Why Container Ships Got Huge
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 май 2024
- In July 2021, Evergreen Marine took possession of the world's biggest container ship: the Ever Ace.
Built for Taiwan-based Evergreen Marine, the ship is as long as the Empire State Building is tall from bottom floor to roof.
With a carrying capacity of 23,992 twenty-foot-equivalent units or TEU, these Evergreen A-class megaships take the record - set just the previous year - from HMM's Algeciras-class ships.
It can hold 10% more cargo than the infamous Ever Given, that one ship that got stuck in the Suez Canal.
These ships herald a new era of ultra-large container ships. And it is a bit of a surprising trend. What is pushing these container ships to get bigger? And is there anything keeping them from getting even bigger down the line?
Links:
- The Asianometry Newsletter: asianometry.com
- Patreon: / asianometry
- The Podcast: anchor.fm/asianometry
- Twitter: / asianometry
A largely automated present-day container ship can carry more tons than the merchant fleet of an entire early modern kingdom. In 1582, the English merchant fleet had a total carrying capacity of 68,000 tons and required about 16,000 sailors. The container ship OOCL Hong Kong, christened in 2017, can carry some 200,000 tons while requiring a crew of only 22.
Source: Yuval Noah Harari, Financial Times
fun fact... china produces more coal every year than england produced in the whole of the 1950s their peak decade... things just scale up like that man... modern technology enables it
@@LoneWolf-wp9dn China also used more concrete in 3 years than America did in the whole 20th century
Interesting. The guy behind that quote is creepy as all hell
It requires money to make money this is the best secret I have ever heard we don’t make money we make multiple money.
Interesting. I have a lump sum doing absolutely nothing at all in my bank account, I wanna get something started with it, any reasonable ideal?
My crypto mentor Mr Andrew Jordan, you may have come across him on a few interviews I invested $3000 last two weeks and it profited me $11,410 a higher success.
I’ve been trading crypto with Mr Andrew Jordan for over a year now and I've made about a whooping profit of $86,000 in crypto its not much but I'm ok with the progress since i now make a whole lot from the comfort of my bed.
please 🙏 tell me how i can contact Mr Andrew Jordan I've lost alot of money trying to trade on my own😭
😷😷⍭１２１３３４０５４６１☜☜༎ຶ ෴ ༎ຶ
A reason why big ships keep being more efficient per volume transported is that they benefit from the square qube law. As their external surface area increases with the square power, the internal volumes scales with the qube. There is a point where this stops, because all that extra space needs to be occupied by structural reinforcements.
I wonder if the same applies to aircraft, but I do know that in the Wind turbine industry, going big brings massive economies of scale with every new generation getting larger and larger. For example Enercon's new E160 turbine is 160m diameter 74% larger than the older E2-92 with 92m diameter, but generates 175% more power 5.5MW vs 2MW respectively. So going with one larger turbine is cheaper than going with 2 smaller ones.
@@tonamiplayman4305 Aircraft suffer from having to cary their weight. So it still aplies but the lift drag does increase with volume. I think there are some benefits with being large, because it is easier to make designs that generate lift efficiently. But you are also forced to carry more fuel and bigger engines.
@@tonamiplayman4305 It only applies to aircraft in so far as the weight carried by each square meter of wing surface is relatively fixed (and quite strongly limited to values only slightly above what is already used, by the runway length required to get up to a speed where the air can carry the plane), and the things you want to transport have some particular density in the arrangement you want/have to use when transporting them.
If you are small or your cargo has a low bulk density, you may not be able to fit enough cargo in a reasoably-sized fuselage to even reach the limits of practical wing loading at liftoff. But if you're large and your cargo is dense, say you're transporting steel coils (looks like an oversized toilet paper roll, though usually with a bigger hole in the center; kept in shape by some straps going through the center and tied together on the outside) (bulk steel has a density about 8x that of water, the cylindrical shape and center hole of the coils reduces bulk density to probably about 3x), you may have a partially empty fuselage because it's easier to make it stiff with the larger diameter, and the additional volume makes you more flexible if you were to be tasked with different cargo.
also, bigger ships go faster easly, search in youtube "why bigger ships go faster?"
The fact that the ports were forced to shoulder the cost of upgrading costs to handle larger ships is sufficient proof that the shipping alliances operate as an oligopoly. When you have very few buyers or sellers, the lack of competition by itself results in price control via signaling. I work with that all the time.
Good video as always. Thank you.
I do feel you missed a couple of details.
- Maersk run their own ports and have parts in others, so it is part of what pushed the whole port business to support the big ships.
- Also on Maersk, they have a few mid-size ships being build that are meant to run green fuel as in something power-to-x based. And they have let it be know they have customers willing to help fund it, simply put those customers want to boost their green image and are willing to pay extra for shipping.
Great to know more about where the oil / fuel comes from and how it's traded - and how the current fuel supply issues in many countries will affect costs/operations etc. Fascinating vid as always - thanks
While I am not an expert in the bunkering (fuel that ship uses) industry, the main bunkering ports/ hubs are Shanghai, Singapore, Rotterdam, Fujairah.
Semiconductor manufacturing machines are getting taller for similar reasons, their footprints can’t change, so to increase throughput they have to get taller. Just like how the ships must fit through canals, so the must get taller
Interesting
I'm just amazed by the breadth of topics you're able to cover!
The assertion that the alliances don’t engage in price fixes is laughable on its face. By manipulating supply of shipping capacity and docking capacity they are effectively colluding to alter the price in there favor. I would not be surprised if they are also fixi by the price and hiding it as many large market dominators in oligopolies have done throughout history. As they become more powerful they will become more blatant about using that power manipulate price of shipping or constrain supply of shipping.
This is why people like you need to actually look up economics. I think you are alluding to a robber baron type of scheme, spoiler alert, those never work, unless there is government intervention, a monopoly never lasts.
Point at any monopoly or oligopoly that has lasted for a long time that we have right now, i guarantee you, each and every one of them has lasted because of government intervention.
ruclips.net/video/m7VsuqtrxIM/видео.html
This is an excellent video that goes into this.
It is costing 10000$ per 40ft container today from China to US.
That's like 80 million per trip.
Current prices are not sustainable. It costs just 200 million to make a brand new one.
The extreme volatility in shipping rates disproves any claims of price fixing.
Wow. So much in one video. I wish I were an academic again and could pursue this as case studies. The decreasing cost of freight is the elephant in the room; seemingly boring, but so important as globalisation increases.
I would be interested in a video on how the American domestic transport industry works. Their trucks don't seem to have changed much in decades. In Australia, B-doubles are common, with two trailers rather than one. Even with conventional truck trailers, Australian trucks have an extra axle, so 6 vs 5. The USA trucking industry seems very fragmented with a lot of inertia to change. It doesn't seem to have changed much from the east to west shipping when Europe dominated decades ago, to the west to east shipping with most trade coming from Asia. Similarly, it seems strange there are so few big ports on the west coast of the USA and then mainly in space-constrained innercity LA. Then there is the rail system too.
Another comment was on the book, "The Box" on the history of shipping containers. Very good on the early history, but even the second edition does not cover the last two decades very well as containers have continued to dramatically cut international transport costs. However, as I noted earlier, I am not sure domestic transport has progressed much. Australia is still struggling. The USA seems even more regulated and inefficient. China seems to be leaping even further ahead with the development of its extensive domestic and international rail systems.
Rail seems to be entering yet another boom time to replace trucks and ships. The iron ore trains in Australia's northwest are moving to automation and remote control to cut costs further.
A big part of that is that despite having crappy passenger rail we also have one of the most extensive and effective freight rail systems in the world so as I understand a lot of freight including that coming in by la gets put on trains
@@legokill1019 The United States doesn't really need passenger rail that much due to an excellent system of interstate highways and a widespread network of regional airports. However in countries like China, where about 80 pc of the domestic airspace is reserved for the air force, air travel becomes costly due to longer zigzagging routes and hence passenger rail is a necessity in these countries.
@@legokill1019 I am not sure the USA rail system is "the most extensive and effective freight rail systems in the world". That might have been true 20 years ago but I doubt it now. China has 40000 km of high-speed rail and extensive networks domestically and internationally. I suspect domestic freight is holding the USA back and not improved in decades. People outside the USA see the old-style truck trailers that haven't changed for 40 years.
@@drewwollin3462
US rail for cargo is the best I believe. China leads for passenger rail by far.
the dumb part about containerization is the new ports partly because of the rail line's inability to adapt, and partly again by the need to union bust, were often not built with rail in mind, so even if a container ultimately gets on a train it has to be offloaded onto a truck to be reloaded onto a train instead of just going from the yard to a train and the same thing at the other end, they can't offload trains into the container yards and while this has been a problem for decades its not changing any time soon
Besides physical constraints, it seems to me that ship size would also be limited by insurability. One mishap with 30k TEUs sinking to the bottom of the sea would bankrupt company(s).
Plot twist: Its so people on the internet can make questionable memes when one happens to get stuck.
The Box is a fantastic book on this topic, reading it right now so yet another coincidental upload.
Thanks. Details: The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger, Second Edition 2016
Another great video from Asianometry! Keep up the good work!
This always raises the question of why nuclear container ships haven't caught on.
Surely a company like evergreen could commission one, strongarm a few ports into accepting nuclear ships and displace a lot of space needed for fuel to instead carry more containers, not to mention speed advantages.
safety and paranoia most probably
@@sanjikaneki6226 mostly nonsense from the idiots at greenpeace who want to completely get rid of nuclear everywhere
@@sanjikaneki6226 Mostly paranoia. In fact, it's 100 % paranoia.
I look forward for you to talking about Evergreen.
I was going to Taiwan last week and I found out that this Giant have a lot of business in Taiwan.
KitKat's break along their length. "Bend like a Snickers Duo" would've been better.
Not bad, 👍
Excellent video. Thanks for it!
They be just going wider, bolting two of these ships togehter, side by side.
The discussion about the emissions and the expense of alternatives is an interesting one.
On the one hand, you have giant ships carrying oil, gas, ore, and other low price but high volume resources. Any increase in shipping costs would have a dramatic effect on the cost of, practically, everything.
On the other hand, you also have similar giant ships carrying around often valuable containers -- high cost, low volume. The cost of shipping a PS5, a diesel generator, or Nike sneakers, is relatively tiny. Increase that by even 50%, and some retailers will probably just reduce their margins. Not to mention, most of the cost of shipping is accrued in the final stages -- overland shipping and final delivery.
Personally, I wouldn't mind slightly larger shipping costs for stuff that is already expensive (tech, clothing, furniture, etc.) to fund the adoption of cleaner container ships. All the while keeping shipping costs for raw resources low, in order not to hinder international supply chains, trade, and manufacturing.
I love your videos, your videos are about things that I did never thought about.
Always happy to find one of your video I didn't watched yet ! :)
Trains are also getting so long that if they have to stop for signal, track and car issues than there tends to be extra risk to stopping the train. Bigger ships more pressure for bigger trains.
Great video as usual!! Just a thought , you could do better if you change the title like "how ships got bigger"!!
Unless there's some radical innovation in how to move cargo off ships I think we have to be approaching the maximum economical size of these ships. Already the biggest ones are extremely limited in the routes they can take and the ports that can even accommodate them. A lot of major ports have already fallen behind in making the necessary upgrades to accommodate these newest classes of ship and I highly doubt they're really eager to do even more.
Not to mention that extreme globalization was already being placed under a microscope by policy makers all across the world after the 2020 pandemic, and though it has seemingly has weathered that storm the addition of the uncertainty of the conflict in Ukraine and the economic isolation of Russia makes it seem likely that global trade may start to stagnant or even contract in the coming future. By proxy shipping companies may begin to become warry of building too large in case such a massive shift rocks the global economy.
Agreed. Those supply lines to the US have to shorten. Rising labor costs in China and a drive to move manufacturing to Mexico, which has better demographics, will reduce global shipping. Combine that with a global recession and I suspect that we won't see many bigger container ships. LNG however is a different matter.
All the best.
I on the other hand predict the opposite.
I live by the NY harbor and sometimes I go to the beach to see the monstrous container shops coming in and out of port. They look like floating cities.
I feel like an ant seeing that big ass container ship
The time to load/offload, sort and verify is crazy
You are awesome.
Keep up!
I would appreciate if you used standard units of measurements, when possible, for descripting length, draft, etc. Using feet to describe international things makes no sense.
we just finished raising all container cranes, extending the boom on some of them to 65m. any wider than that and the ship would have to turn at the quaiside to get to all containers. i believe 62m width will be the max for a while and therefore 400m length.
worked on the suez canal container terminal a few years ago, it's amazing how many of these 400m ships pass by there every day. i woud say easily 15 a day
I think the next break through will be a new way to off load ships. There are up to 75 ships waiting off Los Angeles harbor. Imagine if drone helicopters could unload contianers to inland warehouses, Or, maybe, containers with integrated rollers to unload like cars on a roller coaster. Too expensive you say? Right now shippers are paying air freight rates to by-pass port congestion.
A boat that docks directly onto a rail spur ...
Seriously, running a fleet of heavy lift helicopters will still use less fuel than air shipping everything, and could probably be made to run on alternative fuels with less effort, especially since the helicopters are inherently more capable at lifting extra weight if need be. Eventually they'd be all electric or hydrogen ideally
Hmm…
•Lifting several containers at once and/or super-size containers.
•Treadmill-cranes.
•Cranes on both sides, possibly via a mobile floating dock.
Containers on rollers & tracks might work.
Aerial lifting is too finicky.
@@musaran2 The treadmill cranes occurred to me a decade ago, but I suspect that a global downturn and shortening of supply lines will be the real solution.
All the best.
From what i heard the problem is the cargo handeling capacity of the port itself, not its ship capacity.
8:36 HMM, what a beautiful name
Russia recently reminded us that trade dependencies are geopolitical vulnerabilities. It's possible that globalization has reached its high water mark and will retreat. We may see a trend towards more diversification and localization of manufacturing; and it's certain that over the next three decades, global trade in fossil fuels will give way to more local energy production from green sources. (Some refined fossil fuel products are shipped in containers.)
I think a cautious outlook for container ships is warranted. Trade volumes may fall, and not only in response to temporary economic downturns.
I certainly hope so. When you look at the history of life on earth, everything everything optimizes for robustness over and above efficiency over evolutionary time That which is robust lasts. That which is efficient does not.
Bingo! You win a cookie.
That's very similar to Peter Zeihan's forecasts.
If you throw in Harry Dent's outlook you are spot on.
All the best everyone and good luck.
@D R I see it more as a short term solution forcing Europe to invest more and harder on local energy sources.
Regardless all the big shipping companies withdraw from Russia now I can't even imagine the scale of how damaging the loss of these companies to their economy. I pity the avarage russian citizens for getting once again into such economic downturn for their regime.
@D R You're right, of course. In the immediate term, Europe decreasing reliance on Russian energy will increase shipping of petroleum products, especially LNG.
But the steep expense will accelerate Europe's desire for local energy production.
I still see localization of manufacturing and energy production as a rising trend over the next three decades, with the result that container shipping will probably see an overall downward trend over that span of time. And I see a rising risk that some giant container ships may end up as stranded assets, uneconomical to operate.
Wonder if you can do a video how Wall Street investors want to built these ships as cheap as possible, so they financed new ship yards in China with the latest ship building technology. In doing so, China is able to quickly building up it's navy with modern warships on par with the US Navy.
2:52 Define “unreasonably“
This is the most boring Wendover Productions video I've ever seen and I still watched it
What is my life becoming
Far less pretentious than Wendover though.....
Jon, you must not eat or sleep considering the frequency at which you're able to post these videos. My hat's off to you, good job, but don't forget to enjoy life, as there's so much to do and explore.
That IMO requirement for cleaner diesel fuel might have contributed to the power failure in the Dali that hit the Baltimore bridge. For what ever reason, there seems to be an issue with how that fuel is consumed and many ships have experienced power loss issues
Malakamax: Exists
Singapore: let me dredge that for you
Great video, thanks a lot!
I am also not convinced that we are in the clear about the price fixing by conglomarates
kit kat anology... 0/5 stars
literally everything else on your channel 5/5 stars!
great content as always.
Twig?
Breadstick???
wonder if hydrogen powered ships are coming.
They left port already and not coming back.
Maybe Amonia, but I would bet on oil for the next couple of decades.
Great vedio
The container system was invented to speed up loading and unloading of cargo in order to reduce cost. However, as ship pack more and more containers to reduce the transportation cost. It take longer time to load and unload the cargo, making everything back to square one.
I wouldn't really say that container ships are large contributors to global pollution. Not when you consider the total efficiency of shipping that distance per kilo compared to the pollution that would be generated via shipping that same mass the same distance using other methods.
When you have notes on the video, they get obscured by the subtitles - maybe move them to the top?
Lolz electric ships, sounds like another elon-inspired vaporware project
Agreed. 🤣
They're probably just a publicly stunt by battery manufacturers. Or something linked to Japan's Lithium Ion submarines.
Either that or just another symptom of Tulip mania.
All the best.
Another fact is that econmics of scale is base on the premise of 100% loading rate without any vancancy on ships. Carriers must be very confident of future market or simply don't want to get behind of their competitors.
This may be a dumb question to ask. But why has no one ever considered a nuclear powered civilian ship? I feel as if long term that would be more cost effective than fuel while also being cleaner.
I get the high risk high reward of nuclear. But, I also feel as if nuclear receives an unfair negative connotation towards it.
I love learning about how my $35 la potatoe ends up in my mailbox.
Hopefully in the near future, we will get nuclear-powered container ships.
Very expensive proposition. You would need to train very experienced personal to handle the power unit, which takes years and years... Increase in decommissioning and refueling facilities would have to occur, further increasing costs. Technical limitations of nuclear power are also present. Nuclear subs refuel by cutting out the whole of the reactor section and replacing it, I wonder how you would do this on a 30k TEU ship.
Increased risk of accidents would also be an issue. Potential fallout near the coast, terrorist action... There are already ports, that wont allow nuclear powered navy vessels, I wonder what would the ports say to a commercially operated seaborne nuclear reactor, whose primary objective is to make as much money as possible.
Shipping companies can be quite negligent with their maintenance and personal, if it affects bottom line...
@Sean Price The good thing about recent advances in molten salt reactor designs means we don't have to trust them with enriched uranium. In fact the molten salt reactors prefer depleted uranium or thorium because it minimizes waste.
@@Spectification I think that if Hydrogen has a chance it's with ports & shipping containers given that the ports could compete for traffic by generating hydrogen fuel on site and offer it to ships as they unload cargo.
I don't see hydrogen taking off to replace gasoline because everything would have to be ripped out such as the piping under the gas station pavement. There is little cost benefit for hydrogen, but that's not the case for ports in my opinion. For rail it's a matter of installing overhead power lines for trains.
That adds a whole new motivation for piracy
Maybe in the future, reusable rockets would make their way into the intra-planetary shipping industry? Capacity maybe ridiculously smaller compared to cargo ships but it could have the benefit of time and operating places... You can deliver cargo directly to places far from the sea... One major problem outside the technicality of the technology would be that such transportation would mess the global aviation procedure and regulation lol. Not to mention the danger from cargo and rockets falling from the sky ,lol... Not so good of an idea...
Carbon dioxide is not a harmful pollutant. Plant life, and life in general needs it.
The company owners have a certain well known complex
This is probably a dumb idea, but have you ever thought about making a video a dedicated video about why people should subscribe to the news letter? I really hate emails so I kinda tune out your suggestion, but I would at least watch a video about its value or the benefits of presenting information through a newsletter rather than just turning it into a weekly RUclips video.
I'm curious if there was a substantial effort to support and implement them, whether ships would be interested in nuclear propulsion. The biggest use case with container ships would be the fuel and emissions savings, as well as long intervals between fueling. But the political and environmental regulations so far have highly limited their implementation. Likewise, the only pool of commercially adept maritime reactor operators, come from the US navy veteran pool.
Eisenhower actually had a project for such but it didn't go through. Only one ship was built.
@@admiralmurat2777 Oh I'm quite aware, there were actually about 5 nuclear merchant marine vessels built under the atoms for peace program. Currently only the Russian nuclear icebreakers are the only civilian nuclear vessels. But I think there's an ample case to be made with nuclear power for these mega vessels.
These immense ships need nuclear power. That will be the next big thing, as it will drop the price of transport by significant margine (AI will help too, as the ship will need less crew). But in general, having to refuel once every 3-5 years will be great advantage. Not to mention, no pollution.
the crew would probably be more expensive . considering you'll need a few nuclear technician and they don't come cheap especially maritime nuclear technicians
Haha cost goes brrrrrrrrrrrrr
Also,
>Nuclear
>No pollution
Good luck cleaning the oceans when something happens 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Of course using Natural Gas puts additional pressure on the natural gas supplies. And with the Russian-Ukraine war and sanctions, there are massive gas shortages without Russian supplies.
Oil storage is much cheaper/easier/safer too.
...i guess it must be cheaper to manage 1 mega ship than managing 10 smaller ships to carry a 10th of the volume...
Well if we see how much C02/22'Container is compared to trucks or plane. Ships win, and trains win ships.
Hey, could you make a video about why they don't make nuclear ships? And maybe where nuclear can also be used. Thanks!
I already know the answer to this question. However, I appreciate your video.
If you want to teach these kids on the street,
You gotta do a vid to an asianometric beat.
My ships are big and they keep getting bigger,
That's cause
you dont know why..??it has to be big or it wont fit 2 missel...who idea is that weponize the cointaner
Got bigger and awfully bad at parking.
I wish you described the ships using a real measurements instead.
11:16 LMG? More like LTT, amiright?🖐🏼
the canal itself.
nobody will enlarge the canal just to accommodate ship bigger than the canal unless it is made in USA
The issue with 30k is really the ports.
2019 was not “10 years later” from 1999. ;)
10 years from 1999 isn't 2019.
Hm.......each new decade = ships with 10,000 more TEU capacity?
One way to decarbonize shipping is to replace their fossil fuel engines with nuclear reactors, but that comes with certain "PR" difficulties :P
"coming about" icwydt
Long story, short
The economy of scale
the only time where businesses actually pass along the savings from scales of industries anymore
The profits to ship owners are taken from the local producers and as the US became more dependent on imports even food products began to become commodities.
We have turned an Agricultural economy into a consumer economy and our ability to provide products within many Nations has decreased.
The transportation industry has become tailored to accommodate the Import business and the ability to produce things that the outside world needs has become the core of Asia as we depend on them to provide products cheap enough to afford shipment to be included in the price.
Oligarchs who own a majority of the Transportation Industry benefit, consumers pay a price....
In 50 years the US has turned from a producer Nation to a Consumer Nation.....
That seems to be a bad idea.....
Is there something out thete about hydrogen electric powered container ships?
Would make at least way more sense than batterys.
From the hydrogen out of the sea water.
Amonia seems more likely.
Just put some SMR or SMMSR Nuclear reactor in a ship like this then, no refueling and higher capacity can be achieved!
virgin Titanic
vs
Chad modern cargo ship
I'm surprised that we don't see a cargo variant of the a-380 as regions like Asia, Latin America, India, and Africa will see exponential population growth & a continuation of modernization. My thoughts are that in in the 100 years even back water regions such as Somalia will see current American living standards.
Go look at videos of Somalia's capital. Their downtown is going to look nicer than downtown LA within 10 years.
Let’s hope it doesn’t sail through the Suez Canal
Having more economical shipping sounds good but it is still a problem when the total amount of shipped goods rises all the time. What are we shipping around the globe and is this really necessary? I understand it for high tech products especially when they become smaller all the time - but very cheap things or low tech doesn't make much sense to me. It sounds a bit like aww the climate is ruined but at least the air conditioning unit is cheap.
these container ships make nuclear aircraft carriers look small. i want to see bigger ships, as an old saying goes "bigger is better".
Put them in space where they belong
The video titles should read, Why container ships grew too big for their own good. I don't ever see the need for 30,000 TAU ships as regulations and port requirements will make them impractical. Personally, I see a great revolution in small scale port operations due to the innovations in small container ship innovations and combi trading ship innovations. This will open up a lot of Arctic communities to better trading with the world and enjoying lower prices for imports. No one is going to be dumb enough to sail a 20,000 TAU container ship through the Canadian North West Passage or the Russian Arctic Run.
Such as? All the impractical projects and borderline deceptive projects use 'innovations this and innovations that' to solve present bottleneck issues. Meanwhile, a centuries old tech (rail, cargo ships) are humming along out lasting them all. I'll ask again: what specific revolutionary innovations?
I don't think that Arctic runs will ever be practical. There's just too much risk from Russia and not enough Canadian ice breakers now or in the future to make the Northwest Passage work reliably.
Sadly that title is too long for RUclips.
@D R >Btw, Russia never blocked any ship
Right they only blockaded Ukrainian ports. Since mid January partially and since late February fully.
The funniest thing about the Suez Canal incident is that Marx predicted it.
Karl or Groucho?
@@Gameboygenius 🤣
Some perspective on the current state of the container shipping market by the CEO of Flexport: ruclips.net/video/uSUM1mvw17w/видео.html
CO2 is not pollution.
M O N E Y
No other reason
I think once Generation IV nuclear reactors become commercially viable in the next 20 years, these gigantic container ships may begin the slow switch to nuclear power, but not in the form we remember from the NS _Savannah_ of many decades ago. With nuclear power, there will be no air pollution anywhere, and it might even make it possible to future large container ships to travel faster, too.
Malayan peninsula, not Malesian. Just saying.
can they be roofed with movable solar panels? imagine the scales of a pill bug. before they arrive in the port, they then could already start opening up the section of the ship from which the cargo is supposed to be offloaded.
as the power can be directy used and doesnt need any sort of storage, i imagine that quite helpful. sure, there is added weight, but it still may be feasible.
Honestly, who cares about CO2 (plant food) if anything it's green emissions. 🙁🙄🤭🤔
I'd be interested to see if better freight rail infrastructure between China and Europe will come about, potentially reducing the demand for shipping between the two regions. Only problem is, the route either has to go through the Middle East, or Russia, both of which pose problems with politics and security. Unless things change in either region, perhaps that's not on the cards.
IDK, I think with Russia where it is now, it's possible we'll see a sudden change there in terms of stability, governance, corruption, etc.... It'll have to stay that way for decades though before anyone will ever trust Russia with the majority of the world's entire trade between Europe and East Asia, and you'd probably want to double or even triple up on the number of rail paths, with multiple routes and multiple railways per route, both for capacity and redundancy's sake, in the event of a natural disaster taking out an entire pathway. Ideally you'd have both a Middle Eastern route and a Russian route, but I feel like rails make WAY too easy of a target for insurgents looking to fuck with the west on any given day. When your entire world economy can potentially be interrupted by a few pounds of C4 set off in the right location, you should probably be looking towards diversifying your transit options regardless. Maybe in the future if things are more stable it'll happen though, once can hope. The real kicker is, Russia does have the infrastructure there to support it. Vladivostok, which incidentally is very close to both China and North Korea, has train routes connecting it directly with Moscow and St Petersburg, as well as Sevastopol, though that's supposed to be Ukrainian territory in Crimea. Regardless, Russia has massive extensive rail networks already, they've found the best routes, all one has to do is add to them. As far as I know there's a route that goes directly from Moscow to Chelyabinsk, through to Omsk and Novosibirsk, and then on all the way around Mongolia, through Irkutsk, to Vladivostok, following a route similar to that which their highway system also takes to connect those areas. Rail is absolutely critical to Russia's infrastructure, the same as it is in the US. Any country with a large swath of land that you have to traverse to move goods and people, is going to rely on these networks and have them in place already, it's just a matter of treaties and investing in additional infrastructure to make it happen
It's simply not going to happen.
Bigger ships cause many problems, like getting stuck in canals.. Ports should ban together and say NO. Shipping would have to comply of loose business.
wiil we see a nuclear container ship in the future?
I pray not
One thing that saddens me is that if not for geopolitical/military reasons, we could have had nuclear powered cargo ships for 40 years at least already. The technology is known and is reliably working in nuclear submarines/aircraft carriers. The amount of co2 emissions, sulfur/particulate pollution and fuel (tho I am aware that not much except the huge diesel engines on those ships can burn that grade of fuel, so arguably we wouldn't "save" any fuel) we could have avoided is insane
Thank god we didn't. ☢☢☢🙁🙁🙄
I would imagine that barring some huge innovation in batteries, eventually as the cost of energy decreases, container ships should be powered by hydrogen fuel cells.
Currently Toyota Mirai stores a few percent of hydrogen in comparison to the hydrogen tank mass so it doesn't seem very feasible.
LNG is a much more viable option.
Hydrogen is terrible on a cradle to grave basis.
You either steam crack methane (releasing all the CO²) or you waste huge amounts of electricity trying to split the very stable water molecule.
Not to mention the potable water being used as a precursor for fuel.
@@jimurrata6785 "Waste huge amounts of electricity" I'm aware of the inefficiency. That's why it's premised on the cost of power going down at some point in the future(especially during peak generation), which will likely happen eventually.
@@baylenlucas8923 There's still no way to eliminate conversion losses. And not addressing waste of water as a precious resource
Why take electricity, to make hydrogen, to go into a fuel cell and make electricity?
Even if we get fusion and "electricity too cheap to meter" or some quantum solar breakthrough you're still looking at ~35% round trip return on hydrogen.
Discrediting the laws of thermodynamics seems far fetched to me.
What about Nuclear Powered cargo ships? Very low ongoing fuel costs, and no atmospheric pollution!
And what could possibly go wrong with a business whose profits come from reducing costs and cutting corners at every opportunity?
instead of giant explosive batteries on cargo ships why not go marine nuclear power instead? at least the reactor will have the same life time as the ship it's on.
Both are stupid ideas