Tue 21 Mar 2023 22:00
https://www3.fremantleports.com.au/VTMIS/dashb.ashx?db=fmp.public&btn=CruiseShips
Also Queen Elizabeth coming on the 27th November derp.
Fuck these cruise ships. Some of them shoot out more greenhouse gases than some countries, all so a bunch of rich boomers can buy tacky souvenirs from places.
Lol don't be ageist now! There's a shitton of bogan families that use mega cruise ships as a big floating pissup, with their value "drink packages" and fun activities and waterparks for the kids
Agree though, the cruise industry is very dirty in more ways than one..
Sadly no! I went on a short cruise! This line, the cruise had to last at least 5 nights to qualify for said package! I had to endure the waiters chasing me and asking every 10 mins if I'd like a drink.
Bloody hell! I was thinking a few hunge for the whole trip! Back in the golden age of cruising, before sloppy drunken passengers, the drinks were on the house.
This is legit the argument from those crackhead "sovereign citizens" in the viral video the other day where the cop rips out their window. "We're not driiiiiving we're travveeeliing" fkn geezers
>Some of them shoot out more greenhouse gases than some countries,
no they don't. [They emit more particulate matter than some countries,](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/04/26/cruise-ship-pollution-is-causing-serious-health-and-environmental-problems/?sh=5b3d9c137db3)but not greenhouse gasses.
One person flying economy class return from Sydney to London via Singapore is responsible for 1.74 tonnes of CO2. The average cruise ship passenger emitted 0.83 tonnes of CO2-equivalent just for their cruise.
Do you have a reference for that? From my reading ships produce a huge amount of particulate matter pollution because they use dirty fuel, but in terms of GHG shipping is one of the most efficient methods of transport.
Part of the problem is all these large ships once in international waters basically switch to burning crude oil for fuel due to cost. The emission on this is ridiculous
We need to transport cargo. We don’t need tourists.
Here’s a good report for you to read -
“The results show that the luxury cruise brands owned by Carnival Corporation & PLC emitted in 2017 in European seas alone 10 times more cancer-causing sulphur dioxide than all of Europe’s 260+ million passenger vehicles.”
https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/one-corporation-pollute-them-all/
That quote is aligned with the point I’m making. Ships emit a lot of sulphur and particulate pollution, not greenhouse gases. These are localised pollutants, which is why ships can get away with releasing them out at sea. Fun fact: sulphur dioxide causes locally increased atmospheric albedo and actually causes local cooling because of it. The current massive loss of ice in the arctic is thought to be related to the decrease in shipping in the northern hemisphere during covid.
As to whether we don’t need to transport tourists, I think a lot of local tourism businesses would disagree with you, but even if you genuinely wanted to take that position, you’d aim to shut down air travel first.
No - but it wouldn't be that much worse either would it? (in fuel-consumption terms - I don't know the details well enough to compare other factors like the fuel quality, altitude etc)
Interesting question, in terms of the transport aspect alone definitely air travel would be many times less carbon efficient, but people are on cruise ships for a long time and the ship itself would use a lot of energy for all the facilities on board. Even so, I’d bet they’re more efficient than planes.
>in terms of the transport aspect alone definitely air travel would be many times less carbon efficient
I don't think that's true. It's hard to find solid numbers on cruise ships, as opposed to aviation which has quite readily available info (perhaps in part because each ship is either a unique or significantly customised design). From what little I could find, they're pretty similar on a fuel-use-per-passenger-kilometre basis. I think calling cruise ships more efficient than passenger aircraft is a pretty major stretch, but if you have any solid numbers on the ship side in particular, I'd be interested to see them.
I don’t have numbers, I am assuming based on the pure physics of the two scenarios
In one case you are lifting a relatively small number of people 1000s of metres up in the air and moving them at 100s of km per hour
In the other you are slowly pushing a large number of people over the surface of the ocean
It seems fairly obvious that one of these methods requires vastly more energy per passenger kilometre than the other. Is there something about this calculation that seems wrong to you?
It seems fairly obvious until you take into account the vehicles themselves. One of them is carrying a huge amount of unnecessary or necessitated-by-time-underway stuff - people, space, equipment, stores and so on, and moving them through a much denser fluid, using a less energy-dense fuel. Airliners are optimised for moving people, cruise ships are not.
I'm perfectly willing to believe (and would be surprised were it not the case) that moving a kilo of freight from A to B by air is significantly less fuel efficient than doing it via sea, but that's not the discussion.
Yes, maybe. The cruise ship involves moving lots of extra weight which is not the humans themselves. My guess is that would not be enough to outdo the high energy requirements of air travel, based on the fact that moving things by water is generally incredibly cheap energetically, but you’re right that it shouldn’t be assumed.
Majestic Princess in port tomorrow (22 Mar). I'm cruising from Adelaide to Fremantle next month aboard Pacific Explorer, departing Adelaide 3rd April, arriving at Fremantle 8th April then going on a 3 night comedy cruise May 5. bit.ly/Cruises-From-Fremantle have some good last minute deals.
Check out the harbor cam.
Zoom in, there's topless sunbathers by the pool on the top front deck.
https://www.fremantleports.com.au/the-port/harbourcams/cantonment-hill-harbourcam
Awesome shot.
it's off the live cam. https://www.fremantleports.com.au/the-port/harbourcams/victoria-quay-harbourcam
A live cam just floating 200 meters in the air hey?
sorry, i am wrong, photo is facing the mainland whereas the live cams are facing the ocean, my bad.
Nice. Anyone know how long she berths here? I’d probably take the kids for a drive to ~~get Covid~~ see the ship size.
Tue 21 Mar 2023 22:00 https://www3.fremantleports.com.au/VTMIS/dashb.ashx?db=fmp.public&btn=CruiseShips Also Queen Elizabeth coming on the 27th November derp.
> Also Queen Elizabeth coming on the 27th ...of November, just to clarify for anyone making plans for Monday!
And to further clarify, Queen Elizabeth the ship not her exhumed remains.
Oh yea that includes me haha thanks
Incoming West headline "Will it be Queen or Typhoid Mary docking in Fremantle?"
Fuck these cruise ships. Some of them shoot out more greenhouse gases than some countries, all so a bunch of rich boomers can buy tacky souvenirs from places.
Lol don't be ageist now! There's a shitton of bogan families that use mega cruise ships as a big floating pissup, with their value "drink packages" and fun activities and waterparks for the kids Agree though, the cruise industry is very dirty in more ways than one..
Value drink packages? Have you seen how expensive those packages are?
Sadly no! I went on a short cruise! This line, the cruise had to last at least 5 nights to qualify for said package! I had to endure the waiters chasing me and asking every 10 mins if I'd like a drink.
[удалено]
Bloody hell! I was thinking a few hunge for the whole trip! Back in the golden age of cruising, before sloppy drunken passengers, the drinks were on the house.
[удалено]
Sounds like a good cruise to me!
It’s not a cruise ship- it’s an ocean liner
Yeah, and I didn't just drive home from work, I "travelled" home from work. Does that mean I can stop paying rego now? /S
This is legit the argument from those crackhead "sovereign citizens" in the viral video the other day where the cop rips out their window. "We're not driiiiiving we're travveeeliing" fkn geezers
>Some of them shoot out more greenhouse gases than some countries, no they don't. [They emit more particulate matter than some countries,](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/04/26/cruise-ship-pollution-is-causing-serious-health-and-environmental-problems/?sh=5b3d9c137db3)but not greenhouse gasses. One person flying economy class return from Sydney to London via Singapore is responsible for 1.74 tonnes of CO2. The average cruise ship passenger emitted 0.83 tonnes of CO2-equivalent just for their cruise.
Do you have a reference for that? From my reading ships produce a huge amount of particulate matter pollution because they use dirty fuel, but in terms of GHG shipping is one of the most efficient methods of transport.
Part of the problem is all these large ships once in international waters basically switch to burning crude oil for fuel due to cost. The emission on this is ridiculous
They burn bunker fuel which produces a lot of sulphur and particulate matter. It doesn’t produce very much more co2 afaik.
Not true. Most cruise ships are diesel electric and use low sulphur diesel to drive the gen sets.
Ok, so not exceptionally bad from either a local pollution or ghg point of view
Nearly identical. But only on CO2
I think u/2007kawasakiz1000 is confused between ghg emissions and other types of pollution
So all ships then?
That maybe applies to cargo, but definitely not to ferrying around tourists.
Do you think flying the tourists around in aeroplanes would be better from a carbon emissions perspective?
We need to transport cargo. We don’t need tourists. Here’s a good report for you to read - “The results show that the luxury cruise brands owned by Carnival Corporation & PLC emitted in 2017 in European seas alone 10 times more cancer-causing sulphur dioxide than all of Europe’s 260+ million passenger vehicles.” https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/one-corporation-pollute-them-all/
That quote is aligned with the point I’m making. Ships emit a lot of sulphur and particulate pollution, not greenhouse gases. These are localised pollutants, which is why ships can get away with releasing them out at sea. Fun fact: sulphur dioxide causes locally increased atmospheric albedo and actually causes local cooling because of it. The current massive loss of ice in the arctic is thought to be related to the decrease in shipping in the northern hemisphere during covid. As to whether we don’t need to transport tourists, I think a lot of local tourism businesses would disagree with you, but even if you genuinely wanted to take that position, you’d aim to shut down air travel first.
No - but it wouldn't be that much worse either would it? (in fuel-consumption terms - I don't know the details well enough to compare other factors like the fuel quality, altitude etc)
Interesting question, in terms of the transport aspect alone definitely air travel would be many times less carbon efficient, but people are on cruise ships for a long time and the ship itself would use a lot of energy for all the facilities on board. Even so, I’d bet they’re more efficient than planes.
>in terms of the transport aspect alone definitely air travel would be many times less carbon efficient I don't think that's true. It's hard to find solid numbers on cruise ships, as opposed to aviation which has quite readily available info (perhaps in part because each ship is either a unique or significantly customised design). From what little I could find, they're pretty similar on a fuel-use-per-passenger-kilometre basis. I think calling cruise ships more efficient than passenger aircraft is a pretty major stretch, but if you have any solid numbers on the ship side in particular, I'd be interested to see them.
I don’t have numbers, I am assuming based on the pure physics of the two scenarios In one case you are lifting a relatively small number of people 1000s of metres up in the air and moving them at 100s of km per hour In the other you are slowly pushing a large number of people over the surface of the ocean It seems fairly obvious that one of these methods requires vastly more energy per passenger kilometre than the other. Is there something about this calculation that seems wrong to you?
It seems fairly obvious until you take into account the vehicles themselves. One of them is carrying a huge amount of unnecessary or necessitated-by-time-underway stuff - people, space, equipment, stores and so on, and moving them through a much denser fluid, using a less energy-dense fuel. Airliners are optimised for moving people, cruise ships are not. I'm perfectly willing to believe (and would be surprised were it not the case) that moving a kilo of freight from A to B by air is significantly less fuel efficient than doing it via sea, but that's not the discussion.
Yes, maybe. The cruise ship involves moving lots of extra weight which is not the humans themselves. My guess is that would not be enough to outdo the high energy requirements of air travel, based on the fact that moving things by water is generally incredibly cheap energetically, but you’re right that it shouldn’t be assumed.
It’s almost as if 2600 people in one place will have an environmental impact…
Geez, I hope that terminal has been renovated...
Nope, still looks like a sheep shed.
This is great news I was starting to think I'd never get covid.
Majestic Princess in port tomorrow (22 Mar). I'm cruising from Adelaide to Fremantle next month aboard Pacific Explorer, departing Adelaide 3rd April, arriving at Fremantle 8th April then going on a 3 night comedy cruise May 5. bit.ly/Cruises-From-Fremantle have some good last minute deals.
www.cruisesfromfremantle.com.au
Everybody brace for a surge in every single communicable illness. Cruise ships are plague pits.
LOL
Check out the harbor cam. Zoom in, there's topless sunbathers by the pool on the top front deck. https://www.fremantleports.com.au/the-port/harbourcams/cantonment-hill-harbourcam
M…mum?
I thought it was her!
wow that website is so annoying. newsflash to these guys, if I want the camera to move I'll fucking move it
It's a bit shit. I think it takes a single still pic every 10 mins or so and then pans the stored picture.
Do they dump the effluent straight in the Swan? or do they wait until they're out front of Scarbs etc. What a cool industry
You think this is sailing up the Swan? Bahahahahah
went and had a look before it left