3 ms·

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 signif

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.
    - noneeeed 6y ago
      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.

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.
  - noneeeed 6y ago
    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.