Impact of ship building and ship scrapping?

[Toofarfromthesea]

Tangentionally, if you do a Google search on "breaking ships" you'll find several clips of varying lengths on the process of scrapping ships.

[JRG]

7 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

As we build more and more ships are we creating problems down the road with what to do with them?

 

Not if we strip them down properly from their polluting chemical components and create artificial reefs to reinvigorate and stimulate marine life in the vanishing reefs.   And provide a safe Eco-tourism opportunity for future divers and snorkelers.

 

Or maybe we use them as temporary housing for homeless people in harbors, or offshore, especially our US Veterans who need housing.  

 

Or maybe we find a way to use the labor that wishes to migrate to the US and train them to provide hospitality type services under reasonable and humane working conditions, which somehow makes cruising more affordable for the average cruising Jane and Jone Doe.

 

Or maybe we find a way to use old ships as depositories for plastics that we successfully retrieve from our oceans until we find a way to manage the plastic eating enzymes that are under development (opinion only, no source info here).    Maybe then the Albatross chicks of the North Pacific Islands will have a better chance to survive and maintain their existence.   

 

Probably not the exact answer you were looking for but with the proper goal congruence on the subject, we can better steer clear of the problems you refer to.

 

Rare editing comment,   We are creating problems right now,  not just down the road as your question beckons.  

Edited July 15, 2023 by JRG
editorial comment added

[Joebucks]

While I am certainly no expert on maritime processes, there seems to be a bit of economic principles here that seem pretty clear. If a cruise line could repurpose a smaller ship to save or make money rather than scrapping it, don't you think they would be all over that already? People already think they are the greatest penny-pinching companies there are.

 

We've all seen renovated older ships or at the very least, opinions of people who are on them. There is only so much lipstick you can put on a pig sometimes. Extreme wear, smells, and outdated designs are some of many reasons why it's better off to start fresh. Smaller ships tend to be more and more associated with luxury travel these days. I couldn't imagine wanting to sail on a 30+ year old ship for such a price. People want modern.

 

I also sometimes wonder what the future looks like. A few decades from now, I expect many ports to be unbearable with the amount of people they're going to shovel in. I also think some countries will be forced to adapt their current scenario and find ways to accept larger ships. I also believe there will be ships made again even on the mass-market lines that are smaller than the current mega-builds as some destinations will just need it. 

[cruisemom42]

34 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

People want modern.

 

The cruising market has many segments. Not everyone wants new and modern at the expense of size.

 

Some examples of ships that have been successfully repurposed have already been mentioned -- and to add to that, what about the entire fleet of small ships built by Renaissance just before and after the turn of the 21st century? All of them are still in use: 4 with Azamara and 3 with Oceania. 

 

Yes, there are some who complain about the size of the bathrooms, but there are others who like where these ships can take them and enjoy sailing with fewer passengers. It's a small trade-off in my mind and one I can easily live with.

 

[JRG]

18 hours ago, SelectSys said:

One thing that might happen for smaller ships would be the development of new build sailing and solar powered ships.  The solar ships would still need backup generators, but are feasible. 

 

Agreed.     I drove my first hybrid car  (in England) and was surprised at the Fahrvergnugen in the Mercedes we rented.

 

When output from solar panels break through the current physical imitations of photovoltaic panels that exist today this becomes more feasible for the big ships

 

Smaller ships are likely to be the first beneficiaries if that isn't already existing.

 

 

[chengkp75]

19 hours ago, SelectSys said:

One thing that might happen for smaller ships would be the development of new build sailing and solar powered ships.  The solar ships would still need backup generators, but are feasible.  The link below alludes to a 120 meter ship which would start getting towards the size of smaller cruise ships:

https://www.silent-yachts.com/

If you look at the specifications, the solar panels have a generating capacity of 40kwp (which is peak generation), yet the propulsion is 2 x 340kw motors.  The batteries are 800kwh, so I don't see it going at full speed for more than an hour (800kwh storage vs 680kw motors) and then the lights go out, without using the generators, since the solar panels would need 20 hours to recharge the batteries.  

 

Take a small cruise ship like the Silver Whisper, <400 pax, which requires 15,500kw for power, or 20 times the batteries in the "silent yacht".  At current watt densities for solar panels (about 175 watts per square meter), this would require 89,000 square meters of solar panels to power the ship.  If you want to have solar panels like the "silent yacht", which is a rectangular, flat area above the boat, taking Silver Whisper's length and beam (meaning the panels would overhang the bow and stern quite a bit), you get an area of 4750 square meters, or 5% of the required generating capability.

 

While solar assisted cruise ships could be viable (not sure about economically feasible), a solar powered ship is just not.  With today's technology, solar power generation is a "low density" (I belong to a "community" solar farm, which takes acres to generate 6,000kw), while a ship is a "high density" power user.  Continuing with Silver Whisper, her power usage is 3,200 watts per square meter (going with the rectangle, not the actual ship's waterline area), or 18 times what solar panels alone could produce.

 

I remember that Oasis of the Seas, or one of her sisters was fitted with solar panels over a good area of the ship, and all it could do is power the Central Park area lighting.

[mnocket]

I just came across this website and it made me remember this thread on scrapping ships.

 

Beloved cruise ships that are no longer sailing (msn.com)

 

[JRG]

22 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

No; I am just curious. If the factors being considered are dynamic, the results of the analysis might change in future as opposed to past practices.

 

For example, IF (and I'm not saying this is true) there were detrimental environmental effects of scrapping and newbuilds versus recycling older ships, and IF as a result governments began offering subsidies for the latter, would it make this a more serious discussion?

 

I think it would make for a more serious discussion except that it falls apart when attaching it to subsidies.

 

What Government are you thinking about US,   as a stimulus for shipbuilding industries, one ship at a time?   Does not seem likely or worthy of an internet  discussion,   it would get out of line quickly.

I would redline this part of the original post and the question becomes legitimate.

 

The part of the post which screams out to me is a cruiser saying,  "I am worried that my carbon footprint is too big",  "is my industry doing all it can during the lifecycle of a cruise ship  big or small"    "I care about the environment".   These are things many people may feel exactly the same way about.  So we seek out the truthful answers

 

Discussing negative and detrimental environmental effects of ship building and scrapping is a serious discussion in and of itself.

 

 

[JRG]

4 hours ago, Joebucks said:

I also sometimes wonder what the future looks like. A few decades from now,

(1) I expect many ports to be unbearable with the amount of people they're going to shovel in.

(2)I also think some countries will be forced to adapt their current scenario and find ways to accept larger ships.

(3)I also believe there will be ships made again even on the mass-market lines that are smaller than the current mega-builds as some destinations will just need it. 

 

(1) need more discussion here for me

(2) survival on tourist dollars makes this true

(3) makes sense,   shipbuilding companies have an on-going concern and it makes sense that they will be building what the market is asking for,  port size being one of many parameters. But need more discussion here for sure.

 

[SelectSys]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

While solar assisted cruise ships could be viable (not sure about economically feasible), a solar powered ship is just not

Yes -  I wanted solar + sail as an alternative.  I wasn't all that clear with my use of conjunction "and."  Even with solar + sail you would still need a generator to deal with "bad weather" in terms of generation.  Just like you need for any off grid system like a house or RV.  I do believe if truly "green cruising" comes to any ship it will be smaller, luxury ships - almost yachts.  In terms of economic feasibility, the actual cost of "green cruising" would be super expensive and likely radically shrink the market to mostly wealthy people. 

 

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

I remember that Oasis of the Seas, or one of her sisters was fitted with solar panels over a good area of the ship,

I realize large ships can't be directly powered by onboard solar cells.  Our local cruise port has shore power to meet CA environmental law and the connection to a ship can feed between 6-12 MW of power if I am reading the article correctly.  We don't get the biggest ships here and the ship loads must be much higher when the ship is underway.

https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2023/01/17/tom-york-on-business-port-expands-cruise-ship-shore-power-to-cut-pollution/

[Heidi13]

On 7/15/2023 at 10:31 AM, cruisemom42 said:

Thanks for bringing up additional points to consider. Fifteen years seems very short given the work that goes into these huge vessels. Is it the same 15 years for passenger and commercial ships? Or do the latter carry additional requirements that extend their useful life?

 

Thinking only of smaller cruise ships such as those Viking Ocean is currently building or slightly smaller/larger, would you say (e.g., in your opinion, citations not needed 😉) it will always be cheaper to build a new ship than recycle/upcycle an older one?

 

When considering retro-fitting smaller existing tonnage, a number of factors must be considered, especially fuel costs, crew costs and regulatory compliance.

 

The largest operating cost is normally bunkers. For an older ship, to ensure mechanical reliability and to minimise fuel consumption, this most likely will require replacing the engines. My last company, often did this about every 20 yrs. However, replacing engines in existing tonnage is significantly more expensive than building new tonnage. Based on prices from 12 yrs ago for replacing 4 - MAN's, I expect this job alone would be 25 - 30 million. Since lots of ancillary equipment will also need replaced, this will more than double the costs.

 

Regulatory Compliance - once you start making changes to an older ship, all grandfathering from current regulations is lost. Without knowing the scope, estimating the cost is impossible, but from experience, this particular area is what makes most retro-fits uneconomical.

 

Crew - Ships have fixed crewing requirements that must be on every ship - Master, Chief Engineer, Watchkeepers, ratings, etc. These fixed positions on smaller ships cost significantly more per pax than on a mega ship. The hotel crew and additional deck, engineering and ratings are added depending on the size of the ship, so those costs are more comparable per pax. Therefore, smaller ships have a higher crew cost by pax, so they need to find economies, in other areas. These economies are easier to attain on new tonnage, but very expensive on existing tonnage.

 

Structure - ships of 25+ yrs old, depending on previous maintenance may require some/extensive structural/steel repairs. Back in my shipyard days, when working on older tonnage, this was one of the largest areas of arisings, which is very profitable for the shipyard.

 

In addition, you will require extensive renovations to the hotel side. If the ship is really old and doesn't have vacuum toilets, this will be a major cost item. To renovate the hotel, costs are higher just from the required demo and disposal.

 

Once a renovated ship resumes operations, the annual maintenance and inspection costs are considerably higher than a new ship, as everything is based on the date of the hull. Putting ships on the blocks in drydock is a considerable expense.

[cruisemom42]

2 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

When considering retro-fitting smaller existing tonnage, a number of factors must be considered, especially fuel costs, crew costs and regulatory compliance.

 

The largest operating cost is normally bunkers. For an older ship, to ensure mechanical reliability and to minimise fuel consumption, this most likely will require replacing the engines. My last company, often did this about every 20 yrs. However, replacing engines in existing tonnage is significantly more expensive than building new tonnage. Based on prices from 12 yrs ago for replacing 4 - MAN's, I expect this job alone would be 25 - 30 million. Since lots of ancillary equipment will also need replaced, this will more than double the costs.

 

Regulatory Compliance - once you start making changes to an older ship, all grandfathering from current regulations is lost. Without knowing the scope, estimating the cost is impossible, but from experience, this particular area is what makes most retro-fits uneconomical.

 

Crew - Ships have fixed crewing requirements that must be on every ship - Master, Chief Engineer, Watchkeepers, ratings, etc. These fixed positions on smaller ships cost significantly more per pax than on a mega ship. The hotel crew and additional deck, engineering and ratings are added depending on the size of the ship, so those costs are more comparable per pax. Therefore, smaller ships have a higher crew cost by pax, so they need to find economies, in other areas. These economies are easier to attain on new tonnage, but very expensive on existing tonnage.

 

Structure - ships of 25+ yrs old, depending on previous maintenance may require some/extensive structural/steel repairs. Back in my shipyard days, when working on older tonnage, this was one of the largest areas of arisings, which is very profitable for the shipyard.

 

In addition, you will require extensive renovations to the hotel side. If the ship is really old and doesn't have vacuum toilets, this will be a major cost item. To renovate the hotel, costs are higher just from the required demo and disposal.

 

Once a renovated ship resumes operations, the annual maintenance and inspection costs are considerably higher than a new ship, as everything is based on the date of the hull. Putting ships on the blocks in drydock is a considerable expense.

 

Very clear, thanks. Sounds like a real challenge and one that's probably not financially feasible in most cases. 

 

So I suppose if there continues to be a market for smaller passenger ships, they would more likely be new builds?

[ontheweb]

15 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Very clear, thanks. Sounds like a real challenge and one that's probably not financially feasible in most cases. 

 

So I suppose if there continues to be a market for smaller passenger ships, they would more likely be new builds?

Sounds reasonable, but what company in the recent past has ordered a small cruise ship to be built?

[JRG]

31 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

Very clear, thanks. Sounds like a real challenge and one that's probably not financially feasible in most cases. 

 

So I suppose if there continues to be a market for smaller passenger ships, they would more likely be new builds?

 

It's a no-brainer. unless regulatory agencies deem out or interpret relevant laws to allow the costs associated with a project retro-fit be allowed to determine a new 'cost basis'.  This would be better than US sponsored subsidies if your goal was to rely more on ships and less on new builds.

 

And the thinking would be that the new 'cost basis' would satisfy ore qualify the vessel for a different type of special treatment like that which thet Pride of America received under its PVSA exemption,  and then perhaps coast-wise luxury transportation from point to point in the US could be test marketed under limited exemptions.   So if it is very, very expensive to retrofit,  that is okay as long as the expected ROI is realistically achievable.   Think of all of the work that would be created in the US if this stimulated the building of new smaller vessels?   Maybe a clean burning engine retro-fit is a viable option in some limited cases,  who really knows.

 

Of course,  a few things have to happen in the right order for retro-fit costs to satisfy the code, but that is one feasible example of where one of somebody's beloved old ships might find a second life.

 

Some of the smaller vessel companies that operate under the PVSA law are facing their own economic challenges and some do not appear to have been protected in the manner in which that PVSA law was written. Some are abandoning their exclusive itineraries as well.

 

This is one feasible avenue to salvaging old ships or extending their useful life , just up for discussion that's all, even if its in the future.

 

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by JRG

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, SelectSys said:

I realize large ships can't be directly powered by onboard solar cells.  Our local cruise port has shore power to meet CA environmental law and the connection to a ship can feed between 6-12 MW of power if I am reading the article correctly.  We don't get the biggest ships here and the ship loads must be much higher when the ship is underway.

https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2023/01/17/tom-york-on-business-port-expands-cruise-ship-shore-power-to-cut-pollution/

That 6-12Mw of power is total for the port.  A typical cargo ship will use 0.7-1.0Mw of power, while a cruise ship will use 6-8Mw of power, just for the hotel load (even mid-size ones).  Underway, the load is 50-90Mw of power.  One of the questions I always have about shore power, and one that is not answered by the article, is what is used to generate the shore power?  Is it really "cleaner" than the ship's power, or is it merely shifting the greenhouse emissions to another location where the power plant is?

[chengkp75]

45 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

So I suppose if there continues to be a market for smaller passenger ships, they would more likely be new builds?

Most likely.  It is easier to make money on a new ship, than to do so on older tonnage.

 

30 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Sounds reasonable, but what company in the recent past has ordered a small cruise ship to be built?

Just some of the luxury lines.

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

Sounds reasonable, but what company in the recent past has ordered a small cruise ship to be built?

 

I guess in the world we live in, Viking's fleet of ocean-going vessels, each carrying around 900 passengers, could be considered "small".  I'd be willing to sail on ships of that size; just wish Viking offered more varied itineraries.

 

I doubt whether any line will be building a ship smaller than that unless it is intended for the luxury or super luxury category. (Or as an expedition ship, which I don't really consider to be in the same category.)

 

[navybankerteacher]

7 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

..

 

Yes, there are some who complain about the size of the bathrooms, but there are others who like where these ships can take them and enjoy sailing with fewer passengers. It's a small trade-off in my mind and one I can easily live with.

 

Perhaps being unable to pirouette in an Oceania bathroom bothers some - I am more inclined to be bothered by the fact that most cruise ships calling at Bermuda can only stop at a remote tourist trap

[navybankerteacher]

54 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

...

 

I doubt whether any line will be building a ship smaller than that unless it is intended for the luxury or super luxury category. (Or as an expedition ship, which I don't really consider to be in the same category.)

 

Of course, cruising itself until fairly recently was a “luxury” activity. It had to be degraded (in more ways than one) to make it generally available.

[aborgman]

On 7/15/2023 at 1:38 PM, mnocket said:

Do you question that the cruise companies conduct a thorough analysis of their various options when deciding about ship retirement, refurbishment, acquisition, etc?

 

Not at all.

 

I do question how much of the externalities generated by ship scrapping is actually born by the cruise companies vs. the people of the world though.

 

 

[aborgman]

22 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

.At current watt densities for solar panels (about 175 watts per square meter),

 

Actual peak watt/m^2 for the highest end commercial panels is about 290W (~29% efficiency), with research panels currently approaching 40%

[JRG]

12 minutes ago, aborgman said:

Actual peak watt/m^2 for the highest end commercial panels is about 290W (~29% efficiency), with research panels currently approaching 40%

 

That is really interesting to know about the research panels, the scenario is similar IMO to the evolution of 8086,8088,286,386,Pentium and Core CPU's over the last 40 years.    

 

It was hard to get that info from our solar panel salesman.  

 

Thanks

 

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by JRG

[SelectSys]

19 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

One of the questions I always have about shore power, and one that is not answered by the article, is what is used to generate the shore power?

i would expect that in the US or Europe the power delivered from land is likely almost always "cleaner" than the power from the ships.  Our own local utility reports that 55% of the energy delivered over the year is renewable.  My gut suggest that the power delivered to cruise ships while that are in port is even higher than that due to so much solar being sited in CA.

https://www.sdge.com/more-information/environment/americas-best-energy-company#:~:text=We deliver 55% renewable energy,highest in California and America.

 

19 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

I doubt whether any line will be building a ship smaller than that unless it is intended for the luxury or super luxury category. (Or as an expedition ship, which I don't really consider to be in the same category.)

That is what I believe.  

 

[aborgman]

8 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

That is really interesting to know about the research panels, the scenario is similar IMO to the evolution of 8086,8088,286,386,Pentium and Core CPU's over the last 40 years.   

 

Ahh... Moore's Law.

 

Funny enough - I used to work at Intel as a design engineer (mostly on Itanium and the Pentium 4) and I've met Gordon Moore.

[JRG]

53 minutes ago, aborgman said:

Ahh... Moore's Law.

 

I had to ask Mr. Bing but yahoo,  that says it all.   He concludes that his theory reaches a point of diminishing returns at the atomic level.  Mr. Bing says he updated his 1965 theory in 2005 to validate this, its limitations.  But that was 2005 and this is 2023...and its not a law of physics but a theory and it looks like it has held up in our lifetime with computers.

 

As a cruiser,  I just can't wait for Viastar to take care of business and get personal internet service provided from a satellite wherever you are cruising, so we don't have to pay for slow plans.

 

The futuristic answer to alternative fuel or energy systems for ships probably lies "somewhere not over the rainbow" but beyond the rainbow in the electromagnetic spectrum.  That would be my prediction.