Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on 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.

44 of 404 comments (clear)

  1. I hate bad journalism like this... by Eloking · · 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 bnmm · · 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.

    2. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · · 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).

    3. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by whoever57 · · 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!
    4. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by locketine · · 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.
    5. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by itsenrique · · 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...

    6. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · 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.
    7. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by fnj · · 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.

    8. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by fnj · · 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.

    9. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    10. Re: I hate bad journalism like this... by Sir+Holo · · 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?

    11. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    12. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by fustakrakich · · 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!”
    13. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    14. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    15. Re:I hate bad journalism like this... by Alumoi · · 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.

  2. Slave labor by johnsmithperson123 · · 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 · · 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 · · Score: 2

      Citation needed.

    3. Re:Slave labor by rahvin112 · · 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.

  3. Bah... by sir1963nz · · 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 Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · 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.
  4. Yeah, it's bad, but not to that scale. by RyanFenton · · 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

  5. Plan by Tablizer · · 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.
  6. Re: Finally by saloomy · · 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.

  7. Re: This is why the diesel scandal is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    WÃrtsilà 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.

  8. It's not diesel fuel by JimSadler · · 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.

  9. Easy Solution by Greyfox · · 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?

  10. Re: Finally by PPH · · Score: 2

    It's been done

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  11. Thorium: Less experience ? by DrYak · · 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 · · 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 · · 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.

  12. Re:Exactly my though (Legal limitations ?) by ColdWetDog · · 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!
  13. Nuclear. So yes, inefficient by DrYak · · 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 Noughmad · · 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.
  14. Re: Finally by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  15. Re: Finally by saloomy · · 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.

  16. Why people would want to go there? by Cyberax · · 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.

  17. Re:Bad, but not because of the amount or fuel type by Pentium100 · · 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.

  18. Re: Finally by SNRatio · · 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.

  19. Re: Finally by Xenx · · 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.

  20. TFA is about pollution while the ship is docked by hackertourist · · 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.

  21. Re: This is why the diesel scandal is a joke by mheat · · 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.

  22. Re:the article is bullshit and FUD by locketine · · 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.