Life at Sea Cruises, a three-year cruise around the world, was canceled just two weeks before it was supposed to sail from Amsterdam.

Passengers who booked trips have been told refunds will be issued in monthly installments

…

Life at Sea Cruises’ first three-year sailing was announced in March and promised passengers willing to fork out at least $29,999 per year

  • psmgx@lemmy.world
    532·
    11 months ago

    The problem isn’t the ships it’s the insane amount of diesel they suck down. We already run giant ships powered by nuclear reactors.

    • Burninator05@lemmy.world
      44·
      11 months ago

      Honest question: do the use diesel? A lot of big ships when they are not in a nation’s waters burn bunker oil which is significantly worse.

      • towerful@programming.dev
        8·
        11 months ago

        While googling this, it seems like there is an international cap on marine fuels for 0.5% sulphur.
        https://www.cruisemapper.com/wiki/752-cruise-ship-engine-propulsion-fuel
        A lot of ports and shipping areas require 0.1% sulphur content.

        A lot of places I’ve read say things along the lines of “cruise ships run on diesel, specifically MDO or MGO”.
        E.g.
        https://luxurytraveldiva.com/what-does-a-cruise-ship-use-for-fuel/

        Here’s a thing about MDO and MGO.
        https://maritimepage.com/what-are-mgo-and-mdo-fuels-marine-fuels-explained/
        MGO is 0.1% sulphur content.
        MDO is 2% sulphur content.
        For comparison, car diesel sulphur content is like 0.001%.
        Best source I can find for bunker fuel is 3.5%. So, MDO/MGO are better than bunker fuel, I guess. Feels like a rebrand with minor improvements, so everyone can say “yeh, it’s just diesel. Not bunker fuel”.

        But 2% MDO is still a 40% improvement over 3.5% bunker fuel.

        Seems like there is a lot of changing and outdated information on this.
        And it being related to international trading, laws and standards… There doesn’t seem to be a reliable definitive source on it.

        My takeaway is “yeh, it’s not bunker fuel. It’s diesel. But it’s not diesel as we know it from driving cars, trucks, tractors and other plant”