NYT: Royal Caribbean's newest ship & climate friendliness

[fortnightlily]

Gift Link: www.nytimes.com/2024/01/23/travel/icon-of-the-seas-cruise-ship-sustainability.html?unlocked_article_code=1.QU0.k5C5.F4Qa1p_jKjBf&smid=url-share

"Can the World’s Largest Cruise Ship Really Be Climate-Friendly?"

Figured this would be of interest given our recent discussion about the carbon footprint of air travel. 

[Jalapeñomel]

We are putting 8000 people on a ship on the ocean. I'm glad they're moving toward more energy efficient materials, but it's so unnecessary.

[rubytue]

I have been on a number of cruises, but especially recently have been really feeling like I want to stop. I’m fact, I’m heading on out next week on a charter that I do with a bunch of girlfriends every year. Last year I was looking around at all the waste and excess and really questioning myself. Then I signed up again, but was feeling it would be my last. This helps seals that commitment. FWIW, I have noticed a huge different between cruise lines on some of the little things (recycling, straws, plastic cups). But, not enough. And I knew this in my head, but seeing it in black and white… yeah.

[dutchgirl678]

Every time I see a travel or food show in Venice, the local people are complaining about the hordes of tourists that come off the cruise ships. Same in Norway. I really don't think it can be a sustainable way to travel, even when they are using climate-friendly materials. The use of LNG and sending lots of unburned methane into the atmosphere is very concerning. That is way more polluting than cows and yet we demonize the eating of beef but not the building of these enormous cruise ships?

[redheadbaker]

Jan 25, 2024 10:40:31 GMT -5 fortnightlily said:

"Can the World’s Largest Cruise Ship Really Be Climate-Friendly?"

No. 

[pixy0stix]

Man, they really can greenwash anything.

[sent]

Jan 25, 2024 16:52:23 GMT -5 dutchgirl678 said:

Every time I see a travel or food show in Venice, the local people are complaining about the hordes of tourists that come off the cruise ships. Same in Norway. I really don't think it can be a sustainable way to travel, even when they are using climate-friendly materials. The use of LNG and sending lots of unburned methane into the atmosphere is very concerning. That is way more polluting than cows and yet we demonize the eating of beef but not the building of these enormous cruise ships?

Who would even be the regulating body for how big you can build a ship? Seems like the only restriction would be if a port couldn’t accommodate the ship which doesn’t seem to be a problem yet.

[Susie]

Jan 25, 2024 21:43:54 GMT -5 sent said:

Jan 25, 2024 16:52:23 GMT -5 dutchgirl678 said:

Every time I see a travel or food show in Venice, the local people are complaining about the hordes of tourists that come off the cruise ships. Same in Norway. I really don't think it can be a sustainable way to travel, even when they are using climate-friendly materials. The use of LNG and sending lots of unburned methane into the atmosphere is very concerning. That is way more polluting than cows and yet we demonize the eating of beef but not the building of these enormous cruise ships?

Who would even be the regulating body for how big you can build a ship? Seems like the only restriction would be if a port couldn’t accommodate the ship which doesn’t seem to be a problem yet.

No idea, but possibly where the ship is registered?  Or possibly ports could restrict the size of ships, which would not require but could incentivize cruise lines to stay under that size?  I have to imagine ports have some ability to do that, because channels and harbors can ostensibly only accommodate a finite draft of the hull.

As we saw with the Ever Given in the Suez Canal and the Ever Forward in the Chesapeake Bay, however, capitalism speaks much louder than sound decision making on this front.

[redheadbaker]

Jan 25, 2024 21:43:54 GMT -5 sent said:

Jan 25, 2024 16:52:23 GMT -5 dutchgirl678 said:

Every time I see a travel or food show in Venice, the local people are complaining about the hordes of tourists that come off the cruise ships. Same in Norway. I really don't think it can be a sustainable way to travel, even when they are using climate-friendly materials. The use of LNG and sending lots of unburned methane into the atmosphere is very concerning. That is way more polluting than cows and yet we demonize the eating of beef but not the building of these enormous cruise ships?

Who would even be the regulating body for how big you can build a ship? 

It's complicated. 

ehlinelaw.com/blog/cruise-regulations-unknown

[aprilsails]

I looked it up and the ship has a 90MW power plant. Up to 74MW can be used for propulsion, with the rest used largely for air conditioning, refrigeration, and other systems (kitchens, lighting, water parks, etc). Now not all of these systems would be running at 100% since there has to be redundancies in a ship system design, but it is a staggering amount of fuel usage to develop electricity and propulsion.

As a very clear point of comparison, my city of 1 million residents has a power grid of 400MW. To support all the electrical power needs of businesses and residents. 99.5% of our power grid comes from carbon-free sources (nuclear, hydroelectric, solar). This ship runs 100% on carbon sources, for the benefit of 8000 people.

The only way these ships can achieve carbon neutrality would be to install nuclear power systems. Which, at this scale, is certainly possible, but they would consider it a liability since people are scared of nuclear systems.

It's an extraordinarily stupid way to see the world.

[Deleted]

Jan 25, 2024 21:43:54 GMT -5 sent said:

Jan 25, 2024 16:52:23 GMT -5 dutchgirl678 said:

Every time I see a travel or food show in Venice, the local people are complaining about the hordes of tourists that come off the cruise ships. Same in Norway. I really don't think it can be a sustainable way to travel, even when they are using climate-friendly materials. The use of LNG and sending lots of unburned methane into the atmosphere is very concerning. That is way more polluting than cows and yet we demonize the eating of beef but not the building of these enormous cruise ships?

Who would even be the regulating body for how big you can build a ship? Seems like the only restriction would be if a port couldn’t accommodate the ship which doesn’t seem to be a problem yet.

Actually there are very few ports that can accommodate ships that size due to length and draft. I guess the cruise lines get around this by tendering passengers to port, but most passengers don’t like that since it cuts into their time ashore.

[sent]

Jan 26, 2024 8:08:14 GMT -5 @villainv said:

Jan 25, 2024 21:43:54 GMT -5 sent said:

Who would even be the regulating body for how big you can build a ship? Seems like the only restriction would be if a port couldn’t accommodate the ship which doesn’t seem to be a problem yet.

Actually there are very few ports that can accommodate ships that size due to length and draft. I guess the cruise lines get around this by tendering passengers to port, but most passengers don’t like that since it cuts into their time ashore.

It may just be intentional to not be able to go into too many ports - more people would stay on the ship because the shiny new modern ship is so fun and that means they will spend more $$$$. But the sheer excessiveness of it seems to be stupid. Just because we can build it doesn't mean we should. 

But money. I know.

[kath16]

pictures of those giant ships give me both megalophobia and claustrophobia at the same time.

[basilosaurus]

Jan 26, 2024 8:22:13 GMT -5 sent said:

Jan 26, 2024 8:08:14 GMT -5 @villainv said:

Actually there are very few ports that can accommodate ships that size due to length and draft. I guess the cruise lines get around this by tendering passengers to port, but most passengers don’t like that since it cuts into their time ashore.

It may just be intentional to not be able to go into too many ports - more people would stay on the ship because the shiny new modern ship is so fun and that means they will spend more $$$$. But the sheer excessiveness of it seems to be stupid. Just because we can build it doesn't mean we should. 

But money. I know.

I think length wise it's not a ton bigger than Oasis of the seas. Apparently changes in fuel and other innovations allowed it to also control the draft. I feel down a Reddit hole awhile back of people geeking about the tech and specs.

Ports can and do control the number of cruise ship passengers. Venice is probably the most notable, but they're not the only. I agree with the view keeping people on board means more money going to rci. On the few times I've cruised I rent my own car or arrange a driver/guide/dive boat on my own. I cannot imagine the chaos at ports with an extra thousand or 2 pax at disembarkation.

[DotAndBuzz]

I'm trying to envision a scenario in which I would purposefully place myself in the middle of the ocean with 8k other people.

Nope.

Cruises, at baseline, are immensely unappealing to me, for alllll sorts of reasons, but this? This is 8k more reasons.

[icedcoffee]

I'm surprised they went bigger because when I remember when Oasis came out and was the biggest they said they would not go bigger, but would go more elaborate on future ships.

I won't lie, we really enjoy these huge ships. I've never really thought too much about the environmental impact. This definitely gave me a lot to think about. I know cruising is a super polarizing subject in general, but it works very well for our family.

I'd be curious to see data on environmental impact of two 4,000 person ships versus one 8,000 person ships when all other factors are the same. Is it the same? More on the bigger ship?

I hang my towel up to reuse. LOL  

[Deleted]

Jan 26, 2024 12:52:54 GMT -5 icedcoffee said:

I'm surprised they went bigger because when I remember when Oasis came out and was the biggest they said they would not go bigger, but would go more elaborate on future ships.

I won't lie, we really enjoy these huge ships. I've never really thought too much about the environmental impact. This definitely gave me a lot to think about. I know cruising is a super polarizing subject in general, but it works very well for our family.

I'd be curious to see data on environmental impact of two 4,000 person ships versus one 8,000 person ships when all other factors are the same. Is it the same? More on the bigger ship?

I hang my towel up to reuse. LOL   :'(

This is what I was wondering as well. We sailed on Harmony of the Seas last year (which is only very slightly smaller than Icon) and we really enjoyed it. This was a cruise we originally planned in March of 2020 that we cancelled and re-booked three times before we finally went. We had a blast! At no point did the ship (which was nearly at capacity) feel crowded. There were fun activities for three generations. The ports were meh, but the ship was great.

We did another “cruise” for lack of a better term on a much smaller boat, maybe 120 passengers and crew. It was also a great trip, and was geared toward eco-tourism so they had a lot of green initiatives on board, but I think the carbon footprint per passenger was likely much higher.

[icedcoffee]

Jan 26, 2024 13:29:43 GMT -5 @villainv said:

Jan 26, 2024 12:52:54 GMT -5 icedcoffee said:

I'm surprised they went bigger because when I remember when Oasis came out and was the biggest they said they would not go bigger, but would go more elaborate on future ships.

I won't lie, we really enjoy these huge ships. I've never really thought too much about the environmental impact. This definitely gave me a lot to think about. I know cruising is a super polarizing subject in general, but it works very well for our family.

I'd be curious to see data on environmental impact of two 4,000 person ships versus one 8,000 person ships when all other factors are the same. Is it the same? More on the bigger ship?

I hang my towel up to reuse. LOL  

This is what I was wondering as well. We sailed on Harmony of the Seas last year (which is only very slightly smaller than Icon) and we really enjoyed it. This was a cruise we originally planned in March of 2020 that we cancelled and re-booked three times before we finally went. We had a blast! At no point did the ship (which was nearly at capacity) feel crowded. There were fun activities for three generations. The ports were meh, but the ship was great.

We did another “cruise” for lack of a better term on a much smaller boat, maybe 120 passengers and crew. It was also a great trip, and was geared toward eco-tourism so they had a lot of green initiatives on board, but I think the carbon footprint per passenger was likely much higher.

Yes--the mega ship we were on (Allure) felt much less crowded than lots of the the smaller ships we've been on.  Honestly, I hate people and never felt over-peopled.

And yeah--most of the ports for the bigger ships are meh because they can't dock in many ports.

[loira]

I live in a port city frequented by cruise ships. We have a bit of a love/hate relationship with them. Obviously they have become vital to the city's tourism industry, but there is also growing concern about the pollution they spew into our waters, where we have a struggling population of resident orcas (among other species negatively affected by the ships). The cruise ship passengers who visit also have a reputation of being terribly ill-mannered, which definitely tracks with my experience when I worked summer jobs in tourism. They were the WORST. Just rude beyond belief.

[wanderingback]

I’ve always thought cruises were very wasteful and refuse to go on one simply because of the environmental impact. It’s maddening that they’re making ships even bigger.

[Saudade]

How often do these ships run at actual full capacity? I’ve never been on one and have no desire. 8k is twice the size of the town I grew up in. It’s almost impossible for me to imagine

[icedcoffee]

Jan 26, 2024 15:21:37 GMT -5 Saudade said:

How often do these ships run at actual full capacity? I’ve never been on one and have no desire. 8k is twice the size of the town I grew up in. It’s almost impossible for me to imagine

The capacity for the Icon is 5,610 passengers at double occupancy or 7,800 at maximum occupancy.

@@7,800 is spring break when families are all cramming 4-6 people in their cabins.  It's probably closer to 5,610 for non peak times.

[spindle92]

My girlfriends and I were on the Oasis back in 2019 and they took a tour of the ship. (I went to the spa instead.)
From the pics they took, it was jaw-dropping to see the amount of power they were using just to do laundry and the amount of food that was being thrown out daily.

[neverfstop]

I'd be interested to see an analysis of the alternative to 8K people cruising. If they had all gone on vacation somewhere else - maybe having to fly vs. drive to port or fly directly to these islands. How about all these people cooking these meal individually vs. large dining area and the same for linens. We're usually taught to think consolidated is better for the environment, but it also seems really hard to imagine vs. environmental impact on this monstrosity. I'm not a huge cruise fan- but realize they have a good fit for many people in many situations on many different type of trips. It's not generally my first choice for a vacation, but it's a good way to vacation in some circumstances.

[fortnightlily]

Certainly if the cruising industry isn't going to fold any time soon (and it's not), I'd rather the companies be attempting to make their ships as energy and resource efficient as possible than just saying "f it" and run their ships on older more wasteful tech in perpetuity. But transitioning to a methane-spewing fuel as opposed to a carbon one, even as a transition step, doesn't seem like a win.

I'd also be interested in the question of if there's an efficiency vs density threshold, as others have mentioned. I've never been on a cruise, but I have lived in the DC suburbs, Los Angeles, and NYC. I'm used to constantly being surrounded by huge volumes of people anywhere I go, including when I travel. I've sat in plenty of sports/concert stadiums with capacities for tens of thousands of people.

[basilosaurus]

Jan 26, 2024 16:56:19 GMT -5 fortnightlily said:

Certainly if the cruising industry isn't going to fold any time soon (and it's not), I'd rather the companies be attempting to make their ships as energy and resource efficient as possible than just saying "f it" and run their ships on older more wasteful tech in perpetuity. But transitioning to a methane-spewing fuel as opposed to a carbon one, even as a transition step, doesn't seem like a win.

I'd also be interested in the question of if there's an efficiency vs density threshold, as others have mentioned. I've never been on a cruise, but I have lived in the DC suburbs, Los Angeles, and NYC. I'm used to constantly being surrounded by huge volumes of people anywhere I go, including when I travel. I've sat in plenty of sports/concert stadiums with capacities for tens of thousands of people.

Methane is still carbon based. It's CH4 (carbon plus hydrogen) and is mostly what lng is. It still breaks down into CO2 and water just like any other hydrocarbon. Octane, what you put in your car, is C8H18 (more carbon plus more hydrogen), but it's the same basic reaction with the same molecular components.

The concern with methane it seems is that it's getting released before combustion as purely waste prior to combustion of a potentially even more damaging gas than the CO2 that would be the result after.

Not to be all pedantic, and this is not a criticism of you, but I think it's important to point out that thinking "not carbon based" in reference to methane is a completely understandable reaction to the propaganda the energy industry has successfully perpetrated to maker people think they're so different.

[lilac05]

Jan 26, 2024 16:20:27 GMT -5 neverfstop said:

I'd be interested to see an analysis of the alternative to 8K people cruising. If they had all gone on vacation somewhere else - maybe having to fly vs. drive to port or fly directly to these islands. How about all these people cooking these meal individually vs. large dining area and the same for linens. We're usually taught to think consolidated is better for the environment, but it also seems really hard to imagine vs. environmental impact on this monstrosity. I'm not a huge cruise fan- but realize they have a good fit for many people in many situations on many different type of trips. It's not generally my first choice for a vacation, but it's a good way to vacation in some circumstances.

I was wondering this, too. Thinking about all of those people driving/taking an uber everywhere, still going on sightseeing trips, eating at restaurants, etc...what's the comparison there? Is cruising a LOT worse for the environment than staying local? Absolutely! It also impacts the environment differently as it has direct impacts on sea life. But how is it compared to other forms of travel when you consider how inclusive the carbon footprint is vs a plane, which only covers transportation to a place, but not travel within, dining, lodging, etc. I don't have the answers, but I don't think it's as clear cut as articles like this make it seem. 

(I haven't been on a cruise in 20+ years, so this is not coming from someone who now prefers this form of travel.)

[fortnightlily]

Jan 26, 2024 17:35:36 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

Jan 26, 2024 16:56:19 GMT -5 fortnightlily said:

Certainly if the cruising industry isn't going to fold any time soon (and it's not), I'd rather the companies be attempting to make their ships as energy and resource efficient as possible than just saying "f it" and run their ships on older more wasteful tech in perpetuity. But transitioning to a methane-spewing fuel as opposed to a carbon one, even as a transition step, doesn't seem like a win.

I'd also be interested in the question of if there's an efficiency vs density threshold, as others have mentioned. I've never been on a cruise, but I have lived in the DC suburbs, Los Angeles, and NYC. I'm used to constantly being surrounded by huge volumes of people anywhere I go, including when I travel. I've sat in plenty of sports/concert stadiums with capacities for tens of thousands of people.

Methane is still carbon based. It's CH4 (carbon plus hydrogen) and is mostly what lng is. It still breaks down into CO2 and water just like any other hydrocarbon. Octane, what you put in your car, is C8H18 (more carbon plus more hydrogen), but it's the same basic reaction with the same molecular components.

The concern with methane it seems is that it's getting released before combustion as purely waste prior to combustion of a potentially even more damaging gas than the CO2 that would be the result after.

Not to be all pedantic, and this is not a criticism of you, but I think it's important to point out that thinking "not carbon based" in reference to methane is a completely understandable reaction to the propaganda the energy industry has successfully perpetrated to maker people think they're so different.

Appreciate the correction!

[wanderingback]

Jan 26, 2024 17:36:44 GMT -5 lilac05 said:

Jan 26, 2024 16:20:27 GMT -5 neverfstop said:

I'd be interested to see an analysis of the alternative to 8K people cruising. If they had all gone on vacation somewhere else - maybe having to fly vs. drive to port or fly directly to these islands. How about all these people cooking these meal individually vs. large dining area and the same for linens. We're usually taught to think consolidated is better for the environment, but it also seems really hard to imagine vs. environmental impact on this monstrosity. I'm not a huge cruise fan- but realize they have a good fit for many people in many situations on many different type of trips. It's not generally my first choice for a vacation, but it's a good way to vacation in some circumstances.

I was wondering this, too. Thinking about all of those people driving/taking an uber everywhere, still going on sightseeing trips, eating at restaurants, etc...what's the comparison there? Is cruising a LOT worse for the environment than staying local? Absolutely! It also impacts the environment differently as it has direct impacts on sea life. But how is it compared to other forms of travel when you consider how inclusive the carbon footprint is vs a plane, which only covers transportation to a place, but not travel within, dining, lodging, etc. I don't have the answers, but I don't think it's as clear cut as articles like this make it seem. 

(I haven't been on a cruise in 20+ years, so this is not coming from someone who now prefers this form of travel.)

Per this article, the carbon footprint of cruising is worse than flying or a comparable land vacation.

8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-footprint-of-cruise-ships/#:~:text=But%20just%20how%20severe%20is,a%20traditional%20'land'%20vacation.

*I would have to do more research to see how reputable this specific website but lots of searches yield the general result that cruises have a bad carbon footprint as a type of vacation

[aprilsails]

It's the propulsion of that large of a vessel that is the problem. It's going to be chugging along slowly and just expending heaps of fuel to move that monstrosity.

I worked on a 100ft tall ship which weighed about 100 tonnes. Our engine was the same size as a semi truck, which are usually up to 40 tonnes. Our engine at full power could move our ship at 12 mph, while that semi could drive at 70 mph. Propellers are unfortunately just a really inefficient mode of propulsion.