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.

[Cruising Caribbean]

@kefthecruiser I have never heard of greenwashing until now. It's quite appalling how cruise lines go the extra mile to have this shore power capacity, boasting about how it's the best option and then not even utilizing it! It's such a double standard. What is the point of shore power then? I don't like the false advertisement and all the hype around having this amazing technology. If it's not going to be utilized, it's a waste of time, energy (the big one), and money. 

@FJB I see what you are saying, but then what is up with all the hype on shore power? Is it all just propaganda? If cruise lines aren't willing to pay the cost of shore power then why invest in the technology to begin with? That's just hypocritical. 

[Seaawgs]

If shore power is generated by a nuclear power plant, it is "greener". Otherwise,  a fossil fuel powered plant would be neutral at best. Like most green initiatives, costs far outweigh benefits for the sake of perception. One good result from shore power would be a lack of exhaust smell on deck while the ship is docked. It's likely shore power is a local cash cow dressed in "green".

[Kendall James-Vargas]

@Seaawgs Is that statement true? Is shore power fueled by nuclear energy? I didn't even know that was an option! My knowledge of nuclear energy is very limited so I would love for you to expand on this topic a bit further. From my understanding, most cruise shore-power ships are fueled by a fossil fuel-powered plant. I believe the soot output that can be emitted from ships is pretty much eliminated when using shore power. I never thought of shore power as a local cash cow dressed in "green," but now that I'm becoming more educated on the topic this statement sounds plausible. 

[Seaawgs]

@Kendall James-Vargas I doubt it.  Nuclear,  over time, winds up being greener than other forms of heat source necessary to generate large amounts of electricity. Potential mishandling and disposal of spent material make its use problematic in less structured countries. "Greener" is a buzzword being used to further shakedown cruise companies. Add requiring use of shore power to the growing list of taxes and fees being levied against the cruise industry. If Cayman's new proposal takes hold, cruise companies will have to draw a line. 

[Kendall James-Vargas]

@Seaawgs From what I know about nuclear energy, it is extremely dangerous. I would imagine it would be very hazardous to work with, but I'm not an expert in that field of study. Everything is supposed to be greener, but I have a hard time believing that greener is always better. I support the vision and philosophy of making our world a better and safer place. Taking care of the earth is undoubtedly important! I learned things like this greenwashing dilemma and I question if it's the best outcome for our world. If the cost-benefit ratio is a pretty even split, I don't know if this shore power implementation is a good choice moving forward. The taxes and fees associated are another huge factor here. You bring up some great points!