3 ms·

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 pu

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?

noneeeed 6y ago
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.
- morsch 6y ago
  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.
  - noneeeed 6y ago
    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.
    - darksaints 6y ago
      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.
      - noneeeed 6y ago
        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/smoke-and-mirrors-cruise-line-scrubbers-turn-air-pollution-into-water-pollution/ 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.
        darksaints 6y ago
        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.
barnabee 6y ago
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.

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?

noneeeed 6y ago

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.

morsch 6y ago
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.
- noneeeed 6y ago
  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.
  - darksaints 6y ago
    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.
    - noneeeed 6y ago
      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/smoke-and-mirrors-cruise-line-scrubbers-turn-air-pollution-into-water-pollution/ 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.
      - darksaints 6y ago
        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.

barnabee 6y ago

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.