I think Stan said it best in regards to composition and light, but I'll try to be a bit more specific about your pictures.
What are you trying to show? This is the most important question to ask yourself before clicking the shutter. If you don't know, or don't address it, the audience won't know either and the picture will look sortof "pointless".
Your top picture is a good example of this. Is the point the grand scenery in the background, the ship in the foreground, the clouds above the scenery, something else? Note that 2/3 of the frame was devoted to the clouds, but they don't appear to be what you are trying to show.
If the point was the ship, then give it more attention. If the point was the grand scenery in the back, then the ship in front is a serious distraction and source of confusion. Grand scenery is one of the hardest things to capture, since depth and scale and overwhelmingness are really hard to portray in a small rectangle taking up maybe 30° of your vision. A ship or some other known object in the foreground can give a sense of scale to the rest, but you can't let it become clutter or a distraction. A ship in the corner of a picture might give perspective to the grandeur of a large fiord. That would have required a higher and further away vantage point, which possibly was inaccessible to you. Sometimes it just can't be done in a satisfying way.
Not all things you see can be captured and conveyed in a small rectangle to give others the feelings you felt when looking at the original. Sometimes good photography is knowing when to walk away. But, in this digital age of rechargable batteries and rewritable memory cards, you can sometimes give it a try to see where the limits are.
To show even more concretely what I am talking about, here is a small snippet of your top picture that has a totally different feel from the whole:
I'm trying to show this as example of using a known object in the foreground to provide scale for something large and grand in the background. Asthetically I don't like the light poles, or the ship for that matter, so I would have looked for a different vantage point or skipped the picture altogether. However, this still illustrates the concept. We have a intuitive idea of the size of the ship. The mountains clearly being off in the distance but still looming over this known object creates a sense of scale that is hard to capture without the foreground reference.
I also adjusted the color balance to make the white parts of the ship white. Note that this causes the snow on the mountain to be a bit bluish, which is another visual cue our brains use to interpret something as far away.
I see you've been having some discussion with Stan about shadows. In the snippet of your picture I posted above, take a look at the base of the mountain above and to the right of the middle light pole in the picture. Notice how the mountain has folds or "fingers" as it flattens out towards the coastal plain. Those shapes are barely visible because the lighting is so even.
If the lighting had been coming more sideways along the mountain, then the folds and ridges from these fingers would stand out more, and probably make a more interesting picture. The tops of the ridges would be well lit, and the ravines between the ridges would be more shadowed. This would give our brains more cues for decoding the inherently 2D image to imagine the original 3D scene. In many cases, and I think this one, that would make for a "better" picture for what (I think) you are trying to show.
Of course in this case you had no way to control the light. As I said before, sometimes you just have to walk away.
If you have regular access to this area, try coming back and taking the same picture from the same vantage point on different days and different times of the day and with different weather conditions. The point here is not to try to make great pictures, but a exercise that will give you a sense for how varying lighting changes a picture and what lighting conditions you think the picture looks better with.