Greenwashing

[Kendall James-Vargas]

Cruise ships are avoiding shore power due to costs. I find this so ironic! The industry's goal has been to become emission-free and now ships that are meant to use shore power are opting out. This doesn't seem right. What do you think? Cruise lines are charging guests more. Don't you think cruise guests expect a more sustainable cruise experience, even if it costs the cruise lines more? Aren't guests paying for a "greener" experience? 

https://www.cruisehive.com/cruise-ships-refrain-from-using-shore-power/115182

[kefthecruiser]

@Kendall James-Vargas I just gotta comment here. Any / all 'for profit' business will always go to the low cost option. Today, shore power is always more expensive than ship power. The industry goal is not to become emission free, it is to be net zero emissions by 2050. Use of shore power does not always lower emissions, it just relocates the air emission source from the ship to the power plant. And, a final point, most of a ship air emissions occurs as the ship travels from port to port.

What are people willing to pay for? I dunno, but I'll bet most cruisers care more about their drink package than where the electricity is coming from.

just my 2 cents

[Kendall James-Vargas]

@kefthecruiser I appreciate your feedback. That's such a great perspective on the use of shore power. The goal of attaining net zero emissions by 2050 doesn't necessarily have to include shore power. I see the use of shore power as a great way to achieve this goal, but if it's not the better fiscal choice, it's not a feasible solution to the problem of ship emissions. Modern-day cruise ships have this awesome capability of utilizing shore power. It's not necessarily a cheap feature to install this mechanism on a ship either. Why are ships continuing to be designed with this capability if it's not going to be used? I guess cruise lines are hopeful that at some point shore power will become more cost-effective.

Unfortunately, I think your statement on drink packages is really valid. The average cruiser likely values that over saving the planet. I happen to care for the planet and the purpose of attaining net zero emissions by 2050. At some point, I hope the majority of cruise guests grow to become more forward-thinking. 

[kefthecruiser]

@Kendall James-Vargas So, don't get me wrong - I completely endorse innovations that lower the carbon footprint. You raise the point about why are shore power facilities going forward if not cost effective? Simply stated, industrial nations have decreed its use to lower pollution levels at the ports. It is to transfer the emissions, which may or may not be lower, to the local utility facility. Government regulation at work!

True lowering of the carbon footprint that cruise lines have control over is to utilize lower carbon content or future, no carbon, content fuels. LNG is the lowest carbon content fossil fuel and there is a trend toward this fuel; methanol would be a second choice. Changing to either LNG or methanol increases the ship cost due to greater complexity and size of the fuel handling and storage systems. 

There is quite a bit of R&D going on today with producing and using hydrogen (no carbon!) as a fuel of choice. When burned, it produces water vapor. Hydrogen has many challenges to overcome before it becomes a viable fuel source. 

And then there's nuclear... not worth discussing!

It's all about tradeoffs and costs, all the cheap options are gone.

Oh well, where's that drink package when I need it?

[FJB]

I don’t want to pay for a greener experience -  Govt regs already cost us way more than they should!  I’m not convinced it’s needed.  

[kefthecruiser]

@FJB Well my friend, I'm sorry to say the last coal burning, ash spewing cruise liners have sailed into the sunset. Oil burning ships are lining up to follow. 

[SpaceCowboy9]

@FJB I'm with FJB on this.  The cruise lines already run a rather clean operation.  Throwing more money at it will just make cruising less affordable for little benefit.

[Kendall James-Vargas]

@FJB That's an interesting perspective. I value your feedback here. I agree that prices are becoming inflated in part due to the promise of becoming more green. I'm torn because I believe in the purpose of reducing emissions, but as the cruise costs keep going up, and then I read cruise ships aren't even utilizing shore power, I am becoming conflicted. The whole purpose of having shore power capability is for it to be used; otherwise, what is the point? 

@SpaceCowboy9 The cost-to-benefit ratio is a bit daunting. I wish it wasn't so, but the ships that are supposed to tap into those "benefits" aren't even doing so. Your perspective holds a lot of weight. It makes me question my stance on the topic.