Aerial view of a cruise ship graveyard(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Aerial view of a cruise ship graveyard
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/54392978/what-happens-to-old-cruise-ships
69 comments
Absolutely useless pollution machines. Running on bunker fuel, used as floating towns for people's amusement, polluting more than all of Europe's cars combined.
There is no excuse for them. I believe they should be banned, and any leisure ships should be sail-powered. I bet they would be more fun for the tourists, too.
I understand international shipping is vital, that's why cargo ships get a pass, but cruise ships simply have no place if we actually care about the environment. Sadly, money trumps everything.
There is no excuse for them. I believe they should be banned, and any leisure ships should be sail-powered. I bet they would be more fun for the tourists, too.
I understand international shipping is vital, that's why cargo ships get a pass, but cruise ships simply have no place if we actually care about the environment. Sadly, money trumps everything.
Counterpoint: cruise ships are one of only a handful of ways that poor people can experience a vacation, let alone be able to see a different part of the world. And their pollution is high because of their choice of fuel, not anything inherent to cruising. Specifically, the use of bunker fuel vs other alternatives drives SOx and NOx emissions extremely high, but carbon emissions are actually pretty low. Per person, a weeklong cruise has carbon emissions about equivalent to a 12 hour flight in economy class.
So if you want lower pollution, maybe just target the use of bunker fuel, and force them into low sulfur fuels like the shipping industry has already done. And if carbon emissions are still a problem, ban private jets and first class flights.
So if you want lower pollution, maybe just target the use of bunker fuel, and force them into low sulfur fuels like the shipping industry has already done. And if carbon emissions are still a problem, ban private jets and first class flights.
How do you force them to do that in international waters? They can register with any country that refuses to adhere to the standards or simply has a corrupt system and doesn't check anything.
Yes, they have relatively low carbon emissions, but NOx/SOx as you said are extremely high. And the Earth's ecosystem doesn't really have individual parts, it's all interconnected. Polluting the oceans leads to major problems on land. Air pollution is also carried everywhere else.
Hence, banning cruise ships in particular is a straightforward way to reduce global emissions without significant side effects.
I am poor. My vacations have been by bus and train, and I like them. I can see various cities and people while going to my destination, and it's cheaper than a cruise. Since it's on land, emissions are strict and it's really hard to break the laws around them.
You're right about the private jet flights, as well. It's really an extra luxury for the people who will soon tell us we have to make sacrifices in order to save the planet. I guess they really need that extra hour when going to ask for public money for their failing enterprises.
I'm not downvoting btw, you have a valid point. I only downvote extremely dumb or offensive comments.
Yes, they have relatively low carbon emissions, but NOx/SOx as you said are extremely high. And the Earth's ecosystem doesn't really have individual parts, it's all interconnected. Polluting the oceans leads to major problems on land. Air pollution is also carried everywhere else.
Hence, banning cruise ships in particular is a straightforward way to reduce global emissions without significant side effects.
I am poor. My vacations have been by bus and train, and I like them. I can see various cities and people while going to my destination, and it's cheaper than a cruise. Since it's on land, emissions are strict and it's really hard to break the laws around them.
You're right about the private jet flights, as well. It's really an extra luxury for the people who will soon tell us we have to make sacrifices in order to save the planet. I guess they really need that extra hour when going to ask for public money for their failing enterprises.
I'm not downvoting btw, you have a valid point. I only downvote extremely dumb or offensive comments.
Out of all non-landlocked countries, only two do not belong to, and therefore are not technically regulated by, the International Maritime Organization: Micronesia and Taiwan. So unless they are registering your ships in those countries (most cruise ships use flags of convenience for tax reasons, not regulatory reasons), they are playing by those rules, even while in international waters. And by doing so, the NOx and SOx are cut drastically.
I don't think cruise ships are great. Even if they were fueled by pure renewable or nuclear energy, there are still problems, ranging from invasive species taking trips across the world in bilges, nutrient-concentrations from black water dumps leading to overgrowth zones of marine plants, destroyed coral reefs from massive anchor chains, and garbage pollution that makes its way off of poorly contained balconies. But again, this is a problem of regulation. They are all fixable problems.
I also should mention that I find most arguments about cruise industry labor policies to be extremely hypocritical and elitist. People will complain about how they make their workers work long hours for little pay, but won't lift a finger to change it. Open up our borders, give them an option to work somewhere that has actual labor laws. Hell, when these cruise ships come into US ports, we don't even let the workers off the boat, for fear that they might illegally stay permanently and have a better life with labor laws and living wages inside our borders. We take away all their better options, but then complain that unethical companies take advantage of it?
Basically, I agree that the cruise industry is dirty, unethical, and run by despicable people. But the actual problems they present to the world are also fixable by the world, and cruises don't necessarily need to be banned to do so. I'd prefer they fix their problems, but I still want them around so that the high school dropout machinist with 4 kids can go on regular vacations with his family and realize his dream of visiting 30 countries before he dies.
I don't think cruise ships are great. Even if they were fueled by pure renewable or nuclear energy, there are still problems, ranging from invasive species taking trips across the world in bilges, nutrient-concentrations from black water dumps leading to overgrowth zones of marine plants, destroyed coral reefs from massive anchor chains, and garbage pollution that makes its way off of poorly contained balconies. But again, this is a problem of regulation. They are all fixable problems.
I also should mention that I find most arguments about cruise industry labor policies to be extremely hypocritical and elitist. People will complain about how they make their workers work long hours for little pay, but won't lift a finger to change it. Open up our borders, give them an option to work somewhere that has actual labor laws. Hell, when these cruise ships come into US ports, we don't even let the workers off the boat, for fear that they might illegally stay permanently and have a better life with labor laws and living wages inside our borders. We take away all their better options, but then complain that unethical companies take advantage of it?
Basically, I agree that the cruise industry is dirty, unethical, and run by despicable people. But the actual problems they present to the world are also fixable by the world, and cruises don't necessarily need to be banned to do so. I'd prefer they fix their problems, but I still want them around so that the high school dropout machinist with 4 kids can go on regular vacations with his family and realize his dream of visiting 30 countries before he dies.
Seems pretty easy to me: cruise ships aren't allowed to dock on american shores if they don't have a constant audit and log of the fuel they use.
See “magic pipes” on cruise ships: more or less diverting oil contaminated water by the engine away from the tanks where they’re supposed to be kept and back into the sea because emptying these tanks when docked costs a bit or money that the cruise ship operator would rather keep for themselves. These are illegal and strict records are supposed to be kept so they can be audited and detected. Yet these records are falsified and useless.
Then make it illegal for any ship built by that company to dock on american shores until every ship they've ever built can be audited for not having this fuckery. At their expense. There needs to be consequences for people breaking the law.
That’s the beauty of it, magic pipes are easy to undo quickly so they are hard to detect.
The big companies pay pretty much zero in tax as well, "running" their businesses out of places like Bermuda and Liberia. Most passengers are also totally unaware of the rights they sign away when boarding as well - things like onboard doctors being immune from malpractice, no jury trials for lawsuits, the company can use any images and video of you onboard for any purposes at all, and agreeing you can't participate in class action lawsuits against the company.
Why assume it's a 0 sum game or try to regulate how people enjoy their free time?
Isn't it much more effective to simply force ships to have much fewer emissions or offset them?
Isn't it much more effective to simply force ships to have much fewer emissions or offset them?
I've had these debates way too many times. I am not getting into another one.
My stand is, burning dirty oil for people's enjoyment to the detriment of the oceans and the air is [insert bad words].
I said, use sailboats for leisure tourism. Plenty of fun.
At this rate, we'll fuck up the planet enough that governments will take the power in their hands and everyone will be forced to help with the cleanup.
If we don't do something now, out of our own volition, we're all going to end up with much more authoritarian governments and limits on individual freedoms. It's either that or civil wars. No way around it.
My stand is, burning dirty oil for people's enjoyment to the detriment of the oceans and the air is [insert bad words].
I said, use sailboats for leisure tourism. Plenty of fun.
At this rate, we'll fuck up the planet enough that governments will take the power in their hands and everyone will be forced to help with the cleanup.
If we don't do something now, out of our own volition, we're all going to end up with much more authoritarian governments and limits on individual freedoms. It's either that or civil wars. No way around it.
I don't know anything about you, but I guarantee you do something for fun that I could point to and say it's 'burning dirty oil for your enjoyment to the detriment of the world and the air'.
Sure, everyone does. Cruise ships are one thing that can be completely removed with great effect for the environment and it will be a minor inconvenience for the people who used to pay for them.
Yes, many will take planes and trains and cars, any of which will still pollute less than cruise ships.
There is no downside to banning them and using sail ships (aside from a potential loss of revenue).
Yes, many will take planes and trains and cars, any of which will still pollute less than cruise ships.
There is no downside to banning them and using sail ships (aside from a potential loss of revenue).
> no downside
Sailing ships have unreliable schedules, for one.
Sailing ships have unreliable schedules, for one.
Don't worry. The health crisis will regulate things better than any government. I'd sail for leisure as well because I'm quite crowd-adverse and don't like the idea of a floating hotel, especially after what happened on Diamond Princess. However, you can't really blame elderly people going on a cruise. Also going to Anctarctica is also quite challenging on a small sailboat. I'd like to see solar + nuclear powered comercial ships with tamper proof reactors.
> However, you can't really blame elderly people going on a cruise.
This sentence made me think... how many people are toiling hard under the promise that, when they amass enough wealth and eventually retire, then they'll have time to jump on cruise ships and see the world? Isn't this the tail end of the American dream? No surprise then that there isn't a widespread consensus to kill the cruise shipping industry - as you have people burning the best years of their life chasing a carrot, only for you to propose to take the carrot away.
At the very least, the cruise ship operators should be made to internalize the entire environmental cost of their pollution. The best way to do that would be through taxing bunker fuel, but that may cause mayhem with the entire shipping industry, so I'd initially be fine with just a large and very much unfair tax on cruise operators. Not enough to take away the carrot, but enough to make it appropriately expensive, relative to the environmental costs. Now is probably the best time for that - the companies are devastated by COVID and won't have money to bribe^H^H^H^H^Hlobby against such measures.
This sentence made me think... how many people are toiling hard under the promise that, when they amass enough wealth and eventually retire, then they'll have time to jump on cruise ships and see the world? Isn't this the tail end of the American dream? No surprise then that there isn't a widespread consensus to kill the cruise shipping industry - as you have people burning the best years of their life chasing a carrot, only for you to propose to take the carrot away.
At the very least, the cruise ship operators should be made to internalize the entire environmental cost of their pollution. The best way to do that would be through taxing bunker fuel, but that may cause mayhem with the entire shipping industry, so I'd initially be fine with just a large and very much unfair tax on cruise operators. Not enough to take away the carrot, but enough to make it appropriately expensive, relative to the environmental costs. Now is probably the best time for that - the companies are devastated by COVID and won't have money to bribe^H^H^H^H^Hlobby against such measures.
I agree about the elderly, not about the bans. It's their decision, let them enjoy it. The market could change anyway, especially after the health crisis. Cruise ships scrapped? Good riddance.
It's quite hard to tax them. They sail under Panama flags in international waters and are registered in some country most people haven't heard of. They can only be taxed while at anchor in a port under some jurisdiction. They'll happily refuel in Jamaica, Cuba or Haiti if fuel is taxed in the US. We've seen that in Europe with truckers and fuel taxes in some jurisdictions.
It's quite hard to tax them. They sail under Panama flags in international waters and are registered in some country most people haven't heard of. They can only be taxed while at anchor in a port under some jurisdiction. They'll happily refuel in Jamaica, Cuba or Haiti if fuel is taxed in the US. We've seen that in Europe with truckers and fuel taxes in some jurisdictions.
Why single out ships? Maybe we could just tax emissions such that the activity does not matter.
Because otherwise it's just "we need to do something about that" handwaving and it gets nowhere. So, single out cruise ships - a straightforward way to reduce global pollution by a good degree with minimal effects on the individual.
The problem with ships is that once they enter international waters they can do whatever they want.
Which is exactly what they do, burn bunker fuel outside territorial waters and switch to cleaner fuel when they approach a country (because they are forced to).
There is simply no enforcement outside territorial waters, and if anyone tried to, they'd be immediately condemned by everyone else.
The problem with ships is that once they enter international waters they can do whatever they want.
Which is exactly what they do, burn bunker fuel outside territorial waters and switch to cleaner fuel when they approach a country (because they are forced to).
There is simply no enforcement outside territorial waters, and if anyone tried to, they'd be immediately condemned by everyone else.
Why don't we ban container ships?
Is it possible that you are a member of a group of individuals that do not enjoy nor participate in cruises and therefore do not give anything up by calling for their ban? You can feel good about it without personally sacrificing anything and instead forcing others to make that sacrifice.
How would you feel if it were the inverse and others were calling for a ban on an activity you enjoy?
Is it possible that you are a member of a group of individuals that do not enjoy nor participate in cruises and therefore do not give anything up by calling for their ban? You can feel good about it without personally sacrificing anything and instead forcing others to make that sacrifice.
How would you feel if it were the inverse and others were calling for a ban on an activity you enjoy?
I might enjoy eating babies, that doesn’t make someone claiming this practice should be banned on ethical grounds wrong.
In many countries people eat young lamb or veal, some consider it acceptable and others don't.
It is very easy to call for a ban on something that you personally do not enjoy because you lose nothing. In fact a majority of the world's population likely does not enjoy cruising, just as a different majority does not enjoy snow sports, water sports, car racing, motorcycles, horse racing, skydiving, rugby, rock climbing, etc..
There is some form of ethical or safety concerns for each of those but the world would be a very boring place if we banned them all.
It is very easy to call for a ban on something that you personally do not enjoy because you lose nothing. In fact a majority of the world's population likely does not enjoy cruising, just as a different majority does not enjoy snow sports, water sports, car racing, motorcycles, horse racing, skydiving, rugby, rock climbing, etc..
There is some form of ethical or safety concerns for each of those but the world would be a very boring place if we banned them all.
It's more efficient to remove the cause of emissions than to tax it and try to compensate for it. All carbon emissions should be taxed, but some things should just not be allowed.
Tax the purchase of bunker fuel for its emissions content. Cruise ships aren't going to drill for oil in international waters.
Is burning bunker fuel at sea really a big problem? My understanding is that the impurities (sulphur mostly) in bunker fuel are bad for people to breathe and create smog, so they shouldn't be burned around population centres. The main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, and you produce roughly the same amount of that per watt of power no matter what hydrocarbon you burn.
Hydrocarbons are molecules that are various combinations of H and C atoms. The H burns to H2O, the C to CO2. A hydrocarbon with a greater quantity of H is going to emit less CO2 when burned.
Sure, but H weighs 1/12 as much as C. Most of the fuel mass goes to CO2 no matter what you do: whether you slap on 1.5 H atoms or 3 for each C, it makes up a small part of the molecular weight.
Of course, it could be that the C-H bonds contribute much more to the energy released by burning the fuel than the C-C. But this doesn't seem to be case. Here's a paper in favour of switching to lighter fuels for ships: it argues that the total supply chain CO2 contribution would be higher (it takes energy to refine those fuels), but only by 1%.
I think that "bunker fuel is really bad and ships switching to lighter cleaner fuels is important for the environment" is a seductively easy but bad target for carbon reduction. There are way better places to spend our efforts.
[0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3155/1047-3289.58.4.5...
Of course, it could be that the C-H bonds contribute much more to the energy released by burning the fuel than the C-C. But this doesn't seem to be case. Here's a paper in favour of switching to lighter fuels for ships: it argues that the total supply chain CO2 contribution would be higher (it takes energy to refine those fuels), but only by 1%.
I think that "bunker fuel is really bad and ships switching to lighter cleaner fuels is important for the environment" is a seductively easy but bad target for carbon reduction. There are way better places to spend our efforts.
[0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3155/1047-3289.58.4.5...
> There are way better places to spend our efforts.
The easiest, most economically efficient, most productive way to do it is to tax the C content of fuels. Use the monies raised to subsidize green energy.
Banning is an indiscriminate club that does a lot of collateral damage.
The easiest, most economically efficient, most productive way to do it is to tax the C content of fuels. Use the monies raised to subsidize green energy.
Banning is an indiscriminate club that does a lot of collateral damage.
But that's exactly what wouldn't be suitable for reducing pollution from bunker fuel. Shippers would pay the same taxes as for burning kerosene or diesel, plus or minus a few percent, but they'd go with the cheaper option and cause huge sulphur pollution in port cities.
The regulations we have now (no high-sulphur fuels in cities, no leaded gasoline...) are better than taxing only CO2 emissions, even if they're not perfect.
The regulations we have now (no high-sulphur fuels in cities, no leaded gasoline...) are better than taxing only CO2 emissions, even if they're not perfect.
So do the obvious - tax the sulfur content of the fuels, too.
The problem with banning is its inflexibility. For example, let's say you have a bunker-fueled emergency generator for a hospital that you use only when the power goes out. The pollution it emits is negligible. But by banning bunker fuel, you'll have to replace the emergency generator, at considerable expense and environmental cost.
With taxes instead, you:
1. bunker fuel will only be used when there's high value for it, and you won't have to add a plethora of exemptions into the regulation
2. have a revenue center for the government instead of a cost center - revenue that can be used to subsidize green initiatives
The problem with banning is its inflexibility. For example, let's say you have a bunker-fueled emergency generator for a hospital that you use only when the power goes out. The pollution it emits is negligible. But by banning bunker fuel, you'll have to replace the emergency generator, at considerable expense and environmental cost.
With taxes instead, you:
1. bunker fuel will only be used when there's high value for it, and you won't have to add a plethora of exemptions into the regulation
2. have a revenue center for the government instead of a cost center - revenue that can be used to subsidize green initiatives
The newer ones run on LNG (which is better but still not remotely good).
Except cruise ships are essential to countries like Finland or Norway. The tickets are reasonable priced only because of cruise passengers, tax-free booze and gambling. Especially Hurtigruten of Norway seems to be financed mostly by American Tourists, while providing essential coastal ferry service. And Finland is basically an island, as it is impossible to establish reliable routes through Russia, because local robber parons invent constantly new rules and taxes.
In which ways are they essential?
Finland is an island surrounded for 6 months with solid ice. Those cruise ships need to be ice-breakers too.
And Norways coastal roadway is 5 times longer than the coastal ferry. That is an environmental issue if anything.
And Norways coastal roadway is 5 times longer than the coastal ferry. That is an environmental issue if anything.
I think you may be confusing the 'cruiseferry' which carries vehicles and can be an essential transportation method, with the modern megacruiseship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiseferry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiseferry
Mega-yachts are actually most environmental way to be bring million tourists to places to like Nordkapp. There has not been much complaints lately, because modern ships clean they sewage water and fuel exhausts.
Can you please provide some sources for this info?
What sources there could be? I remember that in the 1980s the indigineous Sami-population was whining about "pollution" of Porsanger fjord. Fish had diseases and crabs were dead. Upon investigation it was found out that cruiseships dump their toilets into the sea upon entering Honningsvåg, because the docking & dumping fees were too stiff. Nothing wrong with fishing nowadays.
[deleted]
Not sure why this is downvoted, I 100% agree that cruise ships and the industry are an unsustainable scourge on the planet. Good riddance.
I can't imagine anything worse than being a passenger on one of those (other than begin a low paid crew member who's been forced to remain aboard for the past 8 months)
Yes. I got dragged on one by my parents in the 1980s. I wanted to kill myself after about a day. It was like butlins with no escape and even lower standards of hygiene. It’s a profitable captive market to milk a load of people drowning their sorrows in alcohol and feed the slop in return. Why you’d pay for it I don’t understand.
Secondarily, good riddance to the whole industry.
Edit: after reflecting on this I don’t think my parents enjoyed it either. They went on it because it was the done thing at the time and they could tell everyone they went on it.
Secondarily, good riddance to the whole industry.
Edit: after reflecting on this I don’t think my parents enjoyed it either. They went on it because it was the done thing at the time and they could tell everyone they went on it.
Add to that, that taking a cruise is just a superfluous luxury.
Is there any reason they, in particular, are so bad? I'm presuming that running one takes a lot of energy but, other than that, why are they such a strain on public health and the environment?
They use a lot of energy, but more importantly they get that from something called bunker fuel. BF is the cheapest, nastiest form of fuel available. They are a significant source of pollution in parts of many port cities like London (especially places like Greenwich). I believe they are particularly bad for sulphur and particulate pollution.
One of the differences with cargo ships is that cruise ships need a lot of power even when they are at port to keep all the amenities of a large town going. Most cargo ships have tiny crews,and little demand for power when not at sea. They are a significant producer of local pollutants that cause very real health problems for many people.
Some ports do have electrical hookups for the cruise ships to use, but I think they are often more expensive than just burning more bunker fuel, and require to ship to be set up for them.
One of the differences with cargo ships is that cruise ships need a lot of power even when they are at port to keep all the amenities of a large town going. Most cargo ships have tiny crews,and little demand for power when not at sea. They are a significant producer of local pollutants that cause very real health problems for many people.
Some ports do have electrical hookups for the cruise ships to use, but I think they are often more expensive than just burning more bunker fuel, and require to ship to be set up for them.
In other words, there's nothing inherently and especially bad about cruise ships. Just regulatory loop holes and overall bad citizenship that governments around the world have known about for decades and have failed to close. Because voters haven't cared enough for it to be an issue.
Cruise ships use a lot of energy, but add up the total energy required to house, move, heat, cool, amuse and feed 4000 tourists and their minders on land and you will also get a large number.
Cruise ships use a lot of energy, but add up the total energy required to house, move, heat, cool, amuse and feed 4000 tourists and their minders on land and you will also get a large number.
Essentially yea, if cruise ships used high quality fuel and always hooked up to a local power grid when docked many/most of the pollution issues would be significantly improved, at least for the local pollution induced problems.
However it seems to be very difficult to change the rules on shipping fuel, but some ports are starting to clamp down on cruise ships that don't hook up to the local grid.
Cruise ships are basically floating Vegases, they are never going to be exactly eco-friendly, but at their available sources of power are limited to those that are badly polluting, even if they use high quality fuel.
The only way to make cruise ships low carbon would be to make them nuclear powered, like an aircraft carrier. You can't really power them with renewable sources like you can with homes on land.
However it seems to be very difficult to change the rules on shipping fuel, but some ports are starting to clamp down on cruise ships that don't hook up to the local grid.
Cruise ships are basically floating Vegases, they are never going to be exactly eco-friendly, but at their available sources of power are limited to those that are badly polluting, even if they use high quality fuel.
The only way to make cruise ships low carbon would be to make them nuclear powered, like an aircraft carrier. You can't really power them with renewable sources like you can with homes on land.
The shipping industry has regulated itself quite well via the IMO. As of January this year, cargo and cruise ships can only use low sulfur fuels. This alone already invalidates 95% of the information out there about how pollution-intensive cruise ships are.
Are they still carbon-intensive? Kinda. Nowhere near as bad as flying, but worse than passenger vehicles and trains. But if we want a fair comparison, shouldn't we also throw in the hotels and restaurants and theme parks that they replace? Because if you get rid of the cruise ships, you haven't really gotten rid of the problem, just moved it around a little bit.
Are they still carbon-intensive? Kinda. Nowhere near as bad as flying, but worse than passenger vehicles and trains. But if we want a fair comparison, shouldn't we also throw in the hotels and restaurants and theme parks that they replace? Because if you get rid of the cruise ships, you haven't really gotten rid of the problem, just moved it around a little bit.
That's good to know that the IMO are upping the standards. Although looks like there's a bit of s loophole that might be creating unintended consequences https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2019/09/articles/pollution/smo...
And yes, as I said in my previous comment, cruise ships are like floating Vegases, a large part of their impact is simply the impact of most tourism, but on a boat.
But as I mentioned, a cruise ship can't run on renewables, but a land based resort can. Of course the plane that gets you there is still spewing co2 (I get annoyed by people who fly thousands of miles to go on "eco-friendly" holidays). At the end of the day it's hard to compare these things in general when the specifics of each case matter too.
And yes, as I said in my previous comment, cruise ships are like floating Vegases, a large part of their impact is simply the impact of most tourism, but on a boat.
But as I mentioned, a cruise ship can't run on renewables, but a land based resort can. Of course the plane that gets you there is still spewing co2 (I get annoyed by people who fly thousands of miles to go on "eco-friendly" holidays). At the end of the day it's hard to compare these things in general when the specifics of each case matter too.
I got a little excited when I saw the article a few days ago about the growing potential for fusion power reactors the size of tennis courts. Compact nuclear power with abundant fuel, no runaway reaction potential, and no fission waste, would be the holy grail for the maritime industries.
But even barring the potential for nuclear, renewable power for ships is feasible. Liquid hydrogen has a ton of potential as a fuel source. And it can be reliably produced sustainably with reasonable efficiency. Price is the only factor barring its use currently (the technology already exists, and it is already good enough). With abundant intermittent renewables, excess power will get cheaper, which will bring down the prices for hydrogen. And when cleaner is actually cheaper than dirty, even the ethically-challenged will make the right choice.
But even barring the potential for nuclear, renewable power for ships is feasible. Liquid hydrogen has a ton of potential as a fuel source. And it can be reliably produced sustainably with reasonable efficiency. Price is the only factor barring its use currently (the technology already exists, and it is already good enough). With abundant intermittent renewables, excess power will get cheaper, which will bring down the prices for hydrogen. And when cleaner is actually cheaper than dirty, even the ethically-challenged will make the right choice.
Yeah, in a saner and safer world, we'd have little nuclear powers plants running a lot of things.
If we can generate clean hydrogen I think an awful lot of things that are not easily converted to battery will get a lot cleaner, I think it's being looked at as a replacement for coal in steel production. I think we're still some years away from that unfortunately, last estimate I saw was about a decade, but fingers crossed we get there earlier.
As you say, making doing the right thing cheaper than doing the wrong is the way we solve so many of these problems. Unfortunately we also need to get to the point where it's cheaper to scrap the old kit and replace it, than not, which may take longer.
If we can generate clean hydrogen I think an awful lot of things that are not easily converted to battery will get a lot cleaner, I think it's being looked at as a replacement for coal in steel production. I think we're still some years away from that unfortunately, last estimate I saw was about a decade, but fingers crossed we get there earlier.
As you say, making doing the right thing cheaper than doing the wrong is the way we solve so many of these problems. Unfortunately we also need to get to the point where it's cheaper to scrap the old kit and replace it, than not, which may take longer.
The air pollution they cause for passengers and the inhabitants of towns and cities they visit is particularly atrocious. Searching the web for “cruise ship air pollution” turns up plenty on that front.
You can recognize that those are old Carnival Cruise Line ships from their red forking funnels.
Carnival Cruise has new ship and ship currently under test drive. It will be even larger than anything before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mardi_Gras_(2020_ship)
Carnival Cruise has new ship and ship currently under test drive. It will be even larger than anything before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mardi_Gras_(2020_ship)
Looks fucking diabolical.
I went on a Princess Cruise one time. Really great value for what you get. See multiple places, get fed, entertained, for less than it costs for a hotel in a lot of these places.
Looking through a low level port window at night, to moonlight, honestly feels like travelling through outer space on the USS Enterprise. Its pretty unique.
About the only thing I didn't like is that since the food is included, it seems to attract seriously obese people to take these cruises. Just so they can indulge in buffet gluttony 3 times a day for several days non stop. Served by their poor and skinny third world waiters, with a reputation for f-ing like bunny rabbits in their cage like quarters. The contrast is kind of comical.
Then seeing all these obese burgers leave the buffet tables, belly full, walking on a port deck at sea reminded me of wobbling marbles in a Maze run. Pretty funny and Wally like.
But wouldn't it make sense for a poorer countries government to buy this and use it for its tourism industry or even for fishing boats.
The value of a full ship has to be worth more than scrap metal. These ships are no longer to luxury standards. But most likely still very functional ships.
Looking through a low level port window at night, to moonlight, honestly feels like travelling through outer space on the USS Enterprise. Its pretty unique.
About the only thing I didn't like is that since the food is included, it seems to attract seriously obese people to take these cruises. Just so they can indulge in buffet gluttony 3 times a day for several days non stop. Served by their poor and skinny third world waiters, with a reputation for f-ing like bunny rabbits in their cage like quarters. The contrast is kind of comical.
Then seeing all these obese burgers leave the buffet tables, belly full, walking on a port deck at sea reminded me of wobbling marbles in a Maze run. Pretty funny and Wally like.
But wouldn't it make sense for a poorer countries government to buy this and use it for its tourism industry or even for fishing boats.
The value of a full ship has to be worth more than scrap metal. These ships are no longer to luxury standards. But most likely still very functional ships.
There's this website where you can buy some: https://cruiseship.homestead.com/cruiseships.html
Now that the corona virus has given us a marker of the places where respiratory diseases spread, I wonder if (or hope that) there will be a restructuring of those places, resulting in an overall reduction in all respiratory diseases after the pandemic ends.
Been on little holidays in Weymouth, Dorset. It has a big bay sheltered from the rough sea. 5 Big Ships parked in there, each empty of passengers but fully lit-up each night, running off power from their engines, i guess is cheaper for them than using shore-power.
Same for a lot of southern shores of UK
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-2.4/cente...
This is a putative list someone put together a few months ago of ships he thought were likely to be retired:
https://thepointsguy.co.uk/guide/cruise-ship-sold-scrap-list...
https://thepointsguy.co.uk/guide/cruise-ship-sold-scrap-list...
There was a really good Al Jazeera documentary about ship breaking called Brothers, but it’s been taken off YouTube for some reason sadly.
Is it more interesting to scrap these ships compared to selling them? Or Carnival prefer to make sure no competitor buys them?
If you look elsewhere in the comments here they are often for sale. At some point however, the cost of renovations outweighs the benefit. Especially because the larger the ship the more profitable it is, and these ships are being retired for ones that hold up to 4 times as many people and are 50% longer.
Shame port cities like LA, NY don't buy old cruise ships to re-purpose them for homeless shelters.
I admit that I've loved the cruises I've taken - new port every day - super well-fed 24hrs - great entertainment... but the cruise industry is horrible for the reasons noted!
It really wouldn't be a loss if covid killed them off, though that's unlikely - more likely they'll just reposition all their ships to serve China.
I admit that I've loved the cruises I've taken - new port every day - super well-fed 24hrs - great entertainment... but the cruise industry is horrible for the reasons noted!
It really wouldn't be a loss if covid killed them off, though that's unlikely - more likely they'll just reposition all their ships to serve China.
Cruise ships are disgusting - on a public health, environmental, and labor law axes. (Probably a few others, too!) I love seeing them being dismantled.