures.aspx

 

 

While a laudable effort, I still don't believe this will move the paradigm that much.  They are hoping to generate 750kw of solar power (covering the entire open top deck with panels), and 300kw of wind with 10 turbines.  This is about 1Mw, or about 12% of the hotel load for a 2200 pax ship (I note they don't mention size of their project).  And hotel load accounts for 12-16% of the total power for a cruise ship, so that is a lot of capital investment for a "sometime" 2% "free" power.  They later admit that GHG fuels will still account for 95% of propulsion power, and 60% of hotel power.

 

Most of the technologies they tout are already in use on cruise ships, or on cargo ships, and the innovation appears to be the scale of their use.  Most of their "recycling" systems are already in use.  "Toilets will use less than a liter of water" is already the case in every cruise ship afloat, as the basis of the vacuum toilet system.  We tried 15 years ago to recycle ground food waste from the pulpers to pig farmers in Hawaii, but the problem is that the food waste contains cooked and uncooked meats and therefore is not allowed back into the human food chain.  It has to be sterilized first, so an additional cost.  The only real changes I see are in heat recovery from gasifying LNG (and this hasn't been used because there aren't LNG cruise ships), and the garden and "farming" onboard.

 

My question is, how much larger a vessel is needed to carry all the recycling equipment and renewable power storage and conversion equipment, and whether this increase in size makes it an energy neutral proposition.

 

Yes, all ships have been operating under SEEMP plans for nearly a decade.