Author Topic: Episode #722  (Read 1556 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Friendly Angel

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4561
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
Re: Episode #722
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2019, 04:37:36 PM »
It is sad to hear that the light pollution from a cruise ship prohibits star-gazing.

Before my nuke training, I did some time on a Destroyer - we would operate dark at night, and had vestibules with red lights at every exterior hatch so no light from inside the ship got out.  One time I went out on the deck to star gaze and there was a cruise ship a few miles away that looked like a floating Las Vegas - it was funny and a little obscene.  Maybe the cruise ship navigators knew we were there, I'm sure the passengers didn't.
Amend and resubmit.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9449
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #722
« Reply #16 on: May 14, 2019, 12:07:39 AM »
Them equating it to just a "floating hotel" was puzzling. They are usually sharper than that--even Jay.

The big cruise ships - the really big ones - are floating hotels. Actually they're more like floating arcologies. They have theatres and casinos and restaurants and coffee shops and swimming pools and bars. They have fifteen decks and it takes ten minutes to walk around the outside. I've been on two, and both have been fantastic experiences. But then again, I was with a great group of people.

It is sad to hear that the light pollution from a cruise ship prohibits star-gazing.
It'd be cool if some cruise ships would find some hours of the night to accommodate it somehow--especially with the historical connection between the stars and maritime navigation.

The ones I was on had areas on deck that were unlit and the sky was pretty clear.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3113
Re: Episode #722
« Reply #17 on: May 14, 2019, 05:06:49 AM »
They are floating hotels, which means no grid electricity, no aquifers, no sewer, and they have to spend a lot of energy to move all that mass around.

They have morgues.

Online Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13454
Re: Episode #722
« Reply #18 on: May 14, 2019, 09:45:14 AM »
They are floating hotels, which means no grid electricity, no aquifers, no sewer, and they have to spend a lot of energy to move all that mass around.

They have morgues.
I'd be surprised if it didn't take more energy to light the thing up and provide the amenities than it does to move the thing around.  Modern ships are remarkably efficient modes of transportation.  That is, if you're just going from one place to another. 

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3113
Re: Episode #722
« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2019, 12:45:33 PM »
I'd welcome anyone to go into the full details of it, all the energy expenditures, and comparing it to a range of alternative ways of holidaying.

What I can tell you is that, in my personal experience, land hotels don't move. And as far as I understand it, it's typically not a part of normal operations for a land hotel to move. Or to spend any energy on getting to where it wants to be. All they do is resist gravity, maybe an occasional earthquake or other natural events. They can move guests up and down inside the hotel, but they don't do it the other way around.

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9604
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #722
« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2019, 03:46:04 PM »
I'd welcome anyone to go into the full details of it, all the energy expenditures, and comparing it to a range of alternative ways of holidaying.

What I can tell you is that, in my personal experience, land hotels don't move. And as far as I understand it, it's typically not a part of normal operations for a land hotel to move. Or to spend any energy on getting to where it wants to be. All they do is resist gravity, maybe an occasional earthquake or other natural events. They can move guests up and down inside the hotel, but they don't do it the other way around.

A relevant comparison would be the energy cost of moving people in a cruise ship vs. the energy cost of moving people in a jetliner. Arguably we'd produce less carbon if nobody traveled except as needed for productive work. But I've taken enough airplane flights that it's likely my travel has damaged the environment more than Jay on his cruise. We expend energy and damage the environment with many of our recreational activities. The cruise-ship discussion is relevant only after we've calculated the energy costs of a range of such activities.

Speculation without figures is unskeptical.

And of course if you believe in carbon offsets you could buy those and make your cruise carbon neutral. (I actually have no idea whether carbon offsets are meaningful. That's a whole different issue, and I'd be happy to read about them in another thread.)
Daniel
----------------
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Online Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13454
Re: Episode #722
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2019, 04:00:30 PM »
daniel makes a good point.

Unless your vacation amounts to turning off all electricity and HVAC in your home then hanging out in your back yard eating salad, then it will likely have some negative environmental impact. 

Cruises have an obvious and local impact but its entirely plausible that the air travel from New England to where ever they cruise disembarked from and back had a greater carbon footprint than the the cruise itself.  In the absence of actual data were all just smugly speculating on how bad other peoples choices are. 

Also, a cruise ship is much more like a floating casino than a floating hotel.

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3113
Re: Episode #722
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2019, 04:12:20 PM »
There's a lot that's bad, but as I tried to make my key point, cruises are pure luxury. It's a ready-made category of something that should cost a lot more than it does to account for the damage that's done to the environment. And something we could ultimately do without, so we don't have to worry about taking it too far.

I'd also vote for stopping all expansions of airports unless there were exceptional reasons for it, and then we could work out which are the most useful flights to give preference over the tourism and whatever else, if some of it still needs to grow.

Online Friendly Angel

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4561
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
Re: Episode #722
« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2019, 08:17:47 PM »

Speculation without figures is unskeptical.


OK, here's the first figure:

Cunard QE2, for example, consumes daily 380 tons of fuel when traveling at 29 knots speed and carries fuel enough to sail for 12 days.

Except I doubt they do 29 knots most of the time, I'd guess that's their max, and about half of that is their cruising speed.
OK, divide the other figures to get gallons of fuel per passenger mile traveled and compare to airliners.

I think I'd like an Alaskan cruise, or a Euro river cruise....to see things you wouldn't otherwise;  not a Caribbean party cruise.
Amend and resubmit.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9449
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #722
« Reply #24 on: May 14, 2019, 08:58:08 PM »
Also, a cruise ship is much more like a floating casino than a floating hotel.

It's unlike both because it is self-contained. It has to carry all of its food, all of its energy, its waste, products for its stores, everything. Because once it's set sail, there's no contact with the mainland. That's why I called it an arcology.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3113
Re: Episode #722
« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2019, 10:28:25 AM »
This is exactly the sort of thing that shouldn't be happening.

Quote
'It would destroy it': new international airport for Machu Picchu sparks outrage

Peruvian archaeologists decry new airport that would carry tourists directly to already fragile Inca citadel

Among the Inca archeological sites that abound in Peru, none draw nearly as many tourists as the famed citadel of Machu Picchu. There were more than 1.5 million visitors in 2017, almost double the limit recommended by Unesco, putting a huge strain on the fragile ruins and local ecology.

Now, in a move that has drawn a mixture of horror and outrage from archaeologists, historians and locals, work has begun on clearing ground for a multibillion-dollar international airport, intended to jet tourists much closer to Machu Picchu .

Bulldozers are already scraping clear millions of tonnes of earth in Chinchero, a picturesque Inca town about 3,800 metres above sea level that is the gateway to the Sacred Valley. This area was once was the heartland of a civilisation that stretched from modern-day Colombia to Argentina, and in the 15th century was the world’s largest empire.

“This is a built landscape; there are terraces and routes which were designed by the Incas,” says Natalia Majluf, a Peruvian art historian at Cambridge University who has organised a petition against the new airport. “Putting an airport here would destroy it.”

At present most visitors to the valley come through Cusco airport, which has only one runway and is limited to taking narrow-bodied aircraft on stopover flights from Peru’s capital, Lima, and nearby cities such as La Paz, Bolivia.


Offline DevoutCatalyst

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
Re: Episode #722
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2019, 10:35:10 AM »
I hope there's a miniature golf course in case flights get delayed. Wouldn't want passengers to feel inconvenienced.

This is exactly the sort of thing that shouldn't be happening.

Quote
'It would destroy it': new international airport for Machu Picchu sparks outrage

Peruvian archaeologists decry new airport that would carry tourists directly to already fragile Inca citadel

Among the Inca archeological sites that abound in Peru, none draw nearly as many tourists as the famed citadel of Machu Picchu. There were more than 1.5 million visitors in 2017, almost double the limit recommended by Unesco, putting a huge strain on the fragile ruins and local ecology.

Now, in a move that has drawn a mixture of horror and outrage from archaeologists, historians and locals, work has begun on clearing ground for a multibillion-dollar international airport, intended to jet tourists much closer to Machu Picchu .

Bulldozers are already scraping clear millions of tonnes of earth in Chinchero, a picturesque Inca town about 3,800 metres above sea level that is the gateway to the Sacred Valley. This area was once was the heartland of a civilisation that stretched from modern-day Colombia to Argentina, and in the 15th century was the world’s largest empire.

“This is a built landscape; there are terraces and routes which were designed by the Incas,” says Natalia Majluf, a Peruvian art historian at Cambridge University who has organised a petition against the new airport. “Putting an airport here would destroy it.”

At present most visitors to the valley come through Cusco airport, which has only one runway and is limited to taking narrow-bodied aircraft on stopover flights from Peru’s capital, Lima, and nearby cities such as La Paz, Bolivia.


Offline gebobs

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 638
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Episode #722
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2019, 01:10:03 PM »
I got most of the data from here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport

Passenger-miles per gallon
Cruise ship...15
Jet aircraft...80-90
Train...450-500
Car...50 (2 passenger at 25 mpg)
Bus...230 (70% capacity)

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9604
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #722
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2019, 08:56:45 PM »
I got most of the data from here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport

Passenger-miles per gallon
Cruise ship...15
Jet aircraft...80-90
Train...450-500
Car...50 (2 passenger at 25 mpg)
Bus...230 (70% capacity)

Thank you.

Then we also have to consider that in a real sense, the cruise ship is both the transportation and the destination. If I fly to Tahiti and then stay at a fancy resort (which ships in supplies from very far away) am I that much better than Jay and his cruise?

My real point is that we do lots of things that are terribly wasteful and damaging to the environment. We have a tendency to ignore our own transgressions and point the finger at people whose transgressions are different from our own.

We should absolutely not be picking out one activity for criticism: We should be listing all the major ones. And then point no fingers unless nothing we do is on the list. So I point no fingers. I do what's good for the environment when it's convenient. (Electric car, solar on the roof, recycle.) But I also do stuff that hurts the environment. So I won't criticize Jay and his cruise. It definitely belongs on the bad list. Along with jet travel and driving a 4- or 6-passenger car with just one person in it. (I notice that in the above, Car is 50 miles per gallon per passenger for two passengers. How often do you see a car on the road with two people in it? 25% of the time? Suddenly Car is getting pretty close to Cruise Ship. And you seldom get served drinks with little umbrellas in them in your car.
Daniel
----------------
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3113
Re: Episode #722
« Reply #29 on: May 16, 2019, 04:19:25 AM »
I'm going to point out that I never mentioned Jay's name until just now, and I'm trying to focus on the activities rather than comparing specific individuals.

 

personate-rain
personate-rain