I just learned that the cruise liner QE 2 moves about six inches for each gallon of diesel it burns. Doncha feel better?
Dennis
I've always heard the the queen was fat, but I didn't realize how fat.
Probably cost about the same per mile. The QE II won't be paying all the fuel taxes that you do.
Marine Fuel is usually more expensive than Road fuel at the pump. I I can assure you that the Cost per gallon in GB is alot more than we pay.
now who knows what discount they get for buying millions of gallons a a shot
That's woprse than a diesel locomotive three-to four hallons per minute. or an RTS in New york City service 1.5 - 2.5 mpg
My first comment was, of course, sarcastic but the QE II diesels run on Bunker C (IF 380) which is about the same as the asphalt they use in pavement. It is sort of what is left over after they have refined and cracked everything useful out of the crude. Buying it by the millions of gallons, I expect it is pretty cheap.
Stan, i have not thought about Bunker C for many years. I worked for a oil/toxic spill clean up company when i was younger. As you know that stuff has to be kept very warm in order for it to flow. When the Great Lakes boat would spill that stuff, it would harden up pretty quick when it hit Lake Superior's 36 degree water. Clean up crews could pick up the oil "turds" from the water, but if they washed up on the beach and wamed in the sun, they would soften and sink down through the sand until they hit the water level and harden again. Nasty stuff! And i would think the QE does alright when you consider cost per passenger mile.
Yeah....if I could $afford$ a cruise on the QE2 the last thing on my mind would be the fuel comsumption. Bet that huge, beautiful vessel comsumes fuel at a most prodigous rate....even tied up!! :) :) :)
Cruise? To quote a friend of mine, "It's like being a prisoner on a floating Denny's."
Just got off 6 days. Thought more like floating Ryans. Never saw so many obese folks on one boat.
I don't know how the six inches per gallon figure came about, but I just refigured the power required to push that ship.
Using the reported 151,000 tons, 27.5 knots of speed and 15 horsepower hours per gallon, I got 16' 6' of travel per gallon to push her through the water. Then again, she might be more efficient than an 8V71.
She makes a nautical mile in a bit over two minutes and she would need to burn around 366 gallons per hour at cruising speed. I have no idea how much fuel she uses for other purposes.
For what it's worth.
Tom Caffrey
Quote from: pvcces on December 11, 2007, 08:49:37 PM
I don't know how the six inches per gallon figure came about, but I just refigured the power required to push that ship.
Using the reported 151,000 tons, 27.5 knots of speed and 15 horsepower hours per gallon, I got 16' 6' of travel per gallon to push her through the water. Then again, she might be more efficient than an 8V71.
She makes a nautical mile in a bit over two minutes and she would need to burn around 366 gallons per hour at cruising speed. I have no idea how much fuel she uses for other purposes.
For what it's worth.
Tom Caffrey
That's much closer than the six inches mentioned before - the official figure is actually 50 feet per gallon (British gallons presumably, which are 20% bigger than US gallons). The drivetrain of the QE2 is pretty modern, and therefore presumably efficient. It's actually diesel-electric, with nine MAN 9-cylinder 4-stroke diesels driving the generators. The engines run pretty much at a constant speed, but they can run as many or as few as are required at any one time. Cruising speed of 28.5 knots requires seven engines. Quite how efficient the mechanical - electrical - mechanical conversion is I don't know, but I guess it still works out to give the cheapest running costs.
The fuel is Bunker C - interesting the ship's previous steam engines also ran on Bunker C, but the current diesels use 35% less of it. The fuel is heated to 140'C before being sent to the engines.
Jeremy
Thanks, Jeremy, for the added detail.
Since the diesels could not produce twice as much power per gallon, they must have some hull and prop efficiencies that I am unaware of.
Tom Caffrey
I just looked at the Wikipedia entry for QEII and saw that there are two ships with a similar name. According to the entry, QE2 is twice the size of the QEII. It's the QEII that gets 50 fifty feet to the gallon, as far as I could see.
I think the fuel consumption of the QE2 might be quite a bit higher.
Tom Caffrey
Wow! I suppose things could be a whole lot worse! Somewhere I read that an Imperial 2 class Star Destroyer which is about 1 mile long and has a crew in the thousands consumes as much energy JUST jumping into hyperspace as an entire average cilivized planet uses in 100 years! And I thought it was expensive just to start and run my 1974 Crown Super Coach! I know I am crazy...the question is...am I crazy enough? He he he. :) :) :)
About 20 years ago, a friend had a Corsair F4U (the plane from the TV show "Baa Baa Black Sheep). Full throttle at sea level was 120 gal per hour! I told him I could MAYBE afford to taxi to the end of the runway, do my run-up and taxi back to the hangar. LOL Jack
Years ago (1997) I was on the Universe Explorer on a 2 week Alaska cruise. The ship was a steam turbine. Asked the engineer what the difference would be if it were a Diesel and he said round figures the Diesel would burn half the fuel. Then is when it dawned on me why steam isn't used anymore. Good Luck, TomC
Imagine the Milinum Falcon,old as it is,probably bad on emissions too.