The World's Largest Cruise Ship and Its Supersized Pollution Problem (theguardian.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The World's Largest Cruise Ship and Its Supersized Pollution Problem (theguardian.com)

Posted by msmash on Saturday May 21, 2016 @10:30AM from the big-polluting-machine dept.

An anonymous reader cites a report on the Guardian: When the gargantuan Harmony of the Seas slips out of Southampton docks on Sunday afternoon on its first commercial voyage, the 16-deck-high floating city will switch off its auxiliary engines, fire up its three giant diesels and head to the open sea. But while the 6,780 passengers and 2,100 crew on the largest cruise ship in the world wave goodbye to England, many people left behind in Southampton say they will be glad to see it go. They complain that air pollution from such nautical behemoths is getting worse every year as cruising becomes the fastest growing sector of the mass tourism industry and as ships get bigger and bigger. According to its owners, Royal Caribbean, each of the Harmony's three four-storey high 16-cylinder Wartsila engines will, at full power, burn 1,377 US gallons of fuel an hour, or about 96,000 gallons a day of some of the most polluting diesel fuel in the world.

404 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 10:36 · Score: -1

A cruise ship big enough for Muricans.
1. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  When people from the first world pollute the world to death while everyone else scratches to make a living, you know you have a problem.
2. Re: Finally by saloomy · 2016-05-21 11:14 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This is a first world problem, and it has a first world solution. There's a reason commercial mega-ships are so much worse than even larger military mega-ships: nuclear power. There's no reason at all a ship of this size shouldn't have a reactor for its fuel. There are no safety precautions that aren't acceptable for the loss of a reactor that are acceptable for the loss of 8000 souls, so safety shouldn't be an issue.
  
  We can run reactors in the confines of a submarine, in aircraft carriers, and on large combat ships, and it's arguable that a military ship is more at risk than a commercial ship, since it will be actively engaged in combat! When anti-nuclear pundits win, the environment loses. And so does the company, since it would be cheaper in the long run, certainly in a period time for which this ship will operate.
3. Re: Finally by Zeio · 2016-05-21 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Agree here. I have no idea why larger ships dont look into say thorium reactors, etc.
  http://yottawattsthorium.blogs...
  
  --
  Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
4. Re: Finally by PPH · 2016-05-21 12:07 · Score: 2
  
  It's been done
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
5. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  Agree with everything except the cost benefit. Nuclear is not economically feasible for commercial shipping. It's not justifiable for military ships either, but they don't have to make economic sense.
6. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  This has to be one of the smartest comments I've read in a forum in a while. This is a wonderful idea! So what's stopping it?
7. Re: Finally by amanaplanacanalpanam · 2016-05-21 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  I imagine one significant reason why nuclear reactors can be found in huge military vessels...is because they are military vessels, with rather formidable defenses that cruise ships tend not to have. Sailing a nuclear-powered cruise ship without a high firepower escort may embolden pirates, or even unscrupulous, nuclear-bereft nations.
8. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 13:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The Costa Concordia is a good example of a reason why not. I also suspect nuclear is notably more expensive to operate - more specialized crew training, evacuation/rescue considerations, nuclear engineers on board to operate the system, etc. Might be a more tempting target for terrorists. Can a ship with nuclear access the same ports as those that don't (i.e., do some ports/countries that cruise ships dock prohibit nuclear)? Then there's the general stigma attached to nuclear; will anyone actually want to be on a boat with a nuclear reactor? I think there are plenty of reasons a private, for-profit company isn't using nuclear.
9. Re: Finally by saloomy · 2016-05-21 13:10 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know the exact numbers nor can I site any sources, but my gut feeling is that you are incorrect sir. I believe properly enacted nuclear propulsion for >500ft ships could prove economical when the ships are high-use ships (oil tankers, cargo, cruise). The amount of fuel burned must end up being a huge cost. There are few reasons I believe this:
  
  1. The reactor industry would become more competitive with companies that have to find cost-savings, because today's customers don't care about profit, as you pointed out, so the prices are inflated because the existing market will bear a high price.
  
  2. The additional demand will drive economies of scale in the reactor production, fueling, and maintenance driving down cost and creating a vibrant market.
  
  3. There is a hidden cost in the environmental impact that running these pollutant engines and their dirty fuel has to the civilization beyond those born by the consumers of the fuel and its direct price.
  
  4. The fluctuating market price for that fuel is going to dictate its cost to you, the shipping company, because its not feasible to retool the asset to consume something else like hydrogen without basically ripping half the ship apart. The market in 20 years time may have vastly different cost for this fuel, especially if emissions regulations force the companies to stiff fines. Nuclear fuel on the other hand is good for that 20 year time frame, and although there is a problem with the spent fuel today, its a known cost, and in 20 years there may be practical applications for that depleted fuel rod.
10. Re: Finally by saloomy · 2016-05-21 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  The stigma of reactors. It's a risk the lay-person does not quite comprehend.
11. Re: Finally by saloomy · 2016-05-21 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  The nuclear power of a ship is vastly different to weapons-grade nuclear fuel. It's also not something you can saws-all into and steal. For one, you would quickly get sick. If Captain Philips had nuclear fuel, he could have told told the pirates "in there", and they wouldn't have even reached the shores riding a dingy with fuel rods by their ankles. I read a story not to long ago about Cobalt 60 thieves that authorities said they would just wait by radiation treatment centers for the sick bandits to arrive.
  
  No, I think if there is going to be a theft from a cruise ship of reactor fuel, it would have to be a very highly skilled robbery, of the sort only a nation-state could execute. OR... we could give Steven Segal free voyages for life and not worry about it at al!
12. Re: Finally by saloomy · 2016-05-21 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  First off, the Costa Concordia accident wouldn't have had a radiation leakage, because those reactors are designed to withstand ship-to-ship missile impacts, and are so heavily encased, that running aground at full speed would not -- and should not -- penetrate the reactor. That is something that the design should absolutely account for.
  
  I believe that reactors would run with less manpower than an engine, and be a fairly autonomous machine, with maybe two crew onboard to maintain it. You don't have to change the lubrication, there are less moving parts, you can store the energy produced, and you only have to refuel every other decade.
  
  Commercial operations don't use nuclear power due to regulation and public perception.
  
  I live 10 miles from a nuclear power station, and I get more radiation from eating the potassium in a banana than I would if i stayed here my whole life. I agree with you, educating the public to what the real risks are and how likely they are to happen would be something thats needed before commercial adoption could take place. It seems like ordinary people get their nuclear physics 101 information from Godzilla! If only they were as educated in how many cases of asthma or lung cancer coal/diesel cause. Maybe they (and you) would see Nuclear as a blessing.
13. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 13:34 · Score: 0
  
  This is a first world problem, and it has a first world solution. There's a reason commercial mega-ships are so much worse than even larger military mega-ships: nuclear power. There's no reason at all a ship of this size shouldn't have a reactor for its fuel. There are no safety precautions that aren't acceptable for the loss of a reactor that are acceptable for the loss of 8000 souls, so safety shouldn't be an issue.
  Very simple reason why.
  It's a cruise ship. People go there for their holidays, to have a good time, and to not worry about things.
  People worry about nuclear power. You know and I know they shouldn't. But they do. On the other hand, diesel engines are entirely unremarkable and nobody gives a damn about diesel pollution.
  TL:DR nobody would book onto a nuclear cruise ship. It would be commercially nonviable.
14. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 13:58 · Score: 0
  
  3MI, Fujiyama, Chernobyl? Need I to mention any more?
15. Re: Finally by MrKaos · 2016-05-21 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  This is a first world problem, and it has a first world solution. There's a reason commercial mega-ships are so much worse than even larger military mega-ships: nuclear power.
  It could also have something to do with the highly trained and disciplined *military* crews that run them.
  
  There's no reason at all a ship of this size shouldn't have a reactor for its fuel.
  I think we only have to look the Costa Concordia and the way for profit land based reactors are run to realize why it isn't a good idea have a for profit nuclear powered cruise ships running around the ocean.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
16. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 14:27 · Score: 0
  
  If they can't even get my margarita right topside why should I trust the guys below deck to run a friggin nuclear reactor?
17. Re: Finally by SNRatio · 2016-05-21 14:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There's no reason at all a ship of this size shouldn't have a reactor for its fuel.
  
  Liability.
  The insurance cost(if they could get it) would be prohibitive.
  Many of the ports that cruise ships visit would ban them.
18. Re: Finally by dbIII · 2016-05-21 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  but my gut feeling is that you are incorrect sir
  Your gut feeling requires a lot of changes to happen while the above poster is describing the current situation of a low volume military application which requires higher standards than a high volume civilian application. Hand crafted versus mass produced. Things may some day get to where your gut is feeling but it's a very long way off and would require a lot of capital to get there. It may happen but it's a pretty big "IF", so going around telling people they are incorrect based on a long chain of events that have not happened is somewhat rude.
19. Re: Finally by MrKaos · 2016-05-21 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  If only they were as educated ... because those reactors are designed to withstand ship-to-ship missile impacts, and are so heavily encased
  The NS Savannah, the U.S' only nulcear powered merchant ship was designed specifically *without* the military shock protections that you assume would be in a civilian ship. If they were the cost to install and run the vessel would be significantly high due to them requiring even more specialized crews required to run the reactor, let alone the rest of the vessel.
  Having said that the NS Savannah is a beautiful looking ship.
  
  I believe, and should not, I think, I don't know the exact numbers nor can I site any sources, but my gut feeling is
  
  The NS Savannah required a special vessel just to handle its waste cooling water, that is it required a second vessel, a second crew that was oil powered to service it. Were you to make those vessels nuclear powered as well you would have the beginnings of a nuclear waste water issue that makes complaining about smoke from oil powered ships look benign in comparison.
  The Savannah also required a special ground and maintenance crew to service her as well, so given that this was a prototype extrapolating those servicing costs onto the shipping industry makes it rapidly spiral out of control.
  Just one of these vessels would make a juicy target for any trorist organization seeking to use it to crash into any major port in any city. It may not cause a nuclear accident, however it would cripple any port anywhere for decades while the mess was cleaned up.
  Military nuclear makes sense because of an Admiral named Rickover who established nuclear safety systems in the military and had a clear disdain for stupid people and ideas and would not allow them around nuclear facilities. In a civilian program there would be no such protections.
  With the average age of a land based reactor being anywhere between 40-60 years how would you propose disposing of a nuclear powered ship at the end of its 25 year service life? Apart from its historical significance, the Savannah is still in one piece 50 years after it's service life whilst waiting for the reactor to cool.
  I get it why it looks like a good idea on the surface however the NS Savannah paved the way for the world to understand why a civilian nuclear ship program isn't such a good idea when used in operation.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
20. Re: Finally by dgatwood · 2016-05-21 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  TL:DR nobody would book onto a nuclear cruise ship. It would be commercially nonviable.
  Very true. That's why the cruise industry is moving to LNG (liquefied natural gas) on new ships going forward. Unfortunately, for the next decade or two, we'll still have plenty of old ones burning whatever fuel is cheap (typically bunker fuel).
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
21. Re: Finally by MikeMo · 2016-05-21 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  While I generally agree with you, I don't think you appreciate the level of training, drilling, and oversight that nuclear sailors experience. Basic training is two years of intense stuff including calculus, physics, chemistry, metallurgy, and just plain operating the plant. And THEN you go on to a really ship and go through a whole bunch more training. On top of that, the nuclear Navy is generally made up of the top 2% of all sailors.
  
  I can't imagine a civilian ship company being able to stand up a crew that is capable of running a reactor safely. It is the training, intelligence, dedication and oversight that makes those reactors same.
22. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  This is a first world problem, and it has a first world solution.
  Tactical nukes? Torpedoes? Mining the harbor? Scuttling the ship and escaping on a life raft at night?
  
  There's a reason commercial mega-ships are so much worse than even larger military mega-ships: nuclear power.
  Oh, yes! That's the answer. I look forward to hearing about all the nuclear accidents on the high seas! :)
23. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 17:07 · Score: 0
  
  I would happily be on a boat with a nuclear reactor. When you are consuming 50-100 thousand gallons of fuel a day. That is upwards of 1.5 million gallons a month. their is an awful lot of money that is spent purely on fuel. The biggest negative with nuclear is the stigma attached to it, Cost wise if used extensively in shipping it would be a massive saving both environmentally and cost wise.
24. Re: Finally by zrobotics · 2016-05-21 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  There actually is a hidden cost of the fuel, both I disposal of the waste as well as consumption of fissionable elements. Uranium is just as non-renewable as fossil fuels, and the price can fluctuate just as wildly. For instance, the area I hunt antelope is completely abandoned, the nearest town died in the 80s with the collapse of the uranium market. Just because you don't see the price everyday on gas station signs doesn't mean that nuclear fuels are immune to market forces. While I am pro nuclear, overly optimistic propaganda does almost as much harm as environmentalist fear mongering.
25. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 18:26 · Score: 0
  
  You really think so?
  Risk=chance * impact.
  Since the impact of mayor nuclear disaster is huge, the risk is also large.
  Although it is not the same for every reactor. It depends on location.
  The Belgiums have reactors near Antwerp. If there is a mayor incident there , than millions of people need to be evacuated. This is a impact Belgium and there neighbors can't afford. So the Risk is unacceptable even if the chance is low.
  If the reactor is in a remote location in a huge country it might be different.
26. Re: Finally by bbelt16ag · 2016-05-21 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  I second this! This will be more work for nuclear engineers after their time in the military. Have them run the nukes...
  
  --
  NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
27. Re: Finally by saloomy · 2016-05-21 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  The operative word in that post was COULD. Things could be that way if we made those changes. I believe a viable low-maintenance reactor for commercial use would yield those benefits.
28. Re: Finally by saloomy · 2016-05-21 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  Don't they not use uranium for propulsion anymore? I'm not sure what the state of the art is now-a-days, but you are assuming 30 year old HWR reactors, when there have been many innovations in the technology, like positive co-efficient designs, pebble-bed reactors who's fuel is in spherical pebbles, etc. I know you can enrich the fuel as well as create more in breeder reactors. That ensures a supply if your using anything other than natturally occruing U235
29. Re: Finally by saloomy · 2016-05-21 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  Again, this is either Mia-information or out-dated technology. Positive coefficient reactors are miles safer than the concrete-block rod-fueled HWR we have been installing in the past, and are running for years beyond spec. Newer designs are safer specifically because they can't melt down. Let me explain
  
  In old-style reactors you had to do something to more, to slow down the reaction. Specifically (in Chernobyl's case), you had to insert graphene rods into the core at varying depths to control the rate of reaction. Let the reaction run to high, and the water used to conduct the heat away turns to steam and throws the graphene rods out like a potato gun. That's called a negative coefficient. You have to do something positive (push rods in) to achieve something negative (slow down or stop the reaction).
  
  In new reactions, there is a positive coefficient, so you have to do something to get something. In a pebble-bed reactor, you have to flood the bed with gas (preferably helium). Helium does not have the embrittlement risk to pipes and structures. And there are in fact not really pipes in the core, the space between the baseball sized pebbles forms the conduit. Also helium is not as potent a neutron absorber as water, so there is less comtaminated waste.
  
  The new generation IV reactors are much safer, and simpler than their older brethren and that's where most of the complexity and cost comes from, the safety systems inherent in the cooling systems. That's where Fukushima failed. It had a negative coefficient, because we couldn't cool it down, it's reaction speed increased. In a PBR, the hotter it gets, the slower it reacts, cooling itself naturally and stopping the reaction without the introduction of additional neutrons. It's a positive feedback loop. It's what these ships should have, and the mis-education or mindset from the 60's is what keeps the stigma around, and the pollution from coal and diesel in the air.
30. Re: Finally by Gussington · 2016-05-21 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  There's no reason at all a ship of this size shouldn't have a reactor for its fuel. There are no safety precautions that aren't acceptable for the loss of a reactor that are acceptable for the loss of 8000 souls, so safety shouldn't be an issue.
  
  The reason military vessels have nuclear power is that they are secured by military force.
  It's very possible for some incident to occur involving a privately owned reactor that doesn't involve the loss of 8000 people, thus the risk profile is much, much greater.
31. Re: Finally by Firethorn · 2016-05-21 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  Your gut feeling requires a lot of changes to happen while the above poster is describing the current situation of a low volume military application which requires higher standards than a high volume civilian application.
  That's the thing, going from 'hand crafted' to 'mass produced' often increases safety because you get a much larger body of knowledge, and automated manufacturing has a lower defect rate than hand crafted.
  Start putting nuclear reactors in 'all' ships greater than 500 feet and you're talking thousands of reactors to produce. They, like the 16 cylinder engines being produced today, will be very standardized.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
32. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 20:53 · Score: 0
  
  Not just thorium reactors are in the research phase of development, they're also probably not going to be able to put out as much power as a more conventional nuclear reactor.
  Plus, once people are convinced that thorium reactors can't generate a Chernobyl level nuclear catastrophe, capitalism may get to brush over potential longer-term and less spectacular problems of disposable waste, and "minor" nuclear leaks.
33. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 22:04 · Score: 0
  
  Interesting information. This reactor type seem very promising from a technical standpoint. But I think there are also regulatory issues concerning proliferation of fuel that needs to be solved. Fissile material in the wrong hands is really a bad thing!
34. Re: Finally by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-05-21 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  We can run reactors in the confines of a submarine, in aircraft carriers, and on large combat ships, and it's arguable that a military ship is more at risk than a commercial ship, since it will be actively engaged in combat! When anti-nuclear pundits win, the environment loses. And so does the company, since it would be cheaper in the long run, certainly in a period time for which this ship will operate.
  Cost, long and short run. Navy's build them because construction and operating costs are not a concern.
  Building a nuclear vessel is much more expensive than a conventional one. Parts have to have pedigrees to ensure they actually meet specs and many of the skilled trades need experience constructing to nuclear standards. That's not cheap compared to a commercial vessel where "close enough" will do during construction
  Operating costs would be higher since you can't simply crew it with cheap labor in the engineering spaces. The Navy takes a year to train a nuclear qualified sailor and cruise lines are unlikely to want to absorb the cost of training an maintaining that qualification; or paying the salaries needed to get crews. In port, you'd probably need to keep the reactor operating, if it of a conventional PWR design, since you might run into startup issues due to Xenon.
  Maintenance would be higher because you can't simply defer it until the next slow period. Preventative maintenance is needed on a regular basis, and you can't just go into a yard on an open, inspect, repair if needed basis. In addition, you need a yard than can work on nuclear vessels, which means doing the yard work in high cost countries versus cheaper ones.
  Politically, there are issues as well. Finally, some countries might not allow a nuclear cruise ship to dock; and while you aren't dumping pollutants into the air you'd potentially be dumping radioactive water overboard overtime you blow down a steam generator.
  From a PR standpoint, how do you convince customers the ship is "safe" and they won't get large doses of radioactivity? While the shielding would prevent that it's still an issue that could prevent people from cruising on it.
  Finally, cruise ships get passed from line to line as they age, with lower tier lines buying the old ones, renaming them and running them. You couldn't do that with a nuclear cruise ship as the cheaper lines simply wouldn't have the resources to run it properly; which means there is no cost recovery at EOL.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
35. Re: Finally by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-05-21 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  I believe that reactors would run with less manpower than an engine, and be a fairly autonomous machine, with maybe two crew onboard to maintain it. You don't have to change the lubrication, there are less moving parts, you can store the energy produced, and you only have to refuel every other decade.
  
  Not really. First off, the staff would probably be significantly more expensive due to the specialized training and skills than the average engine room sailor. You'd need at lease a reactor operator and electric plant operator in the control room, along with a steam turbine operator to coordinate with the reactor operator to maintain power levels. Watches would be needed in the engineering spaces because now you have to check equipment for proper operation to ensure reactor safety and check for leaks, etc.
  Refueling costs would probably kill the vessel's commercial viability. Either you design it for ease of access to the reactor which means a large flat area you can cut straight through to get access for refueling, wasting a lot of space, or your cutting through multiple decks of staterooms, dining areas, etc that all need to be redone afterward. Military vessels don't have to worry about looking nice after refueling and are designed with that in mind.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
36. Re: Finally by Xenx · 2016-05-21 23:35 · Score: 2
  
  One would hope the person making the margarita isn't also the nuclear technician. But then, I guess it would be excuse as to why the drink didn't turn out.
37. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 00:04 · Score: 0
  
  I think you need to review positive vs negative void coefficients, since you have things backwards it seems.
38. Re: Finally by dbIII · 2016-05-22 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  and automated manufacturing has a lower defect rate than hand crafted
  You had something sensible and then you spoiled it with that bit. Taking care and good design results in less defects, not some sort of magic due to mass production but I suppose it's a common mistake to make since mass production often comes twinned with more attention to quality control.
39. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  Nuclear proliferation, and the legal sanctions associated with the handling of large quantities of nuclear material, intended to prevent it?
40. Re: Finally by kurt555gs · 2016-05-22 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Diesels are cheaper. Navy ships don't have to make a profit.
  
  --
  * Carthago Delenda Est *
41. Re: Finally by ponos · 2016-05-22 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't the technology for nuclear ships kind of mega secret? Would a commercial entity be able to get access to all the know-how? And the fuel?
  Also, would passengers actually use a nuclear-fueled vessel? Isn't this negative publicity? I'm not questioning the facts, but if people see it this way, it could be detrimental do business.
42. Re:Finally by MercTech · 2016-05-22 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  If you visit Charleston, South Carolina you can tour the NS Savannah which was the first nuclear powered cargo ship. The problem with commercial cargo ship operation was the shipping company was not willing to pay the rates needed to get experienced nuclear plant operators and most of the major shipping ports refused to let the Savannah dock due to paranoia about being nuclear powered.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
  http://www.nssavannah.net/
  
  --
  NRRPT/RCT
43. Re: Finally by delt0r · 2016-05-22 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  Thorium blue sky bullshit. Thorium offers no more safety that uranium in the same cycle. And the rather difficult and expensive liquid salt design (And NO a 10MW toy that did ZERO breading and ZERO reprocessing and had many corrosion problems and not even industrial scale steam generators, does not show it is developed) where proposed to over come Thorium shortfalls as a fertile breading fuel.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
44. Re: Finally by stealth_finger · 2016-05-22 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  One would hope the person making the margarita isn't also the nuclear technician. But then, I guess it would be excuse as to why the drink didn't turn out.
  Just because the drink is glowing, doesn't mean it's a cocktail.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
45. Re: Finally by dbIII · 2016-05-23 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it could given a long chain of events that have not happened, so the above poster is currently correct and your "that you are incorrect sir" is misplaced.
46. Re: Finally by stealth_finger · 2016-05-23 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Very simple reason why.
  It's a cruise ship. People go there for their holidays, to have a good time, and to not worry about things.
  You don't have to make a big deal of it. Not hide it, just not shout about it. Say they do it, there would probably be a bunch of news stories at the time which no one reads anyway. When people book on these ships I doubt what type of engine it has has any significance. As long as you don't call it nuclear nelly or something most folk would be none the wiser. Then the longer it goes without exploding in a huge green fireball the less people would be bothered.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
47. Re: Finally by stealth_finger · 2016-05-23 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  3MI, Fujiyama, Chernobyl? Need I to mention any more?
  Because no regular power stations have blown up ever, or chemical plants. Yeah I know what you're going to say, radiation, contamination blah blah blah but I'd counter with global warming. You can figure out which you'd prefer.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
48. Re: Finally by stealth_finger · 2016-05-23 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  The reason military vessels have nuclear power is that they are secured by military force.
  I've seen this comment a few times. It's almost a wonder that nuclear power stations aren't being attacked everyday. I guess they all have military staff and highly trained armies on guard rather whatever for profit security firm they use.....oh wait.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
49. Re: Finally by dcw3 · 2016-05-23 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  It could also have something to do with the highly trained and disciplined *military* crews that run them.
  One would think that there are plenty of former military who wouldn't mind doing the same work on a civilian pay scale.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
50. Re: Finally by dcw3 · 2016-05-23 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Other than NZ, what ports/countries have previously banned nuclear ships?
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
51. Re: Finally by dcw3 · 2016-05-23 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  From a PR standpoint, how do you convince customers the ship is "safe" and they won't get large doses of radioactivity?
  By explaining to them that nuclear powered ships have been around and safely operating for 60+ years. And that the engineers on your ship are experienced former Navy engineers who are now better compensated than they were previously.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
52. Re: Finally by Gussington · 2016-05-23 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen this comment a few times. It's almost a wonder that nuclear power stations aren't being attacked everyday. I guess they all have military staff and highly trained armies on guard rather whatever for profit security firm they use.....oh wait.
  I know you are trying to funny, but the security on territorial US soil, is lot higher than in the middle of international waters.
  But feel feel to dismiss this fact if it makes you feel better.
53. Re: Finally by MrKaos · 2016-05-23 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  It could also have something to do with the highly trained and disciplined *military* crews that run them.
  One would think that there are plenty of former military who wouldn't mind doing the same work on a civilian pay scale.
  Absolutely, however they would be working in a profit centric system as opposed to a military system with systemic certifications for safety.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
54. Re: Finally by dcw3 · 2016-05-23 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  It could also have something to do with the highly trained and disciplined *military* crews that run them.
  One would think that there are plenty of former military who wouldn't mind doing the same work on a civilian pay scale.
  Absolutely, however they would be working in a profit centric system as opposed to a military system with systemic certifications for safety.
  Having worked in and around the military for nearly 40 yrs., I don't see that as an advantage over private sector.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
55. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-23 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  I think the solution would be better population control:
  reproducing like horny rabbits at > geometric rates
  while consuming ever more does have its limits, to our surprise!
56. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-23 17:05 · Score: 0
  
  Important to note that with nuclear it's not IF but WHEN.
  Did you hear about the leak in Florida -- undetected for HOW LONG??
  Fukushima's aged inferior plant design is featured in HOW MANY plants in the US and the rest of the world??
57. Re: Finally by stealth_finger · 2016-05-23 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah ok fine. We'll take these known massive polluters over...what is it you're scared of? Terrorists attacking a nuclear powered ship, some how deconstructing the core and building a dirty bomb or something? Grow up.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
58. Re: Finally by MrKaos · 2016-05-23 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  It could also have something to do with the highly trained and disciplined *military* crews that run them.
  One would think that there are plenty of former military who wouldn't mind doing the same work on a civilian pay scale.
  Absolutely, however they would be working in a profit centric system as opposed to a military system with systemic certifications for safety.
  Having worked in and around the military for nearly 40 yrs., I don't see that as an advantage over private sector.
  Specifically, I was referring to the management philosophies of this man who oversaw building navy nuclear reactors and propulsion systems.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
59. Re: Finally by dcw3 · 2016-05-24 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the link on Rickover. It was good reading that should be shared with all managers.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
60. Re: Finally by MrKaos · 2016-05-24 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the link on Rickover. It was good reading that should be shared with all managers.
  No problem - glad you enjoyed it.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
61. Re: Finally by Gussington · 2016-05-25 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah ok fine. We'll take these known massive polluters over...what is it you're scared of? Terrorists attacking a nuclear powered ship, some how deconstructing the core and building a dirty bomb or something? Grow up.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  Retard.
62. Re: Finally by stealth_finger · 2016-05-25 20:59 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, goal post moved, no longer about security? Ships sink. And what's worse in those situations? A self contained reactor that is highly pressure resistant or a massive fuel tanks full of thick bunker fuel that can leak into the ocean? Granted you don't want either but a huge oil spill is by no means better. You do know these things don't just explode and modern designs are practically impossible to meltdown? Come on, what actual legitimate concerns do you have over scary nuclear zomg!
  
  Basically we can have something that if maintained properly is practically pollution free and if not can be bad or we have something that if maintained properly has massive amounts of pollution and if not can be just as bad. You want the second because fuck the planet, right? Or is it just feverish terror at them nukes and no good can ever come of it?
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
63. Re: Finally by Gussington · 2016-05-26 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, goal post moved, no longer about security? Ships sink.
  Ships sinking is a security issue on many levels. Just give up.
64. Re: Finally by stealth_finger · 2016-05-26 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  So you worried about people sinking a nuclear powered ship on purpose? To what? Irradiate the ocean or something? How is it a security issue? Why is a diesel powered ship not just as vulnerable with just as big a potential impact with the release of god knows how many gallons of bunker fuel. Why is that ok but a nuclear powered vessel is not? That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of here with you, and you don't seem to have an actual answer.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
65. Re: Finally by Gussington · 2016-05-27 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  So you worried about people sinking a nuclear powered ship on purpose? To what? Irradiate the ocean or something? How is it a security issue?
  
  Really? You can't work it out? A Chernobyl at sea would be a issue for most people, whether you choose to believe that or not.
  
  Why is a diesel powered ship not just as vulnerable with just as big a potential impact with the release of god knows how many gallons of bunker fuel. Why is that ok but a nuclear powered vessel is not?
  Really? You really just said that?
  If that is your opinion I can't help you.
  
  That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of here with you, and you don't seem to have an actual answer.
  The answer is obvious, so maybe it's you.
66. Re: Finally by stealth_finger · 2016-05-27 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Seems to me you don't think nuclear power has progressed at all. Do your self a favour and look up modern reactor designs. Chernobyl at sea just isn't going to happen. The type of reactors used here can't melt down or blow up. I'm not going to bother explain why but you can look it up yourself if you don't believe me. Attitudes like yours is why we're still burning all this shit, which pollution aside is going to run out sooner or later instead of living the good life with practically unlimited supply of cheap, clean power. Nice one.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
67. Re: Finally by Gussington · 2016-05-28 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  Chernobyl at sea just isn't going to happen. The type of reactors used here can't melt down or blow up. I'm not going to bother explain why
  Riiight.... there's no risk at all, even if Iran or North Korea buy one...
68. Re: Finally by stealth_finger · 2016-05-30 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Not really, seeing as nk has access to actual nuclear weapons and materials and Iran has the knowledge. If one was so inclined to try and access one to try and initiate some kind of nuclear leak or contamination somewhere the there's a lot better ways they could spend their money to get more bang for their buck so to speak.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
69. Re: Finally by Gussington · 2016-05-30 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  Not really, seeing as nk has access to actual nuclear weapons and materials and Iran has the knowledge. If one was so inclined to try and access one to try and initiate some kind of nuclear leak or contamination somewhere the there's a lot better ways they could spend their money to get more bang for their buck so to speak.
  Says you. Good thing the people in charge of national security aren't so lax with their attitudes.
This is why the diesel scandal is a joke by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 10:36 · Score: 1

You think being a few hundred ppm over the limit is serious for a sedan's engine?
Every day there are ships, industrial equipment and vehicles burning diesel without emissions controls. And they vastly outnumber diesel cars and trucks.
1. Re:This is why the diesel scandal is a joke by phrostie · 2016-05-21 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  you would think that they could apply some form of modern sailing tech like the Maltese Falcon.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  it won't completely remove the need for engines, but it would reduce power requirements.
2. Re: This is why the diesel scandal is a joke by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:30 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  WÃrtsilÃ engines are among the best performing and cleanest in the world (I work there) and there's been a huge push to make them even cleaner. Unless they use some low-grade bunker oil without filters, I don't really see what's the problem with emissions. There are quite strict limits in the EU what type of fuel you can use in the first place.
3. Re:This is why the diesel scandal is a joke by sumdumass · 2016-05-21 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  It's probably not suitable for a cruise ship due to the way it heels when under power from the masts. It likely might be able to be somewhat useful if that problem can be addressed but you don't really want 60 year old ladies or little kids walking along a deck heeling a 20 degree or better angle.
4. Re: This is why the diesel scandal is a joke by sonamchauhan · 2016-05-21 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  Er, if you burn 96000 gals per day of anything except hydrogen, right next to where you live, its going to be a problem for you and your neighbours. Even with catalytic convertors. Unless you have scrubbers - but with those you have to dispose of the waste slurry somewhere (the sea!)
  These ships need to be smaller. And visit at different times so they don't completely swamp local air quality. And hookup to LPG-generated local electricity at port.
5. Re: This is why the diesel scandal is a joke by zrobotics · 2016-05-21 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  How exactly do smaller ships solve the problem, though? Instead of 1 ship burning 96k, now there's two ships 1/2 the size, each likely burning over 48k gallons/day. Sure, 96k gallons is a ghastly sounding number, but when considering pollution it is better to consider consumption of the entire fleet.
6. Re: This is why the diesel scandal is a joke by shilly · 2016-05-22 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  That assumes that there is an invariant demand for cruise ship space. In fact, there is supply-induced demand.
7. Re:This is why the diesel scandal is a joke by shilly · 2016-05-22 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  It is possible for both pollution from cars and pollution from other sources to be a problem. Cars pollute most in precisely the most dangerous place -- child head height in the middle of densely populated cities.
8. Re: This is why the diesel scandal is a joke by mheat · 2016-05-22 03:10 · Score: 2
  
  Isn't that the point? - there are no emissions regulations in international waters, and they do use high sulfur Bunker oil because of that.
9. Re: This is why the diesel scandal is a joke by sonamchauhan · 2016-05-28 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  Unlikely - two ships will likely have different schedules.
  When talking pollution, consider concentration (dilution in matter, space, time). Also consider trigger thresholds (if pollutants cross a certain threshold, the body can't cope - especially the young and infirm).
  Say the large ship comes into port two days, twice a year. That's 4 days of high-level smog, spread across two dates in the year.
  With two smaller ships, you get half the smog per day, for 8 days, with the dates spread further apart.
I hate bad journalism like this... by Eloking · 2016-05-21 10:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

I hate bad journalism like this...
"It burn 96,000 gallons a day"!! Well no shit, it's the biggest ship of the world. If you want to impress me, tell how how much fuel per passager it burn and compare it to others cruise ship. And unless it's the most efficient ship in the world, I won't see a problem.

--
Elok
1. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Eloking · 2016-05-21 10:43 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I hate bad journalism like this...
  "It burn 96,000 gallons a day"!! Well no shit, it's the biggest ship of the world. If you want to impress me, tell how how much fuel per passager it burn and compare it to others cruise ship. And unless it's the most efficient ship in the world, I won't see a problem.
  *unless it's the most "inefficient" ship in the world...
  
  --
  Elok
2. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  Gallons per passenger-mile, then we can see if there is any point to this story.
3. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by bnmm · 2016-05-21 11:02 · Score: 2
  
  fwiw:
  http://www.royalcaribbeanblog....
  "Harmony of the Seas will be 20% more efficient than the other two Oasis class ships, thanks to improvements in hydronamic design, a new type of engine and product enhancements"
  "Harmony of the Seas will benefit from bubbles to lessen hull friction in the water. Tiny bubbles stick to the bottom of the ship's hull so the ship literally is sailing on a cushion of air."
  The ship doesn't use port power, though, a preventable evil.
4. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:02 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Total occupants is 8880. That means it burns 0.16 Gallons/(hour person).
  By contrast:
  Lets say a car gets 30 miles per gallon on the highway. That means in an hour at 60 miles per hour, the car will burn 2 gallons of fuel or 2 gallons/hour. Now lets say the car is at full capacity of 5 people. That means the car is burning 0.4 Gallons/(hour person).
5. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by whoever57 · 2016-05-21 11:04 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is the type of fuel. They use bunker fuel which produces lots of pollution when burned.
  16 (or perhaps 15) of the largest container ships emit more sulphur than all of the cars in the world. I doubt that cruise liners are any cleaner -- that's why they have auxiliary engines that are used near land.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
6. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  16 (or perhaps 15) of the largest container ships emit more sulphur than all of the cars in the world.
  A cruise ship uses completely different engines than a Container ship. They don't run on the same fuel.
7. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but even your unpatched VW diesel doesn't burn BUNKER FUEL.
  captcha: exempt
8. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by aaarrrgggh · 2016-05-21 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  As my old environmental engineering professor used to quip, "The SOlution to POlution is DIlution."
  The fuel consumption is equivalent to about 200 Tons of particulate matter per day, and if there is a ship within a few miles of shore all the time with unfavorable wind conditions, that ends up being pretty continuous.
  That said, the engines are efficient, back of napkin is about 10% better per shaft HP than an efficient 2MW diesel genset. Comparing to an electric power plant, it is just over 100MW, which as a natural gas plant with BACT emissions is annoying a half mile away. As an untreated diesel system, it would be awful within a few miles at least.
  At least they aren't using bunker oil...
9. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:09 · Score: 0
  
  Silly AC, cars can't drive on water, so your comparison can be ignored.
  Small watercraft have a really terrible gal/(person hour) metric, though. Much higher than passenger cars and trucks, because water is harder to go through than air is.
10. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  Neither does a curse ship.
11. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:17 · Score: -1
  
  Silly AC, cars can't drive on water, so your comparison can be ignored.
  Yes they can.
12. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by locketine · 2016-05-21 11:20 · Score: 2
  
  from the article: "Daniel Rieger, a transport officer at German environment group Nabu, said: âoeCruise companies create a picture of being a bright, clean and environmentally friendly tourism sector. But the opposite is true. One cruise ship emits as many air pollutants as five million cars going the same distance because these ships use heavy fuel that on land would have to be disposed of as hazardous waste.â
  
  --
  Think globally but act within local variable scope.
13. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  Most cruise ships are powered by bunker fuel, an extremely low-quality, high-polluting fuel blend. Carnival first experimented with scrubbers several years ago, installing a system on a Holland America ship, Tom Dow, Carnival's vice-president for public affairs, explains. However, it took up too much space and released large amounts of polluted wastewater. Carnival scrapped the program.
  Source: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/carnival-pollution-tech-change-cruise-industry
  So yeah, cruise ships do use bunker fuel, a far dirtier fuel source than gasoline or automotive diesel.
  captcha: colons
14. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by saloomy · 2016-05-21 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  I've read a while back that these large ships consume the bottom of the fractional distiller for fuel. Musically most of the sodium is removed from refined oil products and what these ships kindly refer to as diesel is really "bumper" fuel, or refinery fuel. It's cheaper, and harder to process. It's the remains of the fractional distiller, in the refinery, which refiners also use to as refinery fuel. The problem these ships really cause is the levels of sodium dioxide emissions due to the concentration of excess salts left behind in the refining process.
15. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by William+Baric · 2016-05-21 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  The fucking article, that you obviously didn't read, say the ship left with 6,780 passengers.
16. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:25 · Score: -1
  
  WRONG MORON
17. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Kohath · 2016-05-21 11:26 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Advocacy journalism is almost always misleading -- because informing people isn't really the goal.
18. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by itsenrique · 2016-05-21 11:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Most cruise ships are powered by bunker fuel, an extremely low-quality, high-polluting fuel blend. Carnival first experimented with scrubbers several years ago, installing a system on a Holland America ship, Tom Dow, Carnival's vice-president for public affairs, explains. However, it took up too much space and released large amounts of polluted wastewater. Carnival scrapped the program. No, cruise ships predominately use bunker fuel. Source: http://www.theguardian.com/sus...
19. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:27 · Score: 0
  
  Rather than burn it what's the alternative? I imagine it's probably not easy to dispose of. Plastics, maybe?
20. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by saloomy · 2016-05-21 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but the ship doesn't do 60mph, so it's not equivalent. You have to look at fuel-miles/person not not fuel-time/person.
21. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by itsenrique · 2016-05-21 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci... I admit, It's the daily mail. But do you have any sources for your claims? Or just name calling? Any ship that can run diesel (pretty much all of them) can run bunker fuel. They switch to cleaner fuels to meet regulations when coming in to certain ports, thats about it. I'm not claiming every cruise ship uses bunker fuel, but some obviously seem to. Here's more: http://www.cruiselawnews.com/t... , and here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
22. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by itsenrique · 2016-05-21 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, but some cruise ships DO use bunker fuel. I think that's why it's an issue.
23. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by fustakrakich · 2016-05-21 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  About 15 gallons a day (around 40 bucks?) to get a Big Mac in Cozumel and bring back some turquoise... Could be worse
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
24. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  Cruise ships go ~30 miles per hour.
  A car at that speed will still burn about 0.4 Gallons/(hour person)
25. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by sootman · 2016-05-21 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  > If you want to impress me, tell how how much fuel per passager
  > it burn and compare it to others cruise ship.
  Um, math? From the summary: "But while the 6,780 passengers and 2,100 crew..."
  96000 / ( 6780 + 2100 ) = about 10.8 gallons per person. Although it says *each* of the 3 engines burn that much, so maybe the answer is 32.4 US gallons of fuel per person per day.
  At the lower figure, one person would have to drive over 200 miles in a car that gets 20 mpg to use that much fuel in a day. Or 600 miles, if the other number is correct.
  I don't know about other ships, but compared to other leisure activities, that's a lot of fuel to burn. A couple would have to drive 7 hrs/day at 60mph to use that much fuel. Not many couples drive 1,600 miles in 4 days on vacation. At 20mpg, a family of 5 people couldn't burn as much fuel even if they drove every hour of the day -- which is not much of a vacation. So no matter which way you slice it, you're using more fuel on a cruise ship than just about anything else you'd be likely to do on trip.
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
26. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by saloomy · 2016-05-21 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think there are much commercial uses for it but certainly you could burn it in a facility with the proper equipment to capture or treat the pollutants prior to shoving them up a smoke stack. There are probably some lubricants for things like the giant tunnel boreing machine that this could be used for, or other applications where its specific properties might come in handy, I can't think of any. For a more detailed description: see Wikipedia, which has a uses section.
27. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-05-21 11:49 · Score: 2
  
  Clean fuel would have to be disposed of as hazardous waste.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
28. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by jtownatpunk.net · 2016-05-21 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  The ship doesn't use port power, though, a preventable evil.
  I doubt many destination ports have the infrastructure to provide sufficient, reliable power to multiple cruise ships. Heck, many of them don't even have docks big enough for the ships and passengers have to go ashore on tenders. Why bother with the logistics and complication of having a system to switch over to shore power if you can only use it on turnover day at your American port?
29. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by fnj · 2016-05-21 12:23 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The actual figures are here if you spend 30 seconds to look them up. There are three 16-cylinder engines AND three 12-cylinder engines. The fuel consumption is actually 3x1377 + 3x1033 gallons per hour, so a total of 173,520 gallons per day. With a capacity of 6360 passengers, that's 27.3 gallons per passenger per day, or 1.14 gallons per passenger per hour. The cruising speed is 22.6 knots, which is 26.0 mph.
  So it works out to 0.0438 gallons per passenger per mile, or 22.8 mpg per passenger. That's a hell of a lot less fuel efficiency than a jetliner or passenger car at capacity, let alone a motorbus. I believe that's the point people are (clumsily) making.
30. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by fnj · 2016-05-21 12:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Total occupants is 8880. That means it burns 0.16 Gallons/(hour person).
  1. Your math is wrong. It's actually 1.14 gallons per passenger per hour.
  2. As others have noted, the measure of productivity is passengers per mile, not total occupants including crew per hour.
  3. The true figures are here.
31. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 13:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  ... Its bunker, not bumper fuel, and its the sulfur thats removed from refined oil products, not sodium. There is no compound known as sodium dioxide, but i'm thinking you mean sulfur dioxide.
32. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by Sir+Holo · 2016-05-21 14:01 · Score: 2
  
  ... Its bunker, not bumper fuel, and its the sulfur thats removed from refined oil products, not sodium. There is no compound known as sodium dioxide, but i'm thinking you mean sulfur dioxide.
  A much more intelligent response. Thanks.
  Disodium monoxide can exist, but not in an atmosphere with any water vapor. And in any case, what does everyone think it is that the ocean "salt-water"?
  Back to the Commenter who corrected it to "bunker fuel" and noted that it was its sulfur content that made it bottom-of-the-barrell fuel (pun intended). I ask the following question:
  Although there are national laws on sulfur emissions, are there any international regulations, standards, or even recommendations on sulfur emissions by petroleum-fueled engines that sail in international waters?
33. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by BigBadVoodooDaddy · 2016-05-21 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  You are accounting for the engines running at full power throughout the entire journey which is not the case. Also, you are comparing a cruise ship to modes of travel which serve different purposes. You have to consider that these are travel, entertainment, room and board.
  I believe a true comparison would include the efficiency of an entire vacation.
34. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 14:30 · Score: 0
  
  WRONG Moron
  1377 gallons/hour * 1/8880 people = 0.155180180180180
  Learn how to math you fucking moron.
35. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by dbIII · 2016-05-21 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  Make roads out of it.
36. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 14:54 · Score: 0
  
  I thought it was the thickness that made it "bunker fuel". As in, if it was any thicker, we'd be using it for road tar instead. I suspect you're right about the emissions, though. If it was a good thing to burn, you'd see land-based power plants using it, too.
37. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 15:00 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Why? It's a cruise ship. It doesn't really go anywhere in specific, but it does go there for 4 or 8 or 7 days or whatever. per passenger-hour is the correct measure of efficiency. It just doesn't compare well to automobiles where per passenger-mile is the proper measure.
  Possibly someone can come up with a conversion, but it's not a straight miles-to-miles parity.
38. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by dgatwood · 2016-05-21 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  Not just when they're at port. Any time a ship is within a couple hundred miles of the U.S., Canada, or Europe, they have to burn cleaner diesel fuel. That's not so great either, but it is better than bunker fuel. But yes, when they're out in the open ocean, or when they're coming into ports in South America, Africa, Asia, or Australia, they're likely to be burning the dirty stuff, as I understand it.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
39. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by AnAlchemist · 2016-05-21 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  [Warning: I actually read the article.]
  Comparing this huge ship to others ships isn't exactly accurate either.
  If this record-size ship is parked next to the city where you live, it'll be little comfort that it is hyper-efficient when your grandparents head to the hospital for asthma problems.
  Efficiency matters, of course, but so do aggregate emissions.
  Also, many times, _multiple_ ships are parked at the same time!
40. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by bloodhawk · 2016-05-21 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  1377 gallons per hour PER ENGINE. regardless his maths is wrong, but so is yours (at least you used the wrong numbers
41. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by rtb61 · 2016-05-21 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  So why the hell did they not take it one step further and go with liquid natural gas. Once you are using that a fuel, then you can start processing other wastes to create methane (the main component of natural gas) and burn that. Making the vessel a whole lot more environmentally sound. So bigger cruise ships are viable as long as they start looking at more efficient and cleaner energy systems. The amount of sewerage the produce when handled properly good generate a lot of free energy for them and then be topped with liquid natural gas at ports, either burnt in turbines or converted diesel engines. Turbines are more effective for producing usable heat, the exhaust gases to produce steam (for cooking etc) and cooling jacket for boiling water (bathing etc). Likely the way forward for all shipping not just passenger ships but also cargo vessels.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
42. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 16:47 · Score: 0
  
  you are forgetting these engines aren't just powering the persons journey (it is also the lower figure, 10.8 gallons), they also power all the cooking and lighting and every other activity a person does during the day or night that consumes power, these activities on dry land also have an equivalent pollution impact/fuel consumption.
43. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 16:57 · Score: 0
  
  when these ships are docked or coming into dock they are using only a fraction of their power capacity and different fuel types and hence are not producing anything close to pollution levels that are mentioned.
44. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 17:25 · Score: 0
  
  You're my pick for Fox News Journalist of the year! You made an apples to oranges comparison with a straight face.
  There's no sulpher in gasoline. You're deliberately conflating cars with diesel engines. Further, you ignore, deliberately, that the world's largest container ships move an unbelievable tonnage. From memory, a Maersk triple-E ship displaces 2 million tons, so call it 2 million cars. It's turning engines roughly 90% of the time, v.s. cars that move maybe an hour a day, or 4% of the time, so there's 40 million:1 on tons*hours moving. Your comparison is, at best, retarded, and most likely a deliberate deception. Show me any data comparing it per ton mile to diesel lorries.
45. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 17:27 · Score: -1
  
  And they're of course, allways running at full power. You're fucking retarded.
46. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by Mashiki · 2016-05-21 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. Then again if people had real problems with ships burning oil(aka diesel), then they'd be yelling about the 3rd world ships that use PCB laden fuel for their ships engines. People like to think that they simply shipped the stuff off to get disposed of...well it's getting disposed of...by burning it.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
47. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by fustakrakich · 2016-05-21 18:21 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, but that fuel also powers all the kitchens, bars, climate control, etc... If my car can get 22.8 mpg, be staffed to serve drinks and cook a fine steak, had a water slide and swimming pools, and a large suite, I would be very pleased.
  And this is a cruise ship... Everybody ends up back where they started. Who's counting the miles?
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
48. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 18:23 · Score: 0
  
  Well, it is written for people in the climate change religion. Written by idiots for idiots.
  Now if there was 10,000 cruise ships of that size...... Would any work get done?
49. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by ultranova · 2016-05-21 18:50 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think there are much commercial uses for it but certainly you could burn it in a facility with the proper equipment to capture or treat the pollutants prior to shoving them up a smoke stack.
  
  Seeing how that equipment typically involves a smoke washer that basically just dissolves pollutants in water, I wonder if you could solve the whole problem by just pushing the engine exhaust out from under the ship? Sulfur and microparticles of soot are only a problem if they get into the air; if they are dissolved in water, they become food for the plankton.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
50. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 19:01 · Score: 0
  
  Would it impress you that Leonardo Dicaprio on hand to accept an award?
51. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 19:45 · Score: 0
  
  Sulfur, sodium, whatever. I'm an American and proud of it. My educations is the best!
52. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Alumoi · 2016-05-21 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  The fucking article, that you obviously didn't read, say the ship left with 6,780 passengers.
  And with 2100 crew, makit the total of 8880 people.
53. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by nnull · 2016-05-21 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  We should stop flying airplanes too! Considering how much fuel is burned by aircraft everyday, this cruise ship is pretty efficient for the amount of passengers carried and the distance travelled! But lets pretend airplanes don't burn fuel.
  
  https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
54. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 20:21 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  That's a hell of a lot less fuel efficiency than a jetliner or passenger car at capacity, let alone a motorbus. I believe that's the point people are (clumsily) making.
  Which is not an appropriate comparison, as jetliners/cars are used for transportation with (especially jetliners...) habitation as an afterthought. Cruise ships serve primarily for (luxury) habitation. To get at the actual mileage one should probably deduct the energy consumption per guest of a luxury hotel. This seems to come in at roughly 200-300 MJ per guest and night, maybe more on a ship with usually all artificial lighting. Source: http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/PageFiles/6834/909_sbaccom_s3364.pdf
  Bunker C fuel seems to run at 40MJ a gallon, which turns out to about 8-10 gallons per day for habitation alone (large fudge factor applied for unknown energy conversion efficiency).
  Still gives a surprisingly inefficient 30mpg for transportation.
55. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by AmiMoJo · 2016-05-21 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's not just the low MPG, it's the nature of the pollutants that these things release. The low grade fuel is much more polluting than ordinary petrol or aircraft fuel.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
56. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by umafuckit · 2016-05-21 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  I hate bad journalism like this...
  "It burn 96,000 gallons a day"!! Well no shit, it's the biggest ship of the world. If you want to impress me, tell how how much fuel per passager it burn and compare it to others cruise ship. And unless it's the most efficient ship in the world, I won't see a problem.
  The article isn't just about one specific ship, but this class of ships in general. i.e. that they are more polluting cars because they burn dirty fuel. So it's not really relevant if this ship is better or worse than the others. The point is that they're all bad.
  
  --
  soylentnews.org
57. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 21:19 · Score: 0
  
  You're fucking retarded.
  Yes. Yes, you are. You also miserably fail "How to make an argument 101."
58. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 21:23 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  "That's a hell of a lot less fuel efficiency than a jetliner or passenger car at capacity, let alone a motorbus. I believe that's the point people are (clumsily) making."
  Another point that people are making is that these large ships use the cheapest, dirtiest, most polluting fuel there is. They do cause pollution problems in the port cities where they anchor.
59. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 22:16 · Score: 0
  
  That's irrelevant to the people of Southampton. If you're choking on diesel fumes, does it make a difference to you whether they came from an efficient or inefficient engine?
60. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-05-21 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  I hate bad journalism like this...
  "It burn 96,000 gallons a day"!! Well no shit, it's the biggest ship of the world. If you want to impress me, tell how how much fuel per passager it burn and compare it to others cruise ship. And unless it's the most efficient ship in the world, I won't see a problem.
  This is /. where the motto seems to be "Never let reason get in the way of a good headline..." Facts, logic, and rational thought are not allowed to get in the way of sensationalism, emotion, and personal biases.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
61. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Cederic · 2016-05-21 23:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's rather less deceptive when looking at car emission laws, and how fucking pointless they are when one Maersk triple-E pulling up on the coast is out-polluting every fucking car in the country.
  It may be shifting more tonnage but that counts for shit when I can't drive into town to collect the goods because the council are banning diesel cars.
62. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  Huh ?...in Australia they have clean air laws, unlike the USA.
  No way in hell those things will be pouring out clouds of noxious smoke anywhere near an Australian port.
63. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 00:12 · Score: 0
  
  Laws are to cut down on local air pollution.
64. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by swb · 2016-05-22 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  But is the true measure of productivity of a cruise ship actually passengers per mile?
  Those ships seem to spend a non-trivial amount of time docked, anchored or otherwise acting as floating hotels.
  At anchor or temporary moorings they probably run generators for power, so while probably huge in terms of consumption, it's a lot less than moving a vessel of that size through the water.
  I'd guess the whole ship is a diesel-electric setup with electric pod drives; auxiliary power is likely used for low-speed maneuvering and at-anchor house power, the main engines used for house and cruising power.
65. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by Festering+Leper · 2016-05-22 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  The term you're looking for is "Bunker Fuel (#6)", also referred to as Bunker-C, and it's very nasty stuff. It'd be difficult to find a fuel that's any worse in impurities and toxic byproducts. It needs to be preheated to 220 – 260 F (104 – 127 C) in order to liquify enough to be used.
  
  --
  if you want people to think you know what you are talking about, just put ".com" at the end of everything you say.com
66. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by shilly · 2016-05-22 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Except cruise ships run 24/7. And cruise ships burn shitloads of fuel even when at rest. And burn much dirtier fuel. And don't have the filtering tech that cars have. Etc etc.
67. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  The point you're missing is that there is no reason this ship needs to exist in the first place. Just because a few rich people WANT to do something doesn't mean they have a RIGHT to. In this case, the something being polluting our world that we all share.
68. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by fsckinhippies · 2016-05-22 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  I'd guess the whole ship is a diesel-electric setup with electric pod drives; auxiliary power is likely used for low-speed maneuvering and at-anchor house power, the main engines used for house and cruising power.
  You would be correct. The engines do not directly provide propulsion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... They do not use all engines all the time. Typically it is 2 of each if my memory is correct.
69. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by William+Baric · 2016-05-22 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  The crew is as relevant as the number of chairs. The correct number to use is the number of passengers and only the number of passengers.
70. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by wosmo · 2016-05-22 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  I can't help thinking miles-per-gallon is the wrong metric for this.
  If we could compare the total "carbon footprint" for a similar itinerary sans-ship, then we'd have something to talk about. Flying 8880 people (~20 747s) from city to city. Bussing (~180 busses) them to their (~22) hotels. Powering those (~22) hotels. And restaurants & bars enough to feed/inebriate them.
  A cruise ship isn't just a mode of transportation. It's an entire holiday resort, with almost all the associated amenities, and a population past most the towns I've lived in. If we can't compare the miles-per-gallon with that of a medium-sized town or a large holiday resort, we're ignoring a large part of the equation.
71. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Alumoi · 2016-05-22 03:32 · Score: 2
  
  Why? The crew is not carried along with the passengers? They don't eat, drink, use electricity?
  It's like not considering the driver when you talk about cars but only the passengers.
72. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by dgatwood · 2016-05-22 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  They're only required to burn low-sulfur fuel while docked, plus in the last hour before docking and the first hour after leaving (source: Sydney Morning Herald). And even then, their standards for "low" are nowhere near as strong as those in the U.S. (3.5% sulfur in Australia vs. 0.1% in the U.S., and .05% by 2020).
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
73. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Reziac · 2016-05-22 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent point.
  I also noticed how someone in the article whines about all the local road traffic caused by having ships in port... funny how a lot of places cruise ships go rely on tourism to sustain their economy....
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
74. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by drinkypoo · 2016-05-22 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Seeing how that equipment typically involves a smoke washer that basically just dissolves pollutants in water, I wonder if you could solve the whole problem by just pushing the engine exhaust out from under the ship? Sulfur and microparticles of soot are only a problem if they get into the air; if they are dissolved in water, they become food for the plankton.
  The short answer is no. The other stuff that comes out with it is bad, like unburned hydrocarbons.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
75. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by drinkypoo · 2016-05-22 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  So why the hell did they not take it one step further and go with liquid natural gas.
  LNG is comparable in cost to premium gasoline, when energy density is considered. Bunker fuel is far cheaper. Also, more natgas means more fracking, which is not a win.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
76. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by valinor89 · 2016-05-22 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  There might not be international regulations in place for the high seas but I would guess that banning the selling, using and even carrying of that fuel inside the territorial waters of the countries where the ship is expected to land would solve that problem quickly. Some ships can't enter EU waters because they carry some products, I guess if the cruisers can only land on 3rd world countries the demand would go down. I guess we are starting to get to the scale where small affordable nuclear reactors would start to make sense in this kind of application if they can be made safe.
77. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  Just one comment to this. All engines never run at 100% power simultaneously. They need plenty of redundancy onboard. Mostly 4 or 5 engines at 80-90% power is more normal. This will reduce the daily fuel consumption considerably compared to the above calculation. And also keep in mind that this is a power plant where only a part (Typically 30-40 MW during transit) is used for transportation. The engines are also powering the hotel, restaurants, AC, water park, etc...
  However it is still a lot of fuel..
78. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  That is what catalytic converters are for. You know those things scrappers like to cut off when your shopping. Each gallon of gasoline has the max allowable toxins, pollutant and what ever so the refinery does not have to dispose of it. My last V-8 had four of them. Some were added to diesel but now the mix has been changed. Some of the light ends are converted to alcohol to lower the combustion temps which lowers the combustion efficiency at the compression ratio commonly used for North American motors. So why not make motors designed burn alky or propane. A purpose designed alky/propane motor can produce more horse power per wieght than a lower compression gasoline motor running 93 octane gasoline. A auto engine designed to to 100 octane has not been made in the US since 1968. You can buy gasoline for those engines at $ 6.00 a gallon. And alcohol or propane octane rating is ? isopropanol is 120, methanol 100, propane 110
79. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  It's the sulfur content of the fuel that's the problem. It does create incredible colored sunsets with yellows, oranges, red, purples. Sometimes the clouds even have an iridescent rainbow color effect to them. I stayed in Norway, and in the Summer, the regular arrival and departure of cruise ships seemed to coincide with Summer heatwaves.
80. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by delt0r · 2016-05-22 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  There is no such thing as sodium dioxide. Sodium oxide will react with water to eventually form sodium salts, like lye does.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
81. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by fnj · 2016-05-22 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  1377 gallons per hour PER ENGINE. regardless his maths is wrong, but so is yours (at least you used the wrong numbers
  Having a bad day are we? Need more caffeine? I SPECIFICALLY made the point that it was 3x1377 gph - plus another 3x1033 gph for the OTHER three engines.
82. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by fnj · 2016-05-22 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  Why? It's a cruise ship. It doesn't really go anywhere in specific
  There are party boats that only sail out of the harbor for a sunset or moonlight excursion, but I think you'd have some trouble selling tickets for cruise ships that just sailed out in circles in the open ocean. Of course they are going to specific places - holiday spots - and include shore excursions. They are also selling the panache of getting there, so yes, there is entertainment value in the travel time.
  But you can book a 14-day cruise to the Bahamas and back, or you can fly to the Bahamas in a few hours, spend 13 days there, and fly back in a few hours. Either way you are buying 14 days' worth of vacation targeting the Bahamas. Passenger-miles is the measure productivity.
  If you just wanted a 14-day vacation by itself, you would book a nice hotel in town and some entertainment.
83. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by fnj · 2016-05-22 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  passengers per mile
  Units fail. Passengers per mile is just as utterly meaningless a unit as kilowatts per hour. That's why nobody but you is talking about it. Hint - it's passenger-miles, same as it's kWh.
84. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by rtb61 · 2016-05-22 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  The Liquid natural gas would only be a supplement to the methane gas being generated on board and perhaps you don't get it but, fuck off with the polluting effects or burning bunker fuel and they should be made to pay a significant penalty for the extremely toxic pollution being generated. Don't forget natural gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., is largely the result of tacking a fracking dump and simple collecting the gas produce by various microbes feeding on that matter produced. So luxury liners should become floating sewerage farms to reflect the often questionable behaviour of their passengers http://www.smh.com.au/national...
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
85. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 23:22 · Score: 0
  
  don't forget to note the fact that all the engines are never going at full capacity, and rarely if ever, would.
  don't forget to note that biowaste and some garbage from cruise liners is literally food for sea critters.
  don't forget to note the pollution those aboard are NOT directly or indirectly producing on land while they're at sea.
  don't forget to note that unlike airliners and highways there is little noise pollution due to it being at sea most the time, and even at port it's not really bothering anyone either.
  shall i go on? straight "mpg per passenger" is a horrible metric for something that is hardly ever used as an actual mode of transportation anymore.. it is a floating resort that happens to go places. a ship designed for actual passenger travel only with accommodations no more than coach air or train travel would be much smaller and much more efficient than a jumbo-sized cruise liner.
86. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by drinkypoo · 2016-05-23 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  The Liquid natural gas would only be a supplement to the methane gas being generated on board
  Uh no. You have that so backwards it's not even funny. You can't even make enough methane out of one person's shit to run a car. At least, not usefully. These cruise ships are pigs. They are not designed for efficiency, they are designed for capacity.
  
  and perhaps you don't get it but, fuck off
  No, fuck you, chump. Maybe you meant they should fuck off, but that's not what you said. Now tell me to fuck off again.
  
  Don't forget natural gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., is largely the result of tacking a fracking dump
  Uh, yes, that's what I said. Natgas is shit because increasing natgas production means fracking. I don't think you get what you're advocating for, which is fracking.
  
  So luxury liners should become floating sewerage farms to reflect the often questionable behaviour of their passengers http://www.smh.com.au/national...
  The sewage dumped by cruise liners is literally their least offensive effluent. They pollute like mad and they dump trash at sea. But as stated above, they cannot possibly produce enough methane to move the ship based on human shit.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
87. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-23 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  Yes but a jetliner or passenger car are really bad comparisons, you wound need to compare it to a jetliner or passenger car with an attached three room house to make a valid comparison.
88. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-23 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  Thats not that low when compared to other naval transport. Comparing it to a car it looks bad, but they have friction :p Apple sand oranges.
89. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by dcw3 · 2016-05-23 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Huh ?...in Australia they have clean air laws, unlike the USA.
  Try not speaking out of your anus next time.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  https://www.epa.gov/laws-regul...
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
90. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by dcw3 · 2016-05-23 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  a Maersk triple-E ship displaces 2 million tons, so call it 2 million cars.
  My car weighs more than 2 tons you insensitive clod.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
91. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by LunaticTippy · 2016-05-23 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Clean fuel could be burned in widely available engines. Bunker fuel anywhere near land with environmental regulations can only be dealt with in refineries or waste disposal facilities and it is a money losing proposition.
  
  --
  Man, you really need that seminar!
92. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by TechnoJoe · 2016-05-25 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  That's a hell of a lot less fuel efficiency than a jetliner or passenger car at capacity, let alone a motorbus.
  But most jetliners, passengers cars, and motor buses don't have 3 swimming pools, 4 fitness rooms, 2 dinning halls, and place to go rock climbing. It's designed to be a floating amusement park, not a mode of transportation. If you factor in all the "stuff" that a cruise liner lugs around for entertainment purposes, the fuel efficiency isn't so bad.
Slave labor by johnsmithperson123 · 2016-05-21 10:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's not mentioning the fact that the entire staff is likely undocumented/imported, paid low wages (absurdly so), often addicted to drugs etc. Plus the whole sexual assault thing. And changing the flag to, say, Liberia. The cruise industry disgusts me.
1. Re:Slave labor by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-05-21 10:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's not mentioning the fact that the entire staff is likely undocumented/imported, paid low wages (absurdly so), often addicted to drugs etc.
  Last cruise we went on, the provided a breakdown of staffing. They knew where everyone on board came from. And at least the ones we met with (my wife enjoys interaction with the staff) a lot of students who wre saving for college. The pay isn't very high, but it is clean, and the expenses are very low. So no complaints there.
  There aren't many Americans. I did have some retired colleagues who were escorts for ladies on board. They were paid similar wages, but enjoyed the hell out of the cruises. Good meals, pleasant company, and it was like Saturday evening out with a date every day of thte week.
  Your version of Cruise lines is completely bizzare and I haven't seen any of that stuff you say is likely.
  Although full disclosure - I haven't - nor will I - be on a Carnival Cruise.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
2. Re:Slave labor by Kohath · 2016-05-21 11:14 · Score: 2
  
  Citation needed.
3. Re:Slave labor by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:19 · Score: -1
  
  meh, cruises are shit, and if you enjoy them, you're boring as fuck.
4. Re:Slave labor by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  Another fact free post. Why don't you cherry pick somewhere else.
5. Re:Slave labor by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  Southampton is, of course, part of the Paris MOU. As a result, even though this cruise ship flies a flag of convenience it is subject to the Port State Inspection regime of the European area and officials will board to identify any safety problems, unacceptable staff conditions etc.
6. Re:Slave labor by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  I did have some retired colleagues who were escorts for ladies on board.
  YEAH BABY!!!!
  GO GRANDPA, GO GRANDPA
7. Re: Slave labor by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  I think he is talking about the crew, not the publicly viewed parts of the ship.
8. Re:Slave labor by WaffleMonster · 2016-05-21 14:10 · Score: 0
  
  That's not mentioning the fact that the entire staff is likely undocumented/imported, paid low wages (absurdly so), often addicted to drugs etc. Plus the whole sexual assault thing. And changing the flag to, say, Liberia. The cruise industry disgusts me.
  Fleeting moments I've been on a cruise ship the only thing that disgusted me were other passengers.
9. Re:Slave labor by guises · 2016-05-21 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking as someone who knows squat about cruises - why is Carnival an unacceptable option? And if they're a bad choice then what's a good choice?
10. Re:Slave labor by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-05-21 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  I did have some retired colleagues who were escorts for ladies on board.
  YEAH BABY!!!!
  GO GRANDPA, GO GRANDPA
  When I asked one of them what their onboard duties were, he said, "Oh we eat meals, go dancing, you know - stuff."
  Yup, go grandpa FTW!
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
11. Re:Slave labor by rahvin112 · 2016-05-21 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  Frankly from your comment you've never been on a cruise ship and have the intelligence and world experience of a teenager.
  Like all ships the employees are employees of the nation who's flag flies on the ship (typically a small island nation with no real legal system). No ship is "based" in any first world country. Cruise ships that are carrying American's and Europeans are NOT flying their home ports flags. They are all based in countries where there are no labor rules and the ships (cruise, cargo, whatever) can do whatever they want.
  As a result there is no "undocumented" employee on a cruise ship or any other ship for that matter. There isn't any documentation or citizenship or anything else required. The cruise lines are also meticulous about ensuring the passengers are safe. Any crimes or drug use will get you fired and locked in the brig. See in international water they are their own state and the captain can do whatever he wants including put employees in jail.
  Most cruise ship employees are from countries that are poor and where the $12 a hour the ship pays and then ridiculous hours they make you work (16 hour shifts are common) isn't a problem. One of the ones I talked to that had worked in the industry a long time told me he could tell when the economy of a country tanked because the cruise ships would be flooded with applications and employees from those countries. All the cruise ship employees I encountered were educated (some with college degrees) and very nice people from very bad situations (countries and economies) that were forced into these jobs to support family back home.
12. Re:Slave labor by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  I did have some retired colleagues who were escorts for ladies on board. They were paid similar wages, but enjoyed the hell out of the cruises. Good meals, pleasant company, and it was like Saturday evening out with a date every day of thte week.
  So that's legal in international waters?!
13. Re:Slave labor by rahvin112 · 2016-05-21 15:19 · Score: 2
  
  Carnival is a party line for poor people. They target singles with low budgets. The passengers reflect this, which isn't a bad thing if that's what you are looking for but if you are a fairly well to do married couple you can do significantly better for only slightly higher cost.
  Carnival has also had significantly more issues than the other lines. Their ships have been the ones with the huge norovirus outbreak and account for about 75% of the illness outbreaks. Norovirus outbreaks occur from not washing your hands after going to the restroom, particularly number 2. Some people would argue this is tied to that "class" of passenger they target.
  And it's not just illness, The ship that run around in Italy was a carnival line and they've had several fires and other issues. But most of the people turning their nose up at Carnival are doing it because of the type of passenger.
14. Re:Slave labor by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-05-21 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking as someone who knows squat about cruises - why is Carnival an unacceptable option? And if they're a bad choice then what's a good choice?
  Carnival's main attraction is it's low price. They also had a lot of problems a few years back - possibly related to that cheapness. There were some ship breakdowns, http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/14/... and the infamous "Poop Cruise" http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/...
  and morehttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/15/second-carnival-cruise-in-week-experiences-trouble-at-sea.html .
  I think that the situation has improved. But the cheapness being a major attraction tends to attract cheap people.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
15. Re:Slave labor by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-05-21 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  I did have some retired colleagues who were escorts for ladies on board. They were paid similar wages, but enjoyed the hell out of the cruises. Good meals, pleasant company, and it was like Saturday evening out with a date every day of thte week.
  So that's legal in international waters?!
  Hell, a lot of corporations have escorts on staff. Technically they aren't hookers in either case.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
16. Re:Slave labor by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 16:08 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, I do so hate having a cruise ruined by the rabble. I mean, really, what do the bottom 80% think they are, people?
17. Re:Slave labor by bloodhawk · 2016-05-21 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  carnival is the cheap alternative when you can't afford a real cruise, consider it the backpacking of cruises. much lower staff to passenger ratios, less space, lower quality services and amenities.
18. Re:Slave labor by Gussington · 2016-05-21 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  And at least the ones we met with (my wife enjoys interaction with the staff) a lot of students who wre saving for college.
  The ones you met, were the top level of the cruise employee chain. Everyone you didn't meet work all the shit jobs, and are generally the cheapest immigrants you can find.
19. Re:Slave labor by thegarbz · 2016-05-21 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  That's not mentioning the fact that the entire staff is likely undocumented/imported
  Actually they are very well documented. And they are most definitely not imported. The only thing being imported are the passengers who are put on a boat that is not American
  
  Plus the whole sexual assault thing.
  Yeah I too am disgusted by a rounding error of assault cases that are experienced across an industry. I mean if they keep going they may actually get as high as some American cities. Disgusting!
20. Re:Slave labor by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 22:18 · Score: 0
  
  ...Their ships have been the ones with the huge norovirus outbreak and account for about 75% of the illness outbreaks. Norovirus outbreaks occur from not washing your hands after going to the restroom, particularly number 2. Some people would argue this is tied to that "class" of passenger they target.
  Just to weigh in my tiny experience, i've never been on a cruise ship but norovirus seems to be a concern on some of the small boats i've been on (not had it but seen lots of warnings and boats with signs trying to be extra vigilant against it)... so maybe it's just more of a general issue at sea? I expect it's more of a concern on a cruise ship where it can spread among many quickly.
21. Re:Slave labor by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 00:00 · Score: -1
  
  It's cheap, so it attracts Indians and Hispanics and Asians and blacks and so on.
  No wonder they have hygiene issues.
22. Re:Slave labor by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-05-22 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  And at least the ones we met with (my wife enjoys interaction with the staff) a lot of students who wre saving for college.
  The ones you met, were the top level of the cruise employee chain. Everyone you didn't meet work all the shit jobs, and are generally the cheapest immigrants you can find.
  You do realize that cruise ship employees are not immigrants don't you?
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
23. Re:Slave labor by drinkypoo · 2016-05-22 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Some people would argue this is tied to that "class" of passenger they target.
  Alas, this is total bollocks. Whether people wash their hands or not is totally unrelated to their social status.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
24. Re:Slave labor by Gussington · 2016-05-22 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that cruise ship employees are not immigrants don't you?
  Not one single immigrant in the entire cruise ship industry? That's a bold claim...
25. Re:Slave labor by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-05-23 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that cruise ship employees are not immigrants don't you?
  Not one single immigrant in the entire cruise ship industry? That's a bold claim...
  If they become immigrants, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the cruise line.
  They are not there to emigrate, they are working as employees of the cruise line. What some happen to do when they leave is not relevant, and has nothing to do with the cruise line.Cruise ships would have to be the strangest emigration path ever.
  All I've spoken with are quite happy to be there. pay is low, but bennies are great, you can essentially bank everything but toothpaste, deodorant, and maybe uniform (IDK, but I think uniforms are provided) - no one seemed in a hurry to get off the ship.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
26. Re:Slave labor by Talderas · 2016-05-23 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  It's the Walmart of cruises.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
27. Re:Slave labor by Gussington · 2016-05-23 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  They are not there to emigrate, they are working as employees of the cruise line.
  Doesn't mean they're not immigrants.
  Immigrants generally make up the lower end of the employment market (dues to language/education differences). Just like how 7eleven is mostly immigrants because the work and pay is shit, so too is a lot of the cruise ship jobs.
  Sure the captain and cruise director aren't, but a lot of the monkey work is done is immigration type labour. You never get to see them because they spend the whole cruise below deck.
28. Re:Slave labor by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-05-23 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  They are not there to emigrate, they are working as employees of the cruise line.
  Doesn't mean they're not immigrants.
  Dude!
  They are not American ships They are ships registered in other countries and don't serve as immigrant boats. THey are not operated by liberals or religious people trying to sneak illegal or legal immigrants into the United States, because most if not all of them are not part of rthe United States I'll telll you what. Find me the records of immigrant employees who jump ship or whatever from cruise boats. They have contracts with the cruise lines, and none of those contracts say that they are on the cruise ship to become an immigrant. And not everyone is wishing to come to the USA, despite what you and the Don might think.
  Peace out, I have no time to argue with people who would do their reputations a favor by posting as AC. Have the last word, and strut around like you won. I''m merely taking pity because my mamma taught me not to pick on stupid people.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
29. Re:Slave labor by Gussington · 2016-05-23 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  Dude!
  They are not American ships They are ships registered in other countries and don't serve as immigrant boats. THey are not operated by liberals or religious people trying to sneak illegal or legal immigrants into the United States, because most if not all of them are not part of rthe United States
  I never said they were. I'm not American either so I'm not sure what this has to do with the USA?
  
  I'll telll you what. Find me the records of immigrant employees who jump ship or whatever from cruise boats. They have contracts with the cruise lines, and none of those contracts say that they are on the cruise ship to become an immigrant. And not everyone is wishing to come to the USA, despite what you and the Don might think.
  Never said they were, so you have clearly have misunderstood the point here. Immigrants are actually a thing you know. Any other inference is all yours.
  
  Peace out, I have no time to argue with people who would do their reputations a favor by posting as AC. Have the last word, and strut around like you won. I''m merely taking pity because my mamma taught me not to pick on stupid people.
  Um ok... what?
  None of your gibberish makes any sense. Are you sure you sure replying to the right comment?
Solutionm by For+a+Free+Internet · 2016-05-21 10:47 · Score: -1

Just stop eating so much and pooping so much, fat American pigs!

--
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
what an ISIS target by turkeydance · 2016-05-21 10:51 · Score: 1

just waiting
Bah... by sir1963nz · 2016-05-21 10:53 · Score: 5, Informative

A 747 burns through 3,600 Gallons of fuel per hour for just over 416 Passengers. This ship burns 1/3 of that for nearly 9000 people.
1. Re:Bah... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  Well that's a daft comparison. How about you evolve from amoeba stage... by including trip duration and speed.
2. Re:Bah... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  A 747 burns through 3,600 Gallons of fuel per hour for just over 416 Passengers.
  This ship burns 1/3 of that for nearly 9000 people.
  You need to normalize that by speed. The 747 is traveling faster, so that means the 747 will spending less time burning burning fuel to go the same distance.
3. Re:Bah... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  Jet fuel and diesel are different things. Compare exhaust profiles for a better idea of which is more of a pollutant. I don't know which is, but efficiency isn't the only factor here, or necessarily even an important one.
4. Re:Bah... by WhiplashII · 2016-05-21 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Um, do the math: 1/3 the fuel for 20 times the people is an advantage of 60 times! A 747 maxes out at 570 mph. Are you suggesting that the cruise ship maxes out at 10 mph? (Hint: it doesn't)
  
  --
  while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
5. Re:Bah... by itsenrique · 2016-05-21 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Even worse, some (most?) cruise ships use bunker fuel, according to my research. http://www.theguardian.com/sus... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
6. Re:Bah... by William+Baric · 2016-05-21 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  6,780 passengers. Also, a 747 is a tad faster than a cruise ship.
7. Re:Bah... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-05-21 11:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Moreover, I heard these use bunker fuel.
  You know who else used a bunker? Hitler.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
8. Re:Bah... by fnj · 2016-05-21 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  Um, do the math
  For anyone who is having trouble, I did just that. You're absolutely right. The cruise ship figure is 0.0438 gallons per passenger per mile. If his and your 747 figures are right, that is 0.0152 gallons per passenger per mile.
  The problem is pretty obvious. The 747 is carrying (on takeoff) a gross mass of roughly 1900 pounds per passenger, but the cruise ship is dragging around over 30,000 pounds of gross mass per passenger. (Note: the displacement is a little over 100,000 tons; the oft-quoted figure of 225,000 tons or so is GROSS TONNAGE - a measure of enclosed space in units of 100 cy ft; not a measure of mass at all).
  The comparison does pivot the opposite way when you compare cargo rather than passengers.
9. Re:Bah... by FlyHelicopters · 2016-05-21 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  A 747 burns through 3,600 Gallons of fuel per hour for just over 416 Passengers. This ship burns 1/3 of that for nearly 9000 people.
  True, but it also does it going 600 mph...
10. Re:Bah... by AmiMoJo · 2016-05-21 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  How far does a 747 go per hour, compared to this ship? If both were transporting people from Southampton to Rome, keeping in mind that the 747 can also fly more or less direct while the ship has to stick to deep seas, how much fuel would each consume to move 9000 people? What is the nature of the pollution generated by each?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
11. Re:Bah... by thegarbz · 2016-05-21 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  A 747 burns kerosene or something that very closely resembles it.
  This ship burns bunker fuel. Which is the fuel that is left once you remove from crude oil all the clean useful stuff that is actually usable within the bounds of western city environmental regulations.
  Give me the 747 any day, mind you I say this as someone who's going on a cruise in 10 weeks.
12. Re:Bah... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  My understanding is that all fuel used by ships is called bunker fuel.
  So wouldn't all cruise ships by definition use bunker fuel?
13. Re:Bah... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  You don't want be on a cruise ship in weather above sea state 3. When the gear adrift is a grand piano, not a good thing.
14. Re:Bah... by sribe · 2016-05-22 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  A 747 burns through 3,600 Gallons of fuel per hour for just over 416 Passengers. This ship burns 1/3 of that for nearly 9000 people.
  No, it burns 1/3 that in each of 3 engines ;-)
Gallon? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:01 · Score: 0

What's a gallon?
1. Re:Gallon? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  About 1/64th of a hogshead. Why is everyone in the world (except Americans) seemingly ignorant of basic measurement units?
2. Re:Gallon? by Tailhook · 2016-05-21 13:43 · Score: 0
  
  What's a gallon?
  8.9 mutchkins or about 4.5 chopins.
  
  --
  Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
3. Re:Gallon? by BlueStrat · 2016-05-21 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  What's a gallon?
  About the same price here as downtown.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Who would want to cruise on this? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:03 · Score: 0

I'm near retirement age, white, American, subtly rich, and have a desire to travel, but... I wouldn't go on that bloated, crowded turd even if they paid me.
1. Re:Who would want to cruise on this? by Luthair · 2016-05-21 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty much the ultimate McVacation
2. Re:Who would want to cruise on this? by ColdWetDog · 2016-05-21 12:41 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  The newly wed and the nearly dead .....
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Yeah, it's bad, but not to that scale. by RyanFenton · 2016-05-21 11:04 · Score: 3, Informative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oasis-class_cruise_ship
First off, those engines will only run at full power at the very start of the journey, if even then to get to, well, _cruising_ speed, which is around 22 knots, which is around 25 miles per hour. It IS a lot of fuel to use in any case - but per-person, it's not so bad as these blind numbers in headlines.
http://business.tenntom.org/why-use-the-waterway/shipping-comparisons/
Bulk shipping by large ship is actually pretty efficient a method of transporting our stuff. Yeah - they often use the nasty fuel when they can get away with it - but in terms of per-unit cost, it really isn't that bad by scale. The entire transportation industry DOES need to get off carbon fuels - but compared to the fuel used to give everyone groceries and trade, the impact of vacation resources isn't that large a cost. People always eat, the extra fuel to eat on this boat isn't a very large extra percent.
I don't think it's terribly productive to label folks taking vacations as wasteful, when really, it's our entire current system that needs to get its resource usage into a sustainable state.
I think if you'd compare it to environmentally 'friendly' activities like touring Alaska's wildlife, it uses far less fuel per person.
Ryan Fenton
1. Re:Yeah, it's bad, but not to that scale. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:40 · Score: 0
  
  Bulk shipping by large ship is actually pretty efficient a method of transporting our stuff.
  
  Except this isn't bulk shipping, it isn't even transporting people from one place to another. It is entertainment. Different comparison there.
  That said, there are lots of questions about some consumer goods.
  
  People always eat, the extra fuel to eat on this boat isn't a very large extra percent.
  Indeed, this is not a big scale, solely in itself, but it's worth noting, because well, just ask yourself how much this vessel costs and how much money it's expected to make. So why not assess the costs it has on the rest of the world?
  
  I don't think it's terribly productive to label folks taking vacations as wasteful, when really, it's our entire current system that needs to get its resource usage into a sustainable state.
  It's not terribly productive to ignore this either. Pretty much everybody would react the same way, and then you end up doing nothing.
  
  I think if you'd compare it to environmentally 'friendly' activities like touring Alaska's wildlife, it uses far less fuel per person.
  A lot of people deplore the effects of those activities as well. Yeah, the big-game hunters slaughtering by the truckload are gone, but that doesn't mean that there are still concerns, even leaving aside people who do stuff they're TOLD not to do.
2. Re:Yeah, it's bad, but not to that scale. by FlyHelicopters · 2016-05-21 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  The entire transportation industry DOES need to get off carbon fuels
  That might be, but it is so easy to say, so very hard to do...
  What would container ships and cruise ships use instead? Nuclear reactors strike me as the only reasonable options.
3. Re:Yeah, it's bad, but not to that scale. by AmiMoJo · 2016-05-21 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  First off, those engines will only run at full power at the very start of the journey
  So, the worst of the pollution is as it leaves port, right where it blows into the city, which is what the inhabitants of Southampton have been complaining about.
  
  Yeah - they often use the nasty fuel when they can get away with it - but in terms of per-unit cost, it really isn't that bad by scale.
  So it's cheap if you use cheap, highly polluting fuel and externalize the cost of the damage it does.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:Yeah, it's bad, but not to that scale. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-23 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  my multi-week tour of Ak wildlife by foot and backpack was pretty low fuel.
Poor math. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:05 · Score: 1

1,377 US gallons x 24 Hours = 33,048 US gallons per day. Where did they get 96,000 gallons from?
1. Re: Poor math. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  There are three engines. The hourly rate was given for one engine, the daily rate was for all three.
Plan by Tablizer · 2016-05-21 11:07 · Score: 5, Funny

If they had named it Boaty McBoatface, they could have made enough on souvenirs to clean it up.

--
Table-ized A.I.
1. Re:Plan by Crasty · 2016-05-23 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Actually... Royal Caribbean, which is the company in question here, gave the person who came up with Boaty McBoatface a free cruise, during which he was to help them name their next ship. So maybe they see your logic!
Bad, but not because of the amount or fuel type by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:08 · Score: 0

There is no point to cruising. That is why it is bad. Everything you do on a cruise ship you could have done on land. While there are things to see- after you get off- or from the ship in some cases it's not like you couldn't have done those things without a cruise ship being involved. The cruise part is pointless. It be better for people to check out resorts with lots of activities. If you want to 'cruise' Alaska for the view you can do that without the 'cruise' part and still go to a resort, but without the environmental impact, or at least less of it.
1. Re:Bad, but not because of the amount or fuel type by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-05-21 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to cruise, take a river cruise. Instead of two hours in a port where all there's time to do is dash to the souvenir shops, you spend most of each day tied up in an interesting small town that has a lot of history and culture to explore, and at your own pace. There are interesting rivers in every part of the world where you would rationally want to be.
  River cruisers are small, too, under 500 passengers.
2. Re:Bad, but not because of the amount or fuel type by Pentium100 · 2016-05-21 13:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Isn't it like this for any entertainment?
  Don't go for a drive, save fuel. Don't play games or watch TV, save electricity. And so on.
  While you can skip the "cruise" part and, say, drive or fly to the various destinations, it would not be the same, because now the "going to" the destinations part is less fun than it would be on a cruise ship.
3. Re:Bad, but not because of the amount or fuel type by dwywit · 2016-05-21 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  Hell, find yourself a canal boat rental company, and take the family on a gentle cruise along canals.
  There are lots of them in some countries (UK, parts of Europe), and none in many countries, but boy, are they fun - and relaxing. Cruise along, wave and smile at other boaties, enjoy the canal/riverbank scenery and wildlife, tie up at a riverside pub for lunch, eat, drink & be merry, and spend the late afternoon cruising to another pub for dinner.
  There's just you and your family for most of the day, and you can join other people and socialise at lunch & dinner.
  You can also have some fun learning to operate century-old locks. Yes, manually spinning a valve wheel, then *pushing* the operating arms made out of entire tree trunks. You won't get *that* on a Carnival Cruise.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Time for car analog by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:08 · Score: 0

If you break it down to per person at full or near full capacity, that is actually comparable to car fuel use per person per hour.
At least compared to cars with 4 people inside, that's 6500/4 = 1625 cars. Assuming average 30 mpg to travel 20miles, that's .67 gallons per car to travel the same distance which equals 1088.75 gallons use for cars to travel the same distance. Honestly, i would think the amount of pollution produced from those people driving around town all week would be similar relatively speaking compared to those people going on a week long cruise.
I'm not saying it's not a problem, but i assume it's like living near a coal plant. You don't notice the general pollution unless it's localized.
1. Re:Time for car analog by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  If it has Lucas electrical like british built cars do, it'll break down, or catch fire, or turn left when they wanted to turn right.
I suspect its just normal diesel by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:20 · Score: 0

Most ships burn diesel when in port. When they get about 15 nautical miles out to sea, they switch to bunker oil. *THAT* smells foul. Its a lot cheaper than diesel, and gives about the same performance, but smells a lot worse and there is black smoke coming out all the time. The bunker oil burns like diesel (its not a steam turbine, its a diesel engine). Like I said though, they don't use bunker oil in port, and they don't use their main engines in port (just auxiliary engines to make electricity). I don't see the need for a real big engine either. An 800 hp engine can be tied to a 596 kW generator. Even on a large ship, that's equivalent to powering about 300 homes or about 12 city blocks. So are they saying that what is equivalent to 2 400 hp car engines is polluting a lot? I see cars moving around a lot, and I don't think its that bad. Maybe I'm off by a factor of 10, and it *is* diesel (not bunker oil but diesel in port), but I still don't see what the deal is. If its seen as a problem, they can do what the boat/yacht set do and use shore power.
1. Re:I suspect its just normal diesel by techno-vampire · 2016-05-21 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but no. I was in the US Navy in the early '70s, and the only time there was black smoke was if the engines weren't getting enough air. Oddly enough, if they were getting too much air, you'd get white smoke. If everything was adjusted correctly, there was no visible exhaust at all.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
floating eco-environment killer by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:25 · Score: 0

Regardless of modern efficiency this is a floating nightmare waiting to happen. Eventually this or an equivalent , or bigger, ship will fail and the damage go reefs, ecosystems, etc. will be impacted. Count on it.
100% agree by p51d007 · 2016-05-21 11:28 · Score: 0

Nuclear reactors for these. On a side note, I don't know why anyone would want to spend a vacation, with around 10,000 other people on a ship this big. I guess because of its size, you'd never see the whole thing, but when I think of vacation, I think of GETTING AWAY from people.
1. Re:100% agree by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · 2016-05-21 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  It's the same for people who buy expensive campers/trailers, drive for hundreds or thousands of kilometres and then park themselves amongst hundreds of strangers to "live in the wild" for their vacation.
2. Re:100% agree by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 21:16 · Score: 0
  
  Nuclear reactors for these. On a side note, I don't know why anyone would want to spend a vacation, with around 10,000 other people on a ship this big. I guess because of its size, you'd never see the whole thing, but when I think of vacation, I think of GETTING AWAY from people.
  I'm no fan of cruise ships either, at all, but when I think of vacation I think of experiencing new places and meeting people -- both "locals" and culture in general, wherever you are, and people you meet at your vacation destination or through activities like scuba diving. I can't think of a recent vacation where we haven't met someone that we continued enjoying part of the vacation with and sometime kept in touch with afterwards. People from all over the world.
3. Re:100% agree by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 21:21 · Score: 0
  
  From the customer end, novelty I guess. It may be "cost effective" to put the equivalent of amusement park rides that can service a 10K population, and manage food buffets to feed 10K people for pennies/day, limited internet would be a fixed, manageable cost, and finally you're investing in stages/live acts. If you could have a working thorium nuclear reactor, and it could be operated safely and economically as huge diesel engines, why not? (This might also make a great, knock off SimCity game.)
  But I find it staggering how they'd have people from other countries working for pennies/day, law enforcement, medical clinic, and emergency services and still make a profit. But it would probably result in more money, from the corporate end, to build a 10K customer cruise ship, to putting out a lot of 1K cruise ships.
4. Re:100% agree by dcw3 · 2016-05-22 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  On a side note, I don't know why anyone would want to spend a vacation, with around 10,000 other people on a ship this big.
  Just speaking from my own experience (7 cruises on ships holding up to ~3000 people). It's more like a weeklong party where you wake up in a new location every day. You get to spend a day in a different place each time you wake up. You don't have to cook, or make your bed, and drinks are delivered to you at the side of the pool as the ocean goes by. I've seen the glaciers of Alaska (took the helo ride up), and watched from the deck as chunks fell into the ocean. I've watched whales, and schools of porpoise around our ships. I've been to Cadillac mountain, and Roatan ziplining through the jungle. I've seen Myan temples, and cruised down the river Wallace with it's amazing wildlife. I've had the chance to ride an Americas Cup boat, ride on a submarine, and ridden an airboat through the Everglades.
  Could I have done all these things privately? Sure, but I doubt that it would have been as enjoyable.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
Visually polluting, too by TigerPlish · 2016-05-21 11:29 · Score: 0

These modern cruise ships are visual abominations. Another poster said it best: "McCruises."
Contrast their great height and cargo-ship-like profiles to the long, low, graceful yacht-like lines of ocean liners of the early 20th century.
In a word, these modern ships are -- garish.

--
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
1. Re:Visually polluting, too by MtViewGuy · 2016-05-21 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  But then, those early 20th Century passenger ships were designed specifically for long-distance voyages at speed--and as such, they had to be designed to travel as fast as possible, resulting in very sleek design for its time. Today's cruise ships--outside of the three boats operated by Cunard Cruises--are designed for relatively slow travel, so they tend to have a lot more amenities on board.
It's not diesel fuel by JimSadler · 2016-05-21 11:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

Those ships burn the bottom products of the oil stack after refining. The fuel is closer to tar or asphalt that diesel. On a cold day you can actually walk on that fuel as if it is a road. And yes, using such fuels needs to be made very illegal. Anyone can do the math. Those ships could never exist if they had to use real diesel fuel as the price of passenger tickets would not equal the fuel burned on a cruise.
1. Re:It's not diesel fuel by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 15:15 · Score: 0
  
  fucc u
2. Re:It's not diesel fuel by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 17:32 · Score: 0
  
  okay, polyanna, what the hell are you going to do with it? Pour it in the river? It's not magically going to go away. It also happens to be the most efficient fuel for big marine diesels. I know, we'll magic it away, and force them to use light kerosenes (you know, diesel oil) and raise the cost of goods and transportation fuels for everyone, because that will be really great for poor people.
3. Re:It's not diesel fuel by thegarbz · 2016-05-21 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  And yes, using such fuels needs to be made very illegal
  While I agree, what do you propose we do with it? There's only so much upgrading a refinery can do before you're left with the crap?
  Mind you regulations are getting like that. Lots of investment in European refineries at present to meet the new requirements (yes they finally have requirements) for bunker fuel.
4. Re:It's not diesel fuel by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  And yes, using such fuels needs to be made very illegal.
  What do you propose we do with it instead?
5. Re:It's not diesel fuel by delt0r · 2016-05-22 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yea and every shipped product should cost 30x more.. Cus reason. Bad fuel.. stuff. Bad. Caption fucking planet
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
lol@fuel per passenger calculations above by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:32 · Score: 0

Typical engineers over-simplifying the problem.
A diesel van might be four times more polluting, but it's likely involved in productive activity. Meanwhile, this whole ship could be sunk tomorrow and it would make zero difference to the world's progress. Hell, calculate the monies paid by current and future passengers and expropriate it for more useful activity. If someone can afford a cruise, they can afford to give away an equivalent amount of money and not go on a cruise.
Money travelling around in a circle doesn't generate wealth. A ship transporting passengers in a circle doesn't generate wealth. Wealth creation - in the classical sense, not the leeching banker sense - means human progress.
1. Re:lol@fuel per passenger calculations above by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 14:48 · Score: 0
  
  Meanwhile, this whole ship could be sunk tomorrow and it would make zero difference to the world's progress. Hell, calculate the monies paid by current and future passengers and expropriate it for more useful activity
  Various societies have tried that. You know what happens? The people who "expropriate the money" use it to cruise around on their own.
  
  Wealth creation - in the classical sense, not the leeching banker sense - means human progress.
  Yes, and people like you are the greatest enemy of human progress, because you want to replace a reasonably efficient market system with an utterly corrupt centrally planned system.
2. Re:lol@fuel per passenger calculations above by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 18:03 · Score: 0
  
  Various societies have tried that. You know what happens? The people who "expropriate the money" use it to cruise around on their own.
  Not really. Most of northern Europe has managed a lot of expropriation via social democratic principles, and ends up far less of a dump than places like the USA. Corruption is not a necessary consequence of human activity, as long as humans remain vigilant.
  
  Yes, and people like you are the greatest enemy of human progress, because you want to replace a reasonably efficient market system with an utterly corrupt centrally planned system.
  We already have an utterly corrupt mostly centrally planned system, chump.
Mass tourism industry by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2016-05-21 11:33 · Score: 1

Okay, so cruise ships are the "fastest growing sector of the mass tourism industry". Aren't they the only sector of the mass tourism industry? What else is there?
I've never really understood the appeal of a cruise ship; but obviously some others do.

--
#DeleteChrome
1. Re:Mass tourism industry by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 15:16 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps you've never heard of Disney (Land|World)?
2. Re:Mass tourism industry by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  I've never really understood the appeal of a cruise ship; but obviously some others do.
  You've obviously never played the most dangerous game on a cruise. What you do is decide who your victim(s) will be, then you have to eliminate them, without getting caught. The easiest way is to make it look like an accident or frame a native when on a day trip. Extra points if you do it aboard ship and dump them into the sea. It happens a lot more than you think, the cruise lines try to keep it quiet (bad for business).
3. Re:Mass tourism industry by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2016-05-22 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you've never heard of Disney (Land|World)?
  I don't think that qualifies as "mass tourism". Many, many individuals go there, just like many many people go to Paris and Rome; but, unlike a cruise, it's not several thousand people all traveling en masse (together).
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
Climate change solved by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:36 · Score: 0

Keep adding mega cruise liners to the ocean, and the water levels will continue to rise. Only entitled millennials with some free sweepstakes would ride those things and endure being trapped in some floating unwashed urban toilet just like the cities they live in.
Easy Solution by Greyfox · 2016-05-21 11:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

There's an easy solution for that! Clean Atomic Energy! But then everyone'd be like "Waaaah! Waaaah! There's a floating nuclear reactor down on the dock!" Honestly, there's just no pleasing some people.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Re:Easy Solution by redcliffe · 2016-05-21 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'd suspect a nuclear reactor would deliver a quieter ship too. Why can't we have modern safe nuclear reactor powered ships?
2. Re:Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  We do have modern safe nuclear reactor powered ships.
3. Re:Easy Solution by j-turkey · 2016-05-21 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Possibly, but these ships are diesel-electric and the diesel motors are buried deep enough inside of the hulls to be very quiet. Maybe not so much by military standards, but by passenger standards I'm not so sure.
  
  --
  
  -Turkey
4. Re:Easy Solution by MtViewGuy · 2016-05-21 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  Once they perfect the molten-salt reactor (MSR) design, it might be possible to eventually build a cruise ship powered by a nuclear reactor. Not only would there be way less air pollution, but it might even make it possible for even the largest cruise ships to potentially go as fast as 30 knots top speed.
5. Re:Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 13:07 · Score: 0
  
  ...at full power, burn 1,377 US gallons of fuel an hour, or about 96,000 gallons a day...
  That is l337. All your base are belong to us.
  with a decent nuclear engine and a good hull design maybe 35 knots and that cruise vacation could be cut in half?
6. Re:Easy Solution by dbIII · 2016-05-21 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  Molten stuff in a ship made of metal that is prone to liquid metal embrittlement? I think the things currently in use in nuclear powered icebreakers etc are a far saner idea.
7. Re:Easy Solution by AmiMoJo · 2016-05-21 21:08 · Score: 0
  
  Given the cruise line's track record on running their ships, with frequent outbreaks of viruses, fires, running aground and other mishaps I'm not sure I'd trust them to run a nuclear reactor. These guys were too cheap to use good quality fuel or install proper scrubbers on the exhausts, don't forget. I can't see them spending much on reactor safety features or maintenance.
  And of course, we already have nuclear powered vessels visiting Southampton and nearby Portsmouth dockyards, without much protest.
  But of course everyone is like "Waaaah! Waaaah! I want my nukes!" without considering the reality of the situation. Like a child denied a toy.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:Easy Solution by TechnoJoe · 2016-05-25 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  Oh please! This ship is floating on the world's largest supply of coolant (water). What could possibly go wrong?
Fuel Cells by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 11:51 · Score: 0

I wonder how many fuel cells and how big hydrogen storage it would take to power these things with all the moving, entertainment and cooking going on. "Sorry Chef, only induction stoves available!"
Exactly my though (Legal limitations ?) by DrYak · 2016-05-21 12:17 · Score: 1

Yup, that's also what I was thinking:
Nearly every modern carrier (which is technically a "small airport/military base on a ship") uses nuclear power.
Why the hell is this monster (which is compared to a "small city on a ship") does need to burn diesel ?!?
But then probably there are some weird non-proliferation treaties that limit the application of this kind of technology to non-government/non-military ships.
And/or treaty about nuclear use in international waters (where this ship operates most of the time).

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:Exactly my though (Legal limitations ?) by ColdWetDog · 2016-05-21 12:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Given the negative cachet that nuclear power has these days, using a reactor to power a cruise ship would be a PR nightmare. Might as well just paint a huge sign on the hull that says "Radiation! Stay Away!".
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Exactly my though (Legal limitations ?) by dbIII · 2016-05-21 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but irrelevant since it's military technology that nobody involved is going to let outsiders even look at let alone sell to them.
  The fear is IMHO mostly a bit of a kickback from decades of people being told it is perfectly safe and then getting a big shock from those times when it wasn't. It's like getting a nasty bite from a cute puppy and ending up with a fear of dogs. With all the "too cheap to meter" and "clean" bullshit PR it was bound to happen.
3. Re:Exactly my though (Legal limitations ?) by St.Creed · 2016-05-21 22:10 · Score: 1
  
  How many cities do you think would permit the enty of a nuclear powered vessel? IIRC, there are several main ports already banning carriers for this reason. Cruise ships? Not a chance.
  Apart from that, unless the design was provably safe (4th generation and regular inspections by independent authorities) and pretty clean even *I* would feel uncomfortable with them. It's way to easy to get rid of nuclear waste by just dumping it somewhere, not to mention other cost-cutting arangements that would decrease safety. Nuclear power on carriers and subs work because of high standards in personel enforced by military discipline. Good luck getting that on a random cruise ship.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Thorium: Less experience ? by DrYak · 2016-05-21 12:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

The drawback I see with thorium is that it is currently only *researched* by the military navies.
I.E.: if gargantuan civilian "floating cities" ships decide to adopt it, it will be completely new technology. It won't have been tested and proven since long time, with all the drawbacks and caveat very well known, and the whole design perfected over several revision like current maritime nuclear generator used by navies.
I'm not sure that these kind of companies will be able to spend as much as government/military to perfect the technology. They'll probably spare on the R&D side of things. To avoid nuclear catastrophes, it might be better to re-use older/proven/known reactors for the cruise ships, and let those with deeper pocket manage to bring thorium reactors to reality.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:Thorium: Less experience ? by WarJolt · 2016-05-21 12:52 · Score: 2
  
  96000/6780 is about 14.2 gallons per day. If you add up all the fuel used by all the electricity and gasoline average person uses per day that's not so bad. Especially if you consider ships don't burn gasoline. I'd still prefer non nuclear civilian navy.
2. Re:Thorium: Less experience ? by saloomy · 2016-05-21 13:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The real cost of a petrochemical navy is absurdly higher than a nuclear one. Just check out:
  
  1. The cost of ensuring its supply (through wars)
  
  2. The fluctuation in real cost of fuel prices over the lifespan of the engine
  
  3. The environmental cost and irrecoverable damage to the planet
  
  4. The increase in respiratory illnesses incident rate vs the relatively nonexistent incident rate related to nuclear energy. More on this:
  Nuclear power, when compared with just about every other fuel on earth, has a vastly lower injury, death, and sickness rating, even with Fukushima, Chernobyl, and 3-Mile. The safety is what makes the cost astronomical, not the science. Nuclear power is the fuel of the sun, the earth, and the source of all of life's energy. Even solar power has a higher deaths per gigawatt than nuclear. This an educational problem, not a practical, economical, or scientific one.
  
  Its too bad the first experience humans had with nuclear power was via WMD, and not civilian applications. We would be living in a very different world today if we first commercialized the technology before we blew up Japan with it.
3. Re:Thorium: Less experience ? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 13:35 · Score: 0
  
  Depends on what you compare it to. Most people in eastern Canada get their home power from hydro-electricity.
4. Re: Thorium: Less experience ? by Billly+Gates · 2016-05-21 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  After seeing Fukushima do you really trust private entities like corporations run by cost accountants whose only goal is to raise the share price each quarter to give the CEO his bonus?
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
5. Re: Thorium: Less experience ? by Budgreen · 2016-05-21 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  Considering things like...
  SL-1 (military) accident
  Vs.
  TMI (civilian) accident
  I'm fine with the private run
  
  --
  The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
6. Re:Thorium: Less experience ? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 21:37 · Score: 0
  
  WMD.. without that WMD there would be no Nuclear Power Plants in the whole world.. Without Manhattan project and by that I mean the Money spend on that project the investment that American TaX payers put in to that, there would be nothing.
  And thorium energy, no private institute or private investor has the resources to develop that.. TaX payers do have the capital tough.
7. Re:Thorium: Less experience ? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 23:12 · Score: 0
  
  Hi. Reactors came first.
  We'll wait while you go look it up.
8. Re: Thorium: Less experience ? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, rudimentary reactors came first. But the billions (trillions?) spent on further developing the technology were justified by the military wanting to make a shitload of more bombs.
9. Re: Thorium: Less experience ? by Salgak1 · 2016-05-22 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  And weather satellites, GPS, and simlilar, wouldn't have come about without ICBM development programs. But once the tech is achieved, why does it matter who paid for the underlying research.
  Hell, we wouldn't have an Internet and TCP/IP if ARPA didn't want a decentralized comms network to survive a nuclear exchange. . . .
10. Re: Thorium: Less experience ? by ChristopherCelaya · 2016-05-22 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  A typical tank of gas a day seems pretty bad to me.
11. Re:Thorium: Less experience ? by ToddInSF · 2016-05-22 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  "Its too bad the first experience humans had with nuclear power was via WMD, and not civilian applications."
  
  "Nuclear power" was developed only because we needed to develop a really big bomb. Are you at all familiar with the history ? It was quite a while before the bomb became "nuclear power".
  
  Given the consistent tendency for all technology to be used in deleterious and unintended ways, PARTICULARLY COMMERCIALLY, I have to agree with you, it's a real pity we didn't first commercialize the technology and end all life on Earth, I would have been spared reading your stupid post.
12. Re: Thorium: Less experience ? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-23 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure the SL-1 vs TMI accidents say as much about the safety of government run nuclear power versus private sector run power plants. It seems to me the SL-1 accident had more to do with the fact that it was an early, experimental, design and was built before adequate safety design was available for reactors. TMI had a better design as far as safety is concerned, and I think that accounts for the difference.
13. Re: Thorium: Less experience ? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-23 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  True, but sl-1 was a training reactor
14. Re: Thorium: Less experience ? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-23 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, as long as they don't build on earthquake and tsunami prone shorelines.
15. Re:Thorium: Less experience ? by Coren22 · 2016-05-24 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but the hydroelectric dams kept capsizing the ships when we attempted to use them for naval power sources...
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Nuclear. So yes, inefficient by DrYak · 2016-05-21 12:57 · Score: 2

Well no shit, it's the biggest ship of the world. If you want to impress me, tell how how much fuel per passager it burn and compare it to others cruise ship.
Well, if you compare to other ship this is a *really inefficient* ship. And it's really weird, when you take just a couple of minute to think about it.
Don't forget that the world doesn't stop at cruise ships.
When you look at other ships with similar order of magnitude of tonnage ("similar" as in "roughly the same number of zeroes in the 'tonnage' item"),
you find aircraft carriers, which are almost exclusively nuclear-powered and thus burn not a single drop of diesel and ridiculously small quantities of nuclear fuel - that's the whole point of nuclear energy, it consume amounts of fuel which are order of magnitudes smaller.
(Though, okay, the aircrafts themselves on the carrier do burn conventionnal fuels).
And we're speaking here about vessels whose tonnage is at most, approximately half of this monster (I might be wrong, I'm not very fluent in the various maritime units).
Even *civilian* nuclear powered vessels do exist (though most seem to come out of Russia - back when it was URSS) - and we're speaking here of smaller ship, around an order smaller than this behemot.
All these ship consume not a single drop of diesel.
So, why the hell those this monster to burn that much fuel ?!?

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:Nuclear. So yes, inefficient by Eloking · 2016-05-21 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  Nuclear cruise ship....yeah, why didn't anyone thought of this before? Not like people are still care of nuclear power right?
  
  --
  Elok
2. Re:Nuclear. So yes, inefficient by Noughmad · 2016-05-21 18:45 · Score: 2
  
  Apparently, the Russian nuclear icebreaker is used for cruises as well. http://www.quarkexpeditions.co...
  
  --
  PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Aircraft carrier and Russian Icebreakers by DrYak · 2016-05-21 13:03 · Score: 0

And aircraft carriers and russian icebreakers tend to be nuclear powered and don't burn a single drop of diesel (the biggest thing that can be compared - makes sense to take "airport on a ship" when comparing to "small city on a ship").
This monster has (if a read correctly) twice the tonnage of the biggest of them (so roughly the same number of zeros), but use instead an archaic power method designed for much smaller ship, that requires to carry around (heavy !) and burn insane amounts of polluting fuels.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:Aircraft carrier and Russian Icebreakers by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 15:11 · Score: 0
  
  Good luck building a nuclear powered cruise ship without being bombed or assassinated or shut down by nation states and finding passengers who aren't still freaked out by a movie from almost 40 years ago that they probably never watched.
2. Re:Aircraft carrier and Russian Icebreakers by j-turkey · 2016-05-21 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  A nuclear powered cruise ship exists. Technically, she's an icebreaker, but she has and does take passengers on cruise expeditions.
  
  --
  
  -Turkey
Why people would want to go there? by Cyberax · 2016-05-21 13:12 · Score: 3, Informative

I never understood why people would want to go on a cruise on one of these mega-ships. They have nothing to do with nautical travel - you're no closer to the actual sea than in a beachfront hotel room. You're stuck for many days inside cramped quarters with nothing interesting to do.

Oh, and loading/unloading process is so horrible (doubly so for international travels) that it would make TSA officials go green from envy. Waiting for half a day in line to get off that freaking ship? You betcha!

I had misfortune to lose a raffle and get a ticket for a four-day roundtrip cruise. I left by plane from the midpoint of the trip.
1. Re:Why people would want to go there? by MobyDisk · 2016-05-21 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  They have nothing to do with nautical travel - you're no closer to the actual sea than in a beachfront hotel room
  Agreed. But I don't think that is why people do it.
  
  You're stuck for many days inside cramped quarters with nothing interesting to do.
  Huh? I just looked for a random cruise ship, and it had: pools, waterslides, bars, clubs, restaurants, mini golf, bowling, shows, basketball courts, ice skating, 3d movies, spas, hot tubs, gyms, a shopping mall, rock climbing, ...
  But most importantly: The boat actually goes somewhere. Sometimes, it's even cheaper than a flight to the destination + an equivalent resort!
2. Re:Why people would want to go there? by Cyberax · 2016-05-21 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? I just looked for a random cruise ship, and it had: pools, waterslides, bars, clubs, restaurants, mini golf, bowling, shows, basketball courts, ice skating, 3d movies, spas, hot tubs, gyms, a shopping mall, rock climbing, ...
  I did say "interesting". And you've pretty much described the content of a typical mall.
  
  But most importantly: The boat actually goes somewhere. Sometimes, it's even cheaper than a flight to the destination + an equivalent resort!
  Except that you're not actually in a resort...
3. Re:Why people would want to go there? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 14:14 · Score: 0
  
  I always wanted to send my parents once, just that they leave me alone for a bit. Maybe that's why.
4. Re:Why people would want to go there? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 15:26 · Score: 0
  
  Don't feed the troll.
5. Re:Why people would want to go there? by DNS-and-BIND · 2016-05-21 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  How do you know you waited for half a day in line to get off the ship if you left in the middle of it?
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
6. Re:Why people would want to go there? by MobyDisk · 2016-05-21 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  LOL! You live in an amazing world where malls are like resorts, but you don't enjoy the kinds of things everyone else does. Sucks to be you! If you ever get a free cruise again, I'll take your ticket.
7. Re:Why people would want to go there? by Cyberax · 2016-05-21 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  I actually lived for a long time near a mall that had an ice rink, mini-golf, an arcade, and a spa. No swimming pool, but there are several of them nearby.
8. Re:Why people would want to go there? by Cyberax · 2016-05-21 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  How do you think I left it in the middle of the cruise? We stopped at a port for a day, in the middle of the trip. I was not inclined to continue the trip, so I bought an airplane ticket and went home.
9. Re:Why people would want to go there? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 17:48 · Score: 0
  
  I've gone on several cruises on Carnival, a bottom-tier line. You're full of shit.
10. Re:Why people would want to go there? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 20:34 · Score: 0
  
  We took a cruise through the mediterannean in january. Awesome. The initial boarding was a bit cumbersome, but mostly because our papers were not in order, had to go to the consulate. Otherwise it was another astounding city each day (Barcelona! Rome! Pisa! Marseille! Genua!), while staying in the same, really great hotel each night. Where you could go out without a worry for the weather, nor pickpockets, without [obvious/aggressive] prostitutes (Barcelona...), great food provided, a dance floor where people actually knew some ballroom dancing, etc.
  Of ocurse it is an artificial bubble world. But that's actually very nice for one or two weeks per year.
11. Re:Why people would want to go there? by AmiMoJo · 2016-05-21 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  It attracts people who think taking a cruise is the height of sophistication and want to sample the "high life". There is also the appeal of travelling to a variety of foreign cities without the hassle of dealing with foreign cultures or food or people.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
12. Re:Why people would want to go there? by thegarbz · 2016-05-21 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  I never understood why people would want to go on a cruise on one of these mega-ships. They have nothing to do with nautical travel - you're no closer to the actual sea than in a beachfront hotel room.
  
  Cruises aren't about the sea. They are about the land. They are about stopping in ports and exploring.
  
  Oh, and loading/unloading process is so horrible (doubly so for international travels) that it would make TSA officials go green from envy. Waiting for half a day in line to get off that freaking ship? You betcha!
  Worst I've had was a 4 hour wait, and during that 4 hours wait everything was still available. We went to watch a movie and then we sat in the pool for an hour while we waited for our number to be called.
  
  You're stuck for many days inside cramped quarters with nothing interesting to do.
  What the heck kind of cruise did you go on? The last one I went on had multiple pools, water parks, spas, saunas, massage room, games room, a cinema, a theatre, casino, disco, about 6 bars and restaurants, and all the booze was free. This makes it far more interesting than most 5 star hotel resorts. Not to mention that if you're stuck more than 1 or 2 days on the actual ship itself then you booked a hell of a bad cruise.
13. Re:Why people would want to go there? by Cyberax · 2016-05-21 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  Hint: you can not "explore" a city during the several hours you have before returning to the ship. Glimpse it, at most.
  
  What the heck kind of cruise did you go on? The last one I went on had multiple pools, water parks, spas, saunas, massage room, games room, a cinema, a theatre, casino, disco, about 6 bars and restaurants, and all the booze was free.
  Yup. The prevailing strategy is to get passengers into a drunken stupor ASAP with cheap booze. Saves the hassle of actually taking care of them.
  
  Not to mention that if you're stuck more than 1 or 2 days on the actual ship itself then you booked a hell of a bad cruise.
  Cruise ships move at around 25 mph. So you're looking at most at 600 miles a day of distance traveled. That's not a long distance.
14. Re:Why people would want to go there? by thegarbz · 2016-05-22 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Hint: you can not "explore" a city during the several hours you have before returning to the ship. Glimpse it, at most.
  Funny given the sizes of many of the "cities" you most definitely can explore it. Mind you it's not just cities. Some of the more memorable destinations are islands barely a few km wide, or tiny little port towns. If you're cruising to Barcelona and planning to explore the city you're doing it wrong. If on the other hand you're cruising up the Norwegian fjords stopping at 7 places on the way, well you've just booked by far the cheapest option for travelling to those areas, and that's before you even take into account that all your food and alcohol is included too.
  
  Yup. The prevailing strategy is to get passengers into a drunken stupor ASAP with cheap booze. Saves the hassle of actually taking care of them.
  Yeah because you need to get "drunk" to make it of value. *rolleyes*. Protip: getting yourself wasted will get you banned from drinking, and show me where you can get softdrink and coffee for free too.
  
  Cruise ships move at around 25 mph. So you're looking at most at 600 miles a day of distance traveled. That's not a long distance.
  And just where are you cruising too? America to Australia? Again, you're doing it wrong. That's not a reflection of the industry, that's a reflection of you not booking something that suits what you want. But even for those cruises which have more than 1 sea day in a row without stopping, there's a huge market for people who go on holidays just to relax. In that regard cruising is no different than checking yourself into a 5 start hotel resort and just kicking back and not giving a shit. Oh actually it is different, at $100/night it's far cheaper.
15. Re:Why people would want to go there? by fsckinhippies · 2016-05-22 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  What port did you leave from and where did you fly home from?
16. Re:Why people would want to go there? by Cyberax · 2016-05-22 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  A typical cruise. I've flown away from Nassau, Bahamas.
17. Re:Why people would want to go there? by Cyberax · 2016-05-22 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Funny given the sizes of many of the "cities" you most definitely can explore it. Mind you it's not just cities. Some of the more memorable destinations are islands barely a few km wide, or tiny little port towns.
  
  You're on ship with 8 thousand people. Any "tiny port town" designed to accommodate that many people would be a tourist trap.
  
  If you're cruising to Barcelona and planning to explore the city you're doing it wrong.
  Ok, any good advices then? My cruise was a typical Bahamas cruise from Florida.
  
  Yeah because you need to get "drunk" to make it of value. *rolleyes*. Protip: getting yourself wasted will get you banned from drinking, and show me where you can get softdrink and coffee for free too.
  I don't drink at all, that was my observation of others' behavior.
  
  And just where are you cruising too? America to Australia? Again, you're doing it wrong. That's not a reflection of the industry, that's a reflection of you not booking something that suits what you want. But even for those cruises which have more than 1 sea day in a row without stopping, there's a huge market for people who go on holidays just to relax.
  So no different from staying at home and doing nothing?
18. Re:Why people would want to go there? by delt0r · 2016-05-22 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  nothing to do? What the fuck dude. At least look up what ocean cruises are about....
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
19. Re:Why people would want to go there? by thegarbz · 2016-05-22 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  You're on ship with 8 thousand people. Any "tiny port town" designed to accommodate that many people would be a tourist trap.
  Trap has negative connotations. Touristy on the other hand it seriously is, but many are still worth the visit.
  
  Ok, any good advices then? My cruise was a typical Bahamas cruise from Florida.
  That's a good question, but one that requires local knowledge. From Australia I took a couple of cruises to local island nations, the longest one was to Vanuatu and New Caledonia with stops at little tiny islands around the area with some absolutely phenomenal snorkeling and diving. Had the entire day in Vanuatu which was enough time to climb the cascade waterfalls, visit small towns, get some locals to teach you how to climb up a coconut tree, etc (In some of these places 1 day goes a long way when you can slip a taxi driver a $50 and have him be your personal chauffeur for the day). My next cruise is from Amsterdam up the Norwegian fjords. If you have to fly somewhere get a cruise it starts becoming quite expensive. If I were in Washington or close to it I would probably investigate an Alaskan one.
  But if you are giving cruises a chance then it's also worth investigating the purpose of the cruise. The industry is huge and there are many specialised boats. Cruises to Bali by P&O were party boats, loud music, themed nights, shouting, dancing, singing, and loads of drunk people. Leaving from the same city, cruises up to Cairns in northern Australia were old age home outings. You'd be lucky to find someone under 50 on them. A colleague of mine just came back from a dancing cruise. Yep they spent 6 days cruising around the ocean with people who were all dancing fanatics and they spent 4 hours a day in dance classes (my own personal idea of hell).
  
  So no different from staying at home and doing nothing?
  Indeed. That doesn't change the fact that this is a trillion dollar industry. Just sounds like it's maybe not for you. Actually it's not for me either, I like going places and doing things when I'm on holidays. When I want to relax I sit down in the office.
20. Re:Why people would want to go there? by Cyberax · 2016-05-22 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  I actually enjoy sailing. Cruises on small ships are totally worth it, I even enjoy ferry trips (I live in Seattle)! But not huge soulless liners designed to be moveable shopping malls, with thousands of people.
21. Re:Why people would want to go there? by fsckinhippies · 2016-05-23 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  That means you broke the law. How did you get your bags off the ship?
22. Re:Why people would want to go there? by thegarbz · 2016-05-23 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Again, they have soul. Just not the one you're looking for.
23. Re:Why people would want to go there? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-23 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  Cost. Same reason people ride the bus when they could get Uber, or drive a personal car instead. People with $ don't ride the mega ships. People saving $ do.
24. Re:Why people would want to go there? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-23 22:33 · Score: 0
  
  His Russian FSB handler probably grabbed them for him because they needed him to get back to Moscow and shill for Putin a bit more.
10 gallons per person per day, Seems efficient by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 13:26 · Score: 1

If my napkin math is correct that is a little over 10 Gallons of fuel per person per day. For electricity, transportation & sanitation that doesn't seem all that bad. The "problem" I would bet is that this pollution source isn't "correctly" tucked away in some remote area or over in the poor side of town. I'd be more interested in how these things compare to coal fired power plants, cars, waste (trash, sewage, etc) combined.
Also, the math is fucked. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 13:58 · Score: 0

Also, the math is fucked. 137 x 24 = 33048, not 96000. And no cruise ship runs 24hr/day.
Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 14:21 · Score: 0

Wouldn't a nuclear power plant also be smaller than the diesels for the equivalent power? Not to mention last longer between servicing and have a longer overall life, and be modular?
Whiners by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 14:59 · Score: -1

The Left is a bottomless pit of whine after whine after whine.
Those fuckers would whine about the Harps in Heaven.
1. Re:Whiners by dbIII · 2016-05-21 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  Where did that political shit come from? All I did was point out what we currently do with the very heavy fractions of oil.
the article is bullshit and FUD by ooloorie · 2016-05-21 15:07 · Score: 1

One cruise ship emits as many air pollutants as five million cars going the same distance
That's bullshit. This ship burns up to 1377 gallons for a top speed of 26 mph; that's about the same as 1500 regular passenger cars. But those cars are transporting 8500 people and enormous amounts of freight while also supplying all electricity and heating. So gas mileage is actually excellent.
The engine no doubt emits lots of particulates, NOx, and sulfur. But that isn't a problem on the open sea. Those emissions are not particularly harmful per se, they only happen to be tightly regulated for cars because they cause problems in cities. That's also why they are not regulated for a lot of other vehicle types.

use heavy fuel that on land would have to be disposed of as hazardous waste.
Lots of product we use day to day have to be "disposed of as hazardous waste". That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with those products.
1. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by whoever57 · 2016-05-21 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  That's bullshit. This ship burns up to 1377 gallons for a top speed of 26 mph
  Wrong.
  
  each of the Harmony's three four-storey high 16-cylinder WÃrtsilÃ engines will, at full power, burn 1,377 US gallons of fuel an hour,
  
  So it burns 3 * 1,377 US gallons per hour.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
2. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by bloodhawk · 2016-05-21 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  yep, still it is doing a lot more than just transporting from A- B there is also almost as many sta. It powers all the cooking, facilities, amenities, cooling, lighting, heating etc etc. The comparison needs to be between how much a normal person consumes and emits per day not how much they would emit driving that distance.
3. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by whoever57 · 2016-05-21 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt that the main propulsion engines are used to provide on-ship power, heating, lighting, etc..
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
4. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 17:32 · Score: 0
  
  The engines don't provide propulsion, they are purely electric generators, the propulsion is vis electrically powered thrusters.
5. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by lindseyp · 2016-05-21 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  The engine no doubt emits lots of particulates, NOx, and sulfur. But that isn't a problem on the open sea. Those emissions are not particularly harmful per se, they only happen to be tightly regulated for cars because they cause problems in cities. That's also why they are not regulated for a lot of other vehicle types.
  Southampton isn't the open sea, which is probably why they're glad to see it go, which was the main gist of the article. Here in Hong Kong we have 2 cruise ships in and out daily, the occasional quantum-class cruise ship visiting, several old ferries and lots of Incat diesel-burning ferries that are constantly pumping huge, very visible clouds of diesel smoke into the air. Like 20-stories high before it starts to dissipate. Hong Kong is notorious for air quality problems, and everyone tends to blame it on China, the government tends to blame it on traffic, but as far as I can see the boats are the major pollutors here.
  
  --
  j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
6. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by dwywit · 2016-05-21 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  Probably not. I'd want to have dedicated power available for electricity generation, but what those dedicated engines burn will come into the equation - total fuel consumed per {chosen unit} and total pollution emitted per {chosen unit}.
  There's a fair chance that some of the cooling systems for the main engines are connected to a heat exchange unit somewhere, even if just to pre-heat the cabin showers (for example). There's a truckload of heat being given off by those big diesels, it's sensible and economical to make use of it, and it gives the company another green flag to wave.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
7. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by ooloorie · 2016-05-22 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  So it burns 3 * 1,377 US gallons per hour.
  You're right. Even at three times the fuel consumption, the point still stands: the article is bullshit.
8. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by ooloorie · 2016-05-22 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Southampton isn't the open sea, which is probably why they're glad to see it go, which was the main gist of the article. Here in Hong Kong we have 2 cruise ships in and out daily, the occasional quantum-class cruise ship visiting
  And you are free to exclude these cruise ships entirely from your harbor if you don't like the air pollution. Amazing, isn't it, what you can do in a free market?
9. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by shilly · 2016-05-22 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Well, duh.
  You're also free to complain bitterly about pollution, and agitate for cruise ship companies to use less polluting fuel, and use shore power, and use scrubbers etc.
  Part of our much-vaunted freedom is not having to rely solely on the power of the almighty buck. Free speech is also important. And the freedom of legislatures to set rules for doing business in a locality, too.
10. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by ooloorie · 2016-05-22 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Part of our much-vaunted freedom is not having to rely solely on the power of the almighty buck.
  No, actually, that's not part of "our much-vaunted freedom". To the contrary, trying to use legislatures to prevent other people from spending their money as they see fit is the antithesis of freedom.
11. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by shilly · 2016-05-22 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom of speech does not have an exclusion that says "except where someone argues a point and convinces a legislature to pass a law that restricts the liberty of others in some way, such as forbidding them from purchasing small children, nuclear reactors or state secrets".
  It is reasonable to argue that people *ought not* to persuade legislatures to pass laws restricting other people's freedom to purchase certain goods and services. But it is not reasonable -- more than that, it's counter-factual -- to argue that people are *not allowed* to persuade legislatures to pass laws restricting other people's freedom to purchase certain goods and services -- since this kind of activity is at the heart of the democratic process in every democracy.
  And I would argue that you would disappear up the bottom of Ayn Rand in a mass of shitty contradictions if you attempted to argue that people actually *ought to be forbidden* (presumably by force of government arms?) from persuading legislatures in this manner.
12. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by ooloorie · 2016-05-22 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  But it is not reasonable -- more than that, it's counter-factual -- to argue that people are *not allowed* to persuade legislatures to pass laws restricting
  Nowhere did I say that you are not "allowed" to spew your bullshit. I simply pointed out that you are, in fact, not advocating for freedom.
  
  if you attempted to argue that people actually *ought to be forbidden* from persuading legislatures in this manner
  No, I simply believe that legislatures should not have the power to do these things in the first place.
  In addition, I am allowed to call you what you are, which is an anti-freedom hypocrite.
13. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by fsckinhippies · 2016-05-22 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong, it burns 2 * 1,377 US gallons per hour. One engine does not run.
14. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by shilly · 2016-05-22 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  I simply pointed out that you are, in fact, not advocating for freedom.
  In fact, you said 'No, actually, that's not part of "our much-vaunted freedom" '. That is not pointing out that I am "not, in fact, advocating for freedom". It is stating that it is *not part* of my freedom. Why use the phrase "not part of my freedom", if you actually meant "it is part of your freedom but you should not do it"? It's your language, not mine. Do you always attempt to win arguments by disavowing your own words, or is this a Sunday special?
  
  No, I simply believe that legislatures should not have the power to do these things in the first place
  
  What do you think legislatures should be able to do, if not pass laws that provide the government with powers or restrict the freedom of others? Are you saying that, in principle, you think a person should be able to buy anything they please and no law should ever be passed to restrict a purchase? The rape of your mother? A slave? A hydrogen bomb? A pharmaceutical that may be unsafe or ineffective?
  As for calling me what you think I am, you can of course do that and I wouldn't wish to stop you. Maybe using some choice words about me will make you feel better. I can see why someone who struggles with clarity of thought and language as you do might have a lot of anger you need to work out, and I'd rather you did it on the interwebs than bottle it up and suffer an apoplexy.
  How *is* the view from inside Ayn Rand's bottom, by the way?
  Colonically yours...
15. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by locketine · 2016-05-22 04:14 · Score: 2
  
  That's bullshit. This ship burns up to 1377 gallons for a top speed of 26 mph; that's about the same as 1500 regular passenger cars.
  Shortly after this statement you admit that the fuel is not equivalent to gasoline due to scale of pollutants it produces. I think it's fair to say your own calculation is bunk by your own words.
  
  The engine no doubt emits lots of particulates, NOx, and sulfur. But that isn't a problem on the open sea. Those emissions are not particularly harmful per se, they only happen to be tightly regulated for cars because they cause problems in cities.
  What's you're reasoning for it not mattering on the open sea? Ocean acidification is an extremely pressing issue causing devastation to corral and countless other sea habitats, sulfur and carbon being two of the biggest contributors to it.
  
  --
  Think globally but act within local variable scope.
16. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by locketine · 2016-05-22 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  No, actually, that's not part of "our much-vaunted freedom". To the contrary, trying to use legislatures to prevent other people from spending their money as they see fit is the antithesis of freedom.
  Pure freedom for one person often leads to less freedom for another. At your own admission people are harmed by the pollution and free to strike a balance between their freedom to breathe clean air and the tourist's freedom to explore their cities using an air polluting mode of transportation:
  
  And you are free to exclude these cruise ships entirely from your harbor if you don't like the air pollution
  
  --
  Think globally but act within local variable scope.
17. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by fsckinhippies · 2016-05-22 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  There are no propulsion engines. ALL engines are connected to generators. They can pull power from any combination of them that they see fit.
18. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  They are. The engines each drive their own generator producing electricity. A lot of power goes to the propellers, but a lot to power all the amenities and services as well.
19. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by ooloorie · 2016-05-22 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Why use the phrase "not part of my freedom", if you actually meant "it is part of your freedom but you should not do it"?
  I didn't use that phrase; I quoted you, and in full, you said:
  
  Part of our much-vaunted freedom is not having to rely solely on the power of the almighty buck. Free speech is also important. And the freedom of legislatures to set rules for doing business in a locality, too.
  
  I pointed out that you seem to be confused about "our much-vaunted freedoms". The freedoms that set the US apart are rooted in a limited government, a government of enumerated powers. The ability of local and state legislatures "to set rules for doing business in a locality" is not a freedom, it is a limit on freedom, and since it is universal throughout the world, I don't see who would "vaunt" it. To the degree that there is anything unusual about business regulations in the US, it is that they are explicitly constitutionally limited by the 5th Amendment.
  
  Are you saying that, in principle, you think a person should be able to buy anything they please and no law should ever be passed to restrict a purchase? The rape of your mother? A slave? A hydrogen bomb? A pharmaceutical that may be unsafe or ineffective?
  Far from limiting them, the hydrogen bomb and slavery were creations of governments and legislatures. Neither would have been possible in a private market.
  As for "rapes", if you mean the literal sense of forcible copulation, that is physical violence and hence proscribed; a contract selling such an action is automatically unenforceable; there is no need for additional laws. Likewise, drug sales involve a contractual relationship that both sides need to honor; if the pharmaceutical company warrants that the drug is safe, then it is liable, and if it doesn't (e.g., for experimental or recreational drugs), then it shouldn't be liable. Again, what additional "laws" do you need?
  
  What do you think legislatures should be able to do, if not pass laws that provide the government with powers or restrict the freedom of others?
  To answer that, you first need to look at the proper role of government. Government should intervene when people aggress against each other; that means, it should provide military defense, a court system, enforcement of contracts, and police. The role of legislatures is to pass the rules by which that happens. None of that involves "restricting" anybody's freedoms. That is, government should only be able to interfere in your life once you actually commit physical violence against someone else's person or property (including contractual violations). Furthermore, it is a historical holdover that government has such a large role in those functions; that was necessary in earlier times, but modern technology and society makes government less and less important.
  
  I can see why someone who struggles with clarity of thought and language as [I] do might have a lot of anger [I] need to work out
  You're evidently talking about yourself and issues you are struggling with.
20. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by ooloorie · 2016-05-22 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Pure freedom for one person often leads to less freedom for another.
  No, not really.
  
  At your own admission people are harmed by the pollution and free to strike a balance between their freedom to breathe clean air and the tourist's freedom to explore their cities using an air polluting mode of transportation:
  Your error there is in formulating "breathing clean air" as a freedom; it's not. The level of pollutants people are willing to live with is an individual choice, and freedom means the freedom to make that choice. That includes the freedom to make the choice to breathe polluted air in order to gain economic benefits.
  The problem is that, right now, people are prohibited from making that choice. That is, some people prefer really clean air, other people are willing to tolerate polluted air in order to gain economic benefits. But air quality regulations are determined through the political process and (in the case of the US), often imposed nationally. As a result, they don't reflect a tradeoff between different preferences and needs, but are instead primarily determined by special interest groups and lobbying.
21. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by shilly · 2016-05-22 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  The freedoms that set the US apart
  
  Oh, how sweet! You think this is about the US. At least you're not falling into the cliche of an insular American who thinks the entire world revolves around them, eh? Let me remind you that Slashdot is on the internet; the internet is global; and the story we are discussing is about the port of Southampton, which is not in the US. So really, there's no reason to blether on about the US at all.
  It's clear that you are one of these people who genuinely believes in Randianesque libertarianism. As such, it's as fruitless to debate with you as it is with a creationist. On the other hand, it is quite fun. When you use phrases like "automatically proscribed" without a blush, it's just delightful. The unthinking nature of your thought! Truly, you remind me of RAH's excellent maxim that "man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalising animal".
  The notion of trying to discover whether a drug was safe and effective by just taking the drug and hoping it was... well, let's just say that your recreational drugs must be pretty spectacular if it's never occurred to you that by the time you find out that your batch of insulin was defective, you'll be a bit too dead to sue for redress.
  You know, I almost hate to mention it, but... you do seem to have a bit of an issue conflating the world with the US, and the US with a libertarian wank-fantasy that bears no resemblance to historical, present or likely future reality.
22. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by shilly · 2016-05-22 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  Far from limiting them, the hydrogen bomb and slavery were creations of governments and legislatures.
  The bit about slavery here is an absolute corker, by the way. I'm very pleased to learn that you have unparalleled insight into human pre-history, and can state definitively that prior to legislatures being created, humans not only did not enslave other humans, but could not do so. It's exciting news for slavery experts, who had previously laboured (pun!) under the misapprehension that slavery pre-dated money, pre-dated legal codes, and pre-dated written records. I'm glad you're here to set them straight.
  http://bigthink.com/videos/sla...
  I know it's uncomfortable, but it is really quite important to acknowledge cognitive bias and attempt to see the world as it is (to take a random example, replete with good laws that restrict how businesses operate in the public interest. and do so effectively) and not just how you would like it to be (a libertarian want-fest version of the US that has never actually existed, to take another random example).
23. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by ooloorie · 2016-05-22 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, how sweet! You think this is about the US.
  (1) You are on a US web site, and (2) I'm American. So if you talk about "our" liberties, yes, I assume it's about the US. If you didn't mean that then you need to be clearer.
  
  It's clear that you are one of these people who genuinely believes in Randianesque libertarianism
  No, I simply believe in classical, Enlightenment era liberalism.
  
  You know, I almost hate to mention it, but... you do seem to have a bit of an issue conflating the world with the US, and the US with a libertarian wank-fantasy that bears no resemblance to historical, present or likely future reality.
  Having grown up in Europe and spent part of my youth in a communist country, I assure you I have a firm grasp on liberties in both the US and abroad. And while the US is far from a libertarian paradise, I certainly don't want it to turn into the kind of shithole that I grew up in, even if you may be ignorant and deluded enough to consider such a place "free".
24. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by ooloorie · 2016-05-22 20:57 · Score: 1
  
  The bit about slavery here is an absolute corker, by the way. I'm very pleased to learn that you have unparalleled insight into human pre-history, and can state definitively that prior to legislatures being created, humans not only did not enslave other humans, but could not do so.
  The error there is in your faulty understanding of the term "government". "Government" doesn't refer (only) to legislatures, but any system of human control over a community. Despotism is a form of government and has existed since prehistory, and, of course, has a predilection for slavery.
  Government stands in contrast to voluntary exchanges of goods and services, as they occur in a free market. Voluntary exchanges and free markets don't involve control and don't produce slavery.
  
  and not just how you would like it to be (a libertarian want-fest version of the US that has never actually existed, to take another random example)
  I'm sorry, but you really need to read more carefully. As I pointed out: the ability of local and state legislatures "to set rules for doing business in a locality" ... is universal throughout the world (including the US); I merely pointed out that it is not a freedom, as you claimed, but a limit on freedom, and that, given its universality, nobody would have any cause to "vaunt" it.
  
  I know it's uncomfortable, but it is really quite important to acknowledge cognitive bias and attempt to see the world as it is
  I doubt that you know that it is uncomfortable since you fail to acknowledge your cognitive bias or attempt to see the world as it is. Being originally from outside the US (in fact, Europe) myself, I understand why. But, believe me, it is possible to overcome your biases and indoctrination. Reading and understanding the Enlightenment philosophers might be a good start.
25. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by shilly · 2016-05-23 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  The error there is in your faulty understanding of the term "government". "Government" doesn't refer (only) to legislatures, but any system of human control over a community. Despotism is a form of government and has existed since prehistory, and, of course, has a predilection for slavery.
  Government stands in contrast to voluntary exchanges of goods and services, as they occur in a free market. Voluntary exchanges and free markets don't involve control and don't produce slavery.
  Really? That's your definition? So, Ouroboros-like, if one prehistoric person enslaves another prehistoric person, then the former has instituted a form of government, and therefore governments create slavery! Brilliant! You should have been an Oxbridge philosophy don, with logic like that.
  Said I:
  
  and not just how you would like it to be (a libertarian want-fest version of the US that has never actually existed, to take another random example)
  You replied:
  
  I'm sorry, but you really need to read more carefully. As I pointed out: the ability of local and state legislatures "to set rules for doing business in a locality" ... is universal throughout the world (including the US); I merely pointed out that it is not a freedom, as you claimed, but a limit on freedom, and that, given its universality, nobody would have any cause to "vaunt" it.
  Of course, what I was actually referring to, by the use of the phrase "libertarian wank-fest version of the US that has never actually existed", was the following quote from you. You will note that your quote uses normative language -- it sets out how you think the world should be. Phrases like "the proper role of government" are indicators:
  
  To answer that, you first need to look at the proper role of government. Government should intervene when people aggress against each other; that means, it should provide military defense, a court system, enforcement of contracts, and police. The role of legislatures is to pass the rules by which that happens. None of that involves "restricting" anybody's freedoms. That is, government should only be able to interfere in your life once you actually commit physical violence against someone else's person or property (including contractual violations). Furthermore, it is a historical holdover that government has such a large role in those functions; that was necessary in earlier times, but modern technology and society makes government less and less important.
  
  This is a completely theoretical view of the world. It doesn't describe any government of the last several hundred years. It is a fabulous libertarian wank-fest, and I hope you found release in describing it.
26. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by shilly · 2016-05-23 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  (1) You are on a US web site, and (2) I'm American.
  
  Spectacular! You not only as insular as you seem, you're also fabulously self-regarding!
  Re (1): The amazing thing about the interwebs -- and I'm sorry if this comes as a shock to you -- is that it's actually quite international. Global, you might say. Slashdot is a site posting news from around the globe, and attracting comments from around the globe. In this important sense -- the only sense that is material to the question here -- it is not a US website.
  Re (2): Why on earth would I try to tailor my writing for a presumption about your nationality? If you make unwarranted assumptions, and I point out you're a numpty for making them, then moaning and pissing to me that I should have presumed you're American and written accordingly is really not a winning strategy for you.
27. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by shilly · 2016-05-23 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  No, I simply believe in classical, Enlightenment era liberalism.
  Gosh, I wonder if you're a proper classical liberal, or if you're one of those wishy-washy newbies who believes in ridiculous constraints on freedom like regulating the number of hours five year olds are allowed to work?
28. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by ooloorie · 2016-05-23 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Really? That's your definition?
  No, it isn't my definition, it is the commonly accepted definition. Go look it up.
  
  So, Ouroboros-like, if one prehistoric person enslaves another prehistoric person, then the former has instituted a form of government, and therefore governments create slavery!
  Governments create slavery, not in the sense of "inventing it", but in the sense of "causing it". In particular, US and European slavery were clearly creations of legislatures, rather than the free market.
  You then brought up the red herring on the unsupported notion that somehow in pre-historic times that was no government. You're welcome to try to prove your thesis that an excess of liberalism and an absence of government caused slavery in prehistoric times. Go ahead.
  
  It is a fabulous libertarian wank-fest, and I hope you found release in describing it. ... You should have been an Oxbridge philosophy don, with logic like that.
  Gosh, you're almost a perfect caricature of the ignorance, arrogance, and narrow-mindedness of Europeans.
29. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by ooloorie · 2016-05-23 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  The amazing thing about the interwebs -- and I'm sorry if this comes as a shock to you -- is that it's actually quite international.
  If you use terms like "our much-vaunted freedoms" on a US web site talking to an American, don't complain if people naturally assume you're referring to American freedoms.
30. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by ooloorie · 2016-05-23 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Well, based on your postings, you are clearly one of those "wishy-washy newbies" who has no problem in principle with any law, as long as it can be said to "benefit society". European history provides ample examples of where that leads.
  As for child labor laws, they are a good thing in the context of an already unfree and dysfunctional society. But an illiberal fix for massive problems caused by lack of liberty in the first place is hardly an instance of liberalism.
31. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by shilly · 2016-05-23 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Blimey, you really believe this crap, don't you? Amazing.
  I'm more than happy to concede that some humans in prehistory lived in governed communities. I mean well, duh. Of course.
  I'm not willing to concede that humans in prehistory always lived in governed communities. I mean, well duh. Of course not. If you differ on this, I think this may have to do with the fact that you appear to consider a small band of hunter-gatherers to have a government. And that any slaves they chose to take on a raid of other hunter-gatherers was caused by their government, whatever that might mean. All of which is, to put it mildly, drivel. But you comfort yourself with the idea that I'm ignorant, arrogant and narrow-minded. Whatever makes you feel better, honey.
32. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by shilly · 2016-05-23 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  The only things I've said that give many pointers to my beliefs are expressions of amazement that you would support the abolition of regulations on pharmaceuticals. Somehow that equates to being someone 'who has no problem in principle with any law, so long as it can be said to "benefit society" '. Your logical leaps are dizzying.
  Glad to get it cleared up that you think child labour laws are an "illiberal fix". I'd love to hear your thesis for why child labour wouldn't occur in a truly free society.
  I'd also love to hear you explain whether a free adult should have any responsibilities towards a child they conceive, in the context of your liberalism. Should they able to walk away? If so, should anyone else have the burden of looking after that child?
33. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by shilly · 2016-05-23 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  1) I didn't complain. I smirked.
  2) Do you always just ignore the bits of posts that are inconvenient to your arguments? I said, this isn't a US website in the terms that matter most -- it's a site posting global stories and getting global comments. Had I posted on Fox or the NYT, and had you posted under a handle such as TrueAmerican, your arguments might have some weight. On Slashdot, and posting under the handle "ooloorie", not so much.
34. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by ooloorie · 2016-05-23 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  You're truly the king of red herrings and straw men.
35. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by ooloorie · 2016-05-23 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  The only things I've said that give many pointers to my beliefs are expressions of amazement that you would support the abolition of regulations on pharmaceuticals.
  And I find it just as amazing that you would support regulations that have not been shown to be necessary or effective, yet make drugs astronomically expensive and tremendously slow progress in medicine.
  
  Glad to get it cleared up that you think child labour laws are an "illiberal fix". I'd love to hear your thesis for why child labour wouldn't occur in a truly free society.
  I'm sure some child labor would occur in truly free societies; it's not intrinsically bad.
  
  I'd also love to hear you explain whether a free adult should have any responsibilities towards a child they conceive, in the context of your liberalism.
  Parents have lots of moral responsibilities towards their children. But making a moral responsibility a legal obligation is neither necessary nor (usually) effective.
  
  If so, should anyone else have the burden of looking after that child?
  Most people do not consider looking after a child a "burden". The fact that you do is pretty revealing.
FWIW by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 15:21 · Score: 0

Lots of rules to follow when your plant is a nuclear one. The military is very strict about how that plant is operated and maintained.
The engineering spaces on a nuclear powered ship were literally clean enough to eat off the floor. It was insane how well maintained those spaces were.
And drills. Jesus the poor nuke folks did nothing but drill 24/7.
Last time I checked, the documentation about the nuke plants aboard ships were hidden away within a red binder marked " Secret ".
I think of the Costa Concordia incident and the Captain jumping ship instantly and then think how much more interesting that would have been were that a nuclear powered vessel. Eh, no thank you.
Besides, cruise lines do everything they can to keep costs down so training their engineering staff to handle a nuclear power plant is going to cost a fortune not only in training, but retaining those folks once they have the training and can go work elsewhere for far more than the peanuts the cruise ships pay.
So the cost of the plants, training, recoring every 20 years and finding a shipyard that ISN'T military that will build your nuclear powered ship for you might actually cost more than just burning regular old fossil fuels.
Finally, there is the matter of some ports will absolutely not allow nuclear powered vessels to make berth in their ports. So that limits where you can go.
Will somebody please explain... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 18:11 · Score: 0

Why one should fly to Florida, board a gigantic over-crowded floating hotel, spend a week trapped in the steel box with 6K other people risking norovirus and then upon returning to port, fly back home............ when one COULD just as easily fly to Las Vegas or another such place and stay in a hotel or hotels with bigger shows, bigger casinos, bigger pools and more and bigger more diverse eateries, then fly home. The land-based hotel stay is far less likely to involve you being trapped in tight quarters with norovirus or other such hazards, AND will not expend massive quantities of fossil fuels simply moving the hotel around while you stay in it.
NOBODY can claim to be concerned about global warming, carbon footprints, etc and then choose the floating hotel over the land-based hotel.
These floating hotels are not even achieving what their ancestor tech did: moving a person from point A to point B. These things frequently go from point A, out to sea, and then back to point A. The old Queen Mary, SS United States, Titanic, etc were transports across the Atlantic.
A Disaster Waiting to Happen by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 18:42 · Score: 0

Just under 9,000 people on board one vessel. Just imagine if it 'does a Titanic'. It would be a disaster the size of the 'Wilhelm Gustloff' back in 1945. That would probably kill off the Ocean Cruise industry for a long time.
[A very apt Capcha: 'lifeboat' ! ]
Good luck getting anyone by rsilvergun · 2016-05-21 18:44 · Score: 1

who's not in the military on a nuclear vessel. Honestly, with the really shitty maintenance these ships are famous coupled with the difficulty of enforcing safety regulations when they're in international waters I wouldn't want them running a nuke plant.

Until it's cheaper to run a safe nuke plant than a dangerous one nuke plants won't be safe unless they're run by the gov't.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Better technology available; no incentive to use. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 18:45 · Score: 1

There are better technologies available to cruise ships and some lines already have ships that use them. However there is currently little incentive for Cruise Lines to use them in new builds..
Gas turbines, for instance are much cleaner. In ships, gas turbines are good for high power application, but not so good for lower speed cruising. So some ships use a combination of gas turbines and disel engines, and other ships use a Combined Gas and Steam System (COGAS). One such cruise ship is the GTS Millenium.
The problem with gas turbines is that they are more expensive to run, since they effectively run on jet fuel. Marine diesel engines use the Diesel cycle, but don't run on typical automotive-type diesel, instead they run on a much lower grade of bunker oil. Typical bunker oil is like tar, high in sulphur and other imputities, and requires preheating just to keep the viscosity low enough to use. The price difference between Bunker Oil and Jet A1 is massive, so there is a huge economic incentive for Cruise Lines to keep with existing diesel engines instead of moving to systems like COGAS.
Some places, like Alaska, require a cruise ships to have cleaner emissions. It is legislation like this that will force Cruise Lines to move to cleaner technologies. Unfortunately not much else at the moment will.
at full power,... by Selur · 2016-05-21 19:25 · Score: 1

the article mentions:
> According to its owners, Royal Caribbean, each of the Harmony’s three four-storey high 16-cylinder Wärtsilä engines will, at full power, burn 1,377 US gallons of fuel an hour, or about 96,000 gallons a day of some of the most polluting diesel fuel in the world.
and
> But marine pollution analysts in Germany and Brussels said that such a large ship would probably burn at least 150 tonnes of fuel a day, and emit more sulphur than several million cars, more NO2 gas than all the traffic passing through a medium-sized town and more particulate emissions than thousands of London buses.
Assuming that a cruise ship should normally not runs at full power, discussing about the impact of the ship running at full power the whole day seems kind of lame.
(the thing is still doing lots of pollution no argue there, but it might be a wise idea to look at the average normal usage when talking about the impact on nature due to the fuel consumption,..)
1. Re:at full power,... by shilly · 2016-05-22 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Surely cruise ship engines would run similarly to passenger jet engines, i.e. some large fraction of full power when the ship is cruising?
They burn diesel to make electricity ... by Alain+Williams · 2016-05-21 20:09 · Score: 1

why don't they plug into the local electricity supply ? Yes: this would need connection standards & infrastructure at the ports, but there is already lot of port side building needed to be able to accommodate these monsters. The ship can still use it's own generators when it is at ports that do not supply electricity. So: ports that don't like the smoke just provide a big electric plug.
FUD from Greens I suppose? by Suomi-Poika · 2016-05-21 22:19 · Score: 1

I guess the logic is this: "Hmm, I think people know modern diesel engines as well as nuclear power, so lets spin a story claiming that there is a huge pollution problem with the cruise ships". And so they did.
Meanwhile the Google-able people can google "Wärtsila 46F" and see this statement from the Finnish manufacturer (we Finns take environmental matters seriously too even though we also have a Green party advancing coal power):
"The technologically advanced Wärtsilä 46F can be run on either heavy fuel oil (HFO), marine diesel oil (MDO), or on light diesel when being operated within strict coastal or port emissions areas. This fuel switching can take place smoothly and without power interruption across all engine loads.
This flexibility enables the operator to select the fuel according to price, availability, and the need to meet local emissions regulations."
More fun facts: Port of Helsinki is going to receive record number of these large cruise ships this year, over 300. Since our summer is short the density is higher than in Southampton which has ~450 cruise ship visits per year. Is air pollution a problem here? No, like previously stated, cruise ships, ferries, all big ships, are able to switch to low polluting diesel when they are in port. And they do so. We have shore electricity support and waste water treatment. Actually we just completed legislation with other countries which forbids any waste water discharge in to Baltic Sea, that being sea-wide legislation of the entire area.
So, things are actually good in real life. It just seems that the Southamptonians(?) either have outdated port rules and equipment or they are victims of another "green" FUD scare.
New Fuel = LNG not Nuclear by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 23:02 · Score: 0

Actually you are starting to see a few ships begin to switch from bunker fuel to using LNG.
Commercial nuclear shipping I just don't see happening, unless the entity (company) in question is State/Government owned.
Tom Clancy plotline? by Hognoxious · 2016-05-21 23:30 · Score: 1

I don't think terrusts would try to steal an aircraft carrier or a submarine. A cruise ship, though...

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Ocean vessels use 'reject' fuel by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-21 23:51 · Score: 0

... According to its owners, Royal Caribbean, each of the Harmony's three four-storey high 16-cylinder Wartsila engines will, at full power, burn 1,377 US gallons of fuel an hour, or about 96,000 gallons a day of some of the most polluting diesel fuel in the world ...

To the tree-huggers,
Hear me out, please
The fuel that big ocean vessels use are sticky gooey stuffs, a blend of heavy fuel oil and 'leftover residual' from hydrocarbon cracking process
The fuel has to be pre-heated to 220 degree F - 260 degree F (or 104 degree C - 127 degree C) before it can be used
I used to work in the engine room of ocean vessels and the 'ambient temperature' in the engine room, even during the coldest winter months, remains at 60 degree C to 80 degree C, which is much hotter than the hottest temperature on earth (which was 56.7 degree C recorded back in 1913 - see http://www.guinnessworldrecord... )
This heavy fuel oil is only one grade above tar, yes, the black gooey tar that is mixed with crushed rocks to make roads and highways
1. Re:Ocean vessels use 'reject' fuel by stealth_finger · 2016-05-23 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  That is interesting, but how does it relate?
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
TFA is about pollution while the ship is docked by hackertourist · 2016-05-22 00:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

Generally, ships use a generator to provide power and heating while the ship is docked. For a large cruise ship this generator needs to be substantial. It also runs on the same fuel as the main engines, and there are no emissions regulations for these ships.
So everyone downwind of the docks (i.e. most of Southampton, in this case) gets to sit in a column of smoke for the entire time the ship's docked.
The obvious solution would be to connect the ship to the shore electric grid. This is being worked on (example) but conversion takes time.
1. Re:TFA is about pollution while the ship is docked by djinn6 · 2016-05-22 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  If it's about near-land pollution, the city can easily pass an ordinance to mandate grid power while the ship docked in port. The fact they haven't done so is a problem with their government.
2. Re:TFA is about pollution while the ship is docked by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 22:22 · Score: 0
  
  Generally, ships use a generator to provide power and heating while the ship is docked. For a large cruise ship this generator needs to be substantial. It also runs on the same fuel as the main engines, and there are no emissions regulations for these ships.
  So everyone downwind of the docks (i.e. most of Southampton, in this case) gets to sit in a column of smoke for the entire time the ship's docked.
  The obvious solution would be to connect the ship to the shore electric grid. This is being worked on (example) but conversion takes time.
  I agree, and Southampton apparently asked them to use on-shore power while docked, but they declined. Would it be because it would be too inefficient and/or take longer to restart engines once stopped?
3. Re:TFA is about pollution while the ship is docked by hackertourist · 2016-05-23 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  They're already stopping the main engines, running on generators instead.
  The declination had more likely to do with cost.
It's called 'bunker oil' by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 00:34 · Score: 0

... what these ships kindly refer to as diesel is really "bumper" fuel ...

The proper name is 'bunker oil'
Depending on the 'grade', with the lower grade less fuel-oil and more of the leftover residual in it, higher viscosity
The lowest grade of bunker oil is only one grade above Bitumen --- yes, that black tar that is mixed with crushed rocks to make road tarmac for highways and parking lots
Anyway, it's really gooey sticky stuff and it needs to be preheated before use
I used to work in ship's engine room and also in the hydrocarbon industry. Almost nothing goes to waste in the hydrocarbon cracking process
Civilian uses DO exist by DrYak · 2016-05-22 00:50 · Score: 1

I quickly looked up on Wikipedia, apparently there ARE nuclear powered civilian vessels (though most were built Russia, mostly back when it was still called Soviet Union - None built by France which is were Oasis-class cruise ships seems to be built).

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:Civilian uses DO exist by dbIII · 2016-05-22 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yes which is the only reason why we are not shouting these "just use nukes" people down as idiots - government controlled "civilian" vessels are a half way step towards privately owned nuclear vessels. Some day in the future Russia may sell a nuclear cruise ship so it's possibly SF and not fantasy.
Nuclear waste vs. Pollution by DrYak · 2016-05-22 01:00 · Score: 1

How many cities do you think would permit the enty of a nuclear powered vessel? {...} It's way to easy to get rid of nuclear waste by just dumping it somewhere
We need to compare apples to apples.
Yup, a nuclear powered vessels is going to have nuclear waste to manage.
The thing is, the current NON-nuclear version of these behemoths cruise ships do currently produce order of magnitude more pollution: they currently burn insane amount of diesel, and not exactly the refined diesel that you pump into your truck, but whatever crude shit they can get the cheapest.
And they manage this pollution by the worst imaginable way: by just dumping it into the atmosphere.
(I'm ready to bet that once you compute the crazy amount of waste dumped into the atomosphere, the trace amounts of radio-active isotopes present in the fuel and released into the atmosphere are probably causing more radio-active pollution than any nuclear reactor, even if they are proportionally less concentrated per volume of fuel).
We're not speaking of plain introducing nuclear waste, we're speaking about exchange potential nuclear waster against current mega-tons of pollution.

not to mention other cost-cutting arangements that would decrease safety. Nuclear power on carriers and subs work because of high standards in personel enforced by military discipline. Good luck getting that on a random cruise ship.
Yup, that is something to be more afraid of.
(The current shit pumped into these vessels and passed as "diesel" is a nice example).
On the other hand, given the massive amount of energy required, I'm not sure if switching to nunclear isn't already a massive cutting of operational costs.
(But on the other hand, the MBAs might start to think, "while we are cutting our costs 99x by switching to nuclear, why not cut a lot on safety just to raise it to 100x-cost-cutting ?")

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
More like a Michael-Bay plotline by DrYak · 2016-05-22 01:04 · Score: 1

I don't think terrusts would try to steal an aircraft carrier or a submarine. A cruise ship, though...
I feel like your thinking about the wrong creator.
These cruise ship are insanely huge, about twice the size of the biggest aircraft carrier.
They are the equivalent of a small city on a ship.
To take a city, it requires a bit more organisation and man power than what a loose band of terrorist.
It will be closer to a small well organised military operation.
So more a "Michael Bay" or "Roland Emmerich" than a "Tom Clancy" kind of plot.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:More like a Michael-Bay plotline by Hognoxious · 2016-05-22 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  Big schmig. What's their armament, and how many people aboard are combat trained?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
2. Re:More like a Michael-Bay plotline by St.Creed · 2016-05-22 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Please look up "Achille Lauro". 4 terrorists captured a cruise liner with 900 passengers and staff.
  While I would hope that security would be better nowadays, I fear that this is not the case. Almost no states accept armed guards on civilian vessels, certainly not EU states. So I doubt nuclear powered cruise liners will be here.
  We better concentrate on things that can be done, such as mandating cleaner fuel (it's possible, and already mandated within EU waters, to use the lighter fuel. It's still bad but not as bad as the low grade diesel they use at sea) and more efficient ships overall. Perhaps electric engines when in port? Not sure if that would be possible though.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
North Pole Nuclear Tourism by DrYak · 2016-05-22 01:22 · Score: 1

Yup, they even built this one you're mentionning - offering arctic cruise (apparently at 25'000$ a pop) - as recently as 2007.
And on this kind of cruises, nuclear propulsion is mandatory.
It's not like this ship is stopping in a port every couple of days to re-stock several hundreds tons of fuel.
This ship is cruising in the middle of nowhere.
By definition it's going to need a form of propulsion that can be autonomous for a couple of months between refuelling
(which only nuclear is going to fulfil. Unless the cruise ship is a part of a flotilla, with at least 3-4 tanker ships constantly following around)

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Center of gravity too high? by QuietLagoon · 2016-05-22 02:12 · Score: 1

The new, ginormous cruise ships appear to be designed with a goal of having as many decks as high above the water as possible.
.
The downside of this is that the center of gravity of the ship may not be low enough to provide needed stability in some of the more intense storms (or rogue waves) one may find in the open sea.
It is something that I would want to check out further before you get me on one of those huge ships.
silly by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 02:33 · Score: 0

How much per person? How does it compare to 10 smaller ships? Doubtless climate change deniers are imbeciles but articles like make the tree hugger crowd seem equally ridiculous.
Screw the Pollution by Toad-san · 2016-05-22 02:45 · Score: 1

Has anyone counted the lifeboats and done the math?
When I first saw the images, I couldn't help but count the lifeboats. 9 on each side. "6,780 passengers and 2,100 crew" = 8800 souls on board (not counting pets). 8800 / 18 = 488.9 bodies per lifeboat. Damn! And of course if she is going down with a severe list, cut that in half.
Can we spell "Titanic", hmmm?
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This review has a much smaller passenger size (5479); donno which is correct.
http://www.cruisecritic.com/re...
Probably using this lifeboat design, or something similar:
http://www.royalcaribbeanblog....
http://www.rina.org.uk/mega-li...
http://www.rclcorporate.com/oa...
Which is totally inadequate, holding only 370 persons best case, a total of 6600 for the 18 on Harmony of the Seas.
.
Nope, I think I'll pass.
1. Re:Screw the Pollution by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-23 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  Most of your links are broken, in this fashion:
  http://www.theguardian.com/environme...lution-problem
  Could you post a correction for the broken ones?
Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 03:01 · Score: 0

Penalize/fine the manufactuter of the boat as well as the owner of the boat. Yay, that was easy.
Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 03:23 · Score: 0

They had the boat built by the wrong company.
Volkswagen assures me that if they built the boat, it would only produce 1/4 the emissions.
Iceberg! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-22 05:29 · Score: 0

I wonder if the icebergs will fight back like they did with the Titanic?
Not the same fuel, fool. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-05-23 02:46 · Score: 0

A 747 burns through 3,600 Gallons of fuel per hour for just over 416 Passengers. This ship burns 1/3 of that for nearly 9000 people.
A 747 burns Jet-A, which is highly filtered refined kerosene. It's run with a huge volume of air through a jet and burns with a small amount of white smoke.
The ship burns bunker fuel, which is all the burnable trash fractions left over after all the less polluting, less toxic fractions have been extracted from raw petroleum. It's run through a burner about as sophisticated as a 1890 fuel oil furnace and produces vast billowing clouds of toxic filth that combine with water to form dirty sulfuric acid.
Bunker fuel is literally the waste stream from making jet fuel (and other things like gasoline).
You're an idiot if you think these are equivalent fuels.
Doesn't Southampton have electricity? by davidbofinger · 2016-05-23 19:19 · Score: 1

Why does it need to run its auxiliaries? Can't they take power from Southampton?
50 let by DrYak · 2016-05-24 03:10 · Score: 1

Some day in the future Russia may sell a nuclear cruise ship so it's possibly SF and not fantasy.
Well for one special case, that day was in 2007, it's more modern-day history than SF, and you can still as of today book a cruise around the north pole.
(and actually, that is one of the applications of cruise ship where nuclear energy is mandatory. It's not as if *that* ship could dock in a city every couple of day to re-fuel several tons of fuel. this kind of polar cruise is in the middle of nowhere away from civilisation, so the ship needs a form of propulsion that can be self sufficient for months).

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
1. Re:50 let by dbIII · 2016-05-24 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  There's still a bit of a gap between a Russian government owned icebreaker and selling a nuclear powered ship to a cruise line. Calling those things "civilian" is one thing, expecting them outside of direct government control any time soon - there lies the fantasy.