Play Enlisted for FREE on PC, Xbox Series X|S and PS®5: playen.link/megaprojects2023 Follow the link to download the game and get a free bonus pack. See you in battle!
In the 90s I stood in front of the Empire State Building in complete awe. In 2015 I stood next to one of these ships and couldn't even come up with something to say. You really have to see them in person to get a grip on their size.
That’s exactly how I felt when I saw a big cat for the first time. It was a fully grown Male Lion, and I almost didn’t bother going to that section of the zoo, because I felt I’d seen big cats in docco’s more than enough times. There is nothing better than experiencing something directly. I could suddenly imagine how terrifying it would be to have that huge mouth crunch down on you. Terrifying.
I've been in a couple of situations like that, where you know 100% for sure that no matter how big you convince someone it is, they still don't know how big it is, it's way way bigger...
@johnnason7019 I've been in there, I'm amazed people don't get lost lol got a chance to go up on the cat walks as well, got the whole story about the bird hunters they have on the payroll.
I used to work in the port of Rotterdam. We had one Panamax rustbucket that frequently came. It was 12 containers wide on Deck if recall. Back then the average was 17-18 wide. Panamax is small looking at usual global commerce ships.
The other reason many places hate these ships is the squat damage done by the lower draft causing higher dredging costs, causing coastal/waters edge/mooring damage and raising the chances of these or smaller ships running aground due to the massive shift of silt material.
My dad is a naval engineer, and there are ship lounching events open to the public.... getting up close to those behemots I got in awe and disbelief with their huge size, and I like seeing big ships since childhood ,... 😊
Iron ore carriers have an incredibly short life span as the constant loading of them scours the scantlings depth which unless they are maintained correctly results in structural compromise as such several bulkers have just completely disappeared of the face of the ocean, believed broken in two and sunk and given iron order is of such density there is no chance that once the hull is breached that the vessel will stay afloat longer than 30 seconds. Also add to the fact that if the iron ore has a high moisture content it will undergo a processes called liquefaction - meaning it flows like a liquid in the hold but then sets again as a massive solid on one side or the other, leading to a loss of stability. In short bulkers are much more dangerous than oil tankers and/or gas carriers as the industry around bulkers has been slow in addressing these issues.
Bulk carriers represent 7% of the world's ship fleet, by number, but 47% of lost-at-sea casualties. If you go to sea in a bulk carrier you are SEVEN TIMES more likely to be shipwrecked than the average seaman. Structural failure and liquefaction are the main causes. Carrying dry bulk cargo is a dangerous business but the world doesn't care much because most of the crew are Filipino and their families only get $500 for a lost soul.
1:05 - Chapter 1 - Design & development 4:00 - Mid roll ads 5:25 - Back to the video 7:15 - Chapter 2 - Specs & performance 10:15 - Chapter 3 - A controversial contribution
Interesting comment on the fuel consumption. A VLCC back in the 1970 would consume about 140 tonnes of FFO, furnace fuel oil , give take, per day. So the modern diesel engines are definitely getting more fuel efficient. I base that in the fuel consumption of the ST Nordic Chieftain, a 250,000 DWT crude oil tanker, but she was powered by a steam turbine. Interesting article.
Yep. That’s one of the fun things about being a naval architect: the solution to literally every problem you will ever encounter is “make it bigger”. Ships get more fuel efficient per ton of cargo as they get bigger, and engines also get thermodynamic efficiency as they get larger.
Anuvesraa: a valid point. However, back in the 1970s, the general rule was diesel engines reigned supreme up to about 190000 GRT above that size steam turbines became the preferred option. I think part of the reason is to do with crude oil needing to be kept warm. Therefore, the waste heat from the turbine was used for that purpose. Also, the winches even then were powered by steam reciprocating engines. Yes, I was very surprised to see that. Another example of using recovered energy I came across was on the MV Sir Alexander Glen, of about 198000 GRT. The main engine was either a nine cylinder Burmiester &Wein 2 stroke diesel or a Sulzer 9 cylinder 2 stroke. Probably the later. Amongst other things, the waste heat from that main engine was diverted to a boiler and used to drive a steam turbine alternator At full speed there was sufficient heat to provide all the electricity on a sea passage. I was R/O on both ships. As an aside the Sir Alexander Glen was a sister ship to the Bibby line Derbyshire, which broke up in a storm in the North Pacific . All six sister ships came to grief in one form or another.
@@anuvisraa5786 No they aren't. Nimitz class is around 100 000 tonnes while the Valemax displaces around 350 000 tonnes. But despite that they are not even 3,5 times bigger since the Nimitz is 333 m long with Valemax being 362 m. There are larger tankers and container ships than the Velamax.
I work in Iron Ore mining in Western Australia. Our ports can't handle Valemax. I can tell you, the (smaller) bulk carriers Australia uses to export iron ore are incredibly impressive machines. I can't imagine what these must be like.
Usually they call them that to get around budget and treaty restrictions. America class 'Phibs don't have docks and was designed to accommodate F-35s. Russian Aircraft carrying cruisers are called that to go through the Bosphorus and because the Duma didn't approve Aircraft Fire Barges.
@@joshuabessire9169 the Canberra class is based on the Spanish carrier, but it is specced differently. Of note it lacks the thermal protection on deck needed to launch VTOL systems regularly (it could cross dock in an emergency) and the flight hanger that the Spanish ship has is dedicated to land vehicles. Its not a case like with the Russians, where they a calling it an Aircraft carrying cruiser, this ship is more in line with the French Mistral - just it has a ski ramp. Also its a moot point, Australia doesn't VTOL capable fixed wing aircraft. The idea has been floated around on converting them to take them and buying a bunch of F35Bs... but it was deemed too costly for capability we don't really need.
When I saw the thumbnail I thought the naming convention was like the Suezmax, the biggest size a ship can be that can go into the Suez. So I was like "what's a Vale?"
VLCCs (very large cargo/crude carriers) were a similar phenomenum when they appeared in the 60s and 70s, with 250,000 ton tankers and bulk carriers. Now such things, as well as oversized container ships, are the norm; but they are not without the downsides, such as the Berge Vanga and Istra, which sank unexpectedly en route from Brazil to the Far East, the Ever Given, which provided much media airtime. For ocean trade size is definitely better, but ... is it worth the hassle
😂 Yes it is CALLED ECONOMY'S OF SCALE ⚖! MORE CARGO, WHETHER BARRELS, BUSHELS, TONS, TEUS, IS THE REASON, VESSELS ARE LARGER. IDIOTS WHO HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT MARITME COMMERCE? NEED TO STFU!
I once worked on a diving ship that serviced the underwater pipelines that these ships used to unload. They were so big, that they couldn't dock or even come near land. So, about 13 miles out from the refinery, were the capped off ends of these lines. The divers were always there inspecting the lines and rigging before they were lifted up to the ship deck. On our tiny ship, were two lab techs, who were dropped off by a crew boat. They were lifted onto the tanker to take crude samples and evaluate their purity before unloading. Oil prices vary from how clean it is (honey oil) to how dirty it is or how much ppm mineral is trapped in the oil.
Trucking industry in Europe is going a similar route, longer and heavier loads, something us in Scandinavia has been doing for decades ofc... But rest of Europe has started changing their rules as well, trials has been going for years in many countries and now alot of them has new rules on weights and length or a truck and trailer. 1 truck hauling the load of 2 will always be more efficient. Everyone loves to bring up Australian road trains but thats a different thing, only done on specific routes likely because there is no trains to do the work or waterways to send ships, its the only option they have. In the US some states has opened up but aging bridges and roads not being up to the load seem to hold them back.
It’s depressing that you Europeans have elected to go for inefficient and environmentally destructive trucks, instead of following the example of us Americans and just using trains instead. You could significantly improve the capacity of your rail networks by adopting our heavier rails, higher axle loads, stronger couplers, and vastly longer trains. 5km long is a perfectly reasonable size for a freight train here.
@@michaelimbesi2314 Long trains are necesssary for single track working: compare the average freight train in New Zealand to one in the United Kingdom. But interesting thing, the trains in Scotland are long, and of course there's a lot of single track there. The thing with trucks is to have road-friendly suspension and lots of axles. The trucks I see in Europe are to my eyes fragile and axles overloaded. Instead of a 22- or 34- wheeler, the typical semi is only 12 wheels: single axle tractor with a dual-tyre axle driving set: in N.Z. not unusual to see two steering axles and three driving dual sets. The footprint is much lighter, although the overall vehicle weight is a lot more. Something impressive is to see a B-double (10+12+12=34 wheels) being backed up to the loading dock at a supermarket.
14:37 What were the reasons for those accidents? From what I understand of 'nautical rules', smaller powered ships must ALWAYS give way to larger ones, given the longer turning and stopping distances.
There's go to be a reason they don't just refine the ore to pig iron before shipping. You'd think that would save on weight like pre-planing saves it on lumber.
@@finalascent Chief is better with the technical info, like a good teacher. But Joe is a warmer and more entertaining producer, his voice and delivery is worthy of a top actor👍👍 His Christmas special was very good entertainment.
Had my second contract on a 300 m capesize bulk carrier. We had our paint room on the forecastle (actually under the forecastle) - in order not to make a 600 m travel eaz ch time when we had painting jobs around the accomodation we would store some (quite significant amounts actually) of paint in the tally room.
To give a comparison for how just how much 400,000 tons is the Bismarck as in the gigantic German battleship from the second world war weighed about 50,000 tons.
That's very impressive. I hope we see more bigger ships in the future, it seems to make a lot of sense to use economies of scale even if that requires harbors to be upgraded
Yeah apparently the idea is a horsepower is what the average horse can output consistently throughout a working day. Also I think Watt was intentionally conservative with the measurement, since he didn't want to be accused of false advertisement, plus it's impressive enough when you say one of his engines is the equivalent of 5 horses, even if in reality it's more like 10
Sounds to me like they saw an opportunity and capitalized on it perfectly. More fuel efficiency, fewer trips, and lower maintenance costs overall than a larger fleet of smaller ships makes these a step in the right direction.
A1960 efficient mixed freight ship was some four thousand registered tonne. Two weeks at sea at twelve knotts, thirty crew and two weeks in port. We have forgotten. Imported goods were expensive.
@GlenCooper-sj4lh I was thinking more on profiteering 📈 These ships are almost as massive but more easily turn a profit unlike the Knock nevis, which sadly never did despite carrying black gold as its sole cargo 🛢
I just wanted to do the math real quick to see per ton efficiency. 100 tons per day, 400,000 ton capacity means that per ton of fuel oil it can move 4,000 tons of cargo per day, or per ton of cargo it needs 0.00025 tons of fuel oil per day. 1 ton (metric) of fuel oil is 1123.4 liters, so per ton of cargo it only needs about .28 liters of fuel per day. At a cruise speed of 28 kilometers per hour, that's 672 kilometers per day, at a fuel consumption of .28 liters per day per ton, thats ≈2400 ton-kilometers per liter
The interesting part is, from an environmental and sustainability standpoint, with ships, bigger is better. The more cargo the ship can carry, the less fuel consumption and emissions you generate per ton of cargo. That is one driver behind the ever increasing size of container ships.
Depends on your other requirements. We can build entire islands, so we could, in theory at least, build one and get it moving, slowly. It would be outrageously expensive, and not overly safe, but with our current tech base, we could do it.
@@nmspyCurrently, it would be a ship limited by the largest available building dock, which is in Japan and is 980m long. If that’s not a concern, then the next physical limit is literally when it becomes too big to fit into the ocean. Ships are neat.
That is some awesome footage you have mixed. I always see your videos as a must watch because it is something so few of us know anything about, yet vital to all of us. Can't wait for your next one.
Your dialogue was a bit too fast for me at times. I missed a few key words. Otherwise fascinating stuff, as always with you. Thanks again and keep up the good work.
The problems with valemax is cost.the port in vancouver,bc have roberts banks for coal loading.the huge cost of dredging is massive and huge ship don't come every week right so planning for invesment is massive but when this ship show up get load coal is insane,this huge pile coal end up in ship and float yup.vale knew what get involve long before they build because they watch oiltanker and containership before make call.thank video😅
It seems absurd that anyone would want to transport iron war over a ridiculous long distance, as so much of it is going to be discarded anyway. Why isn’t it at least processed into pig iron, which can then be finished elsewhere?
Need a lot of fuel for that first stage. If the fuel is someplace else, it might well be better to transport the ore, especially if it can be concentrated.
Brazil does produce steel with it's own ore. But for whatever reasons they don't sell enough to use all the ore they produce. That ore is valuable enough that it is worthwhile to ship it across the world. The smelting process does need significant amounts of coal to turn the ore into pig iron, but it's still just a fraction of the amount of ore needed. It does seem backwards but between subsidized industries, complex import/export tariffs, different environmental regulations and costs besides the raw materials somehow it works out to be cheaper for China to buy and process the ore than to buy the steel they would produce with it. A different example of the same phenomenon is that whole teak tree trunks get sent to India and Vietnam for processing from Costa Rica. Didn't make any sense to me either at first but talking to one of the guys working for the buyers in India he said they tried operating a lumber mill in Costa rica in order to reduce shipping costs at first. But between a more costly labor situation in Costa Rica and subsidized shipping for containers going back to Asia (all those containers full of Asian exports need to get back to Asia) it made sense to ship the whole logs to India and process them there.
I live closely to the port where Vale loads the valemax and about 300 meters from the railroad that supply the port complex with the iron ore. I visit once and it's huge. They extract a lot. The train unload 2 wagons at time, flipping both, without the need to desconect from the locomotive, which every train travel with 2 or 3 locomotives and 64 bulk wagons that hold more than 120 tonnes each wagon. At night I can hear the engine of the locomotive due to the silence in the environment. The port complex have 5 or 6 steel continuous furnaces from Arcelor Mittal, working 23/7. They haul a lot of iron and Vale makes more money with shipping and train freight than mining. For closure, the tax code in Brazil it's very complex and heavy in industrialized goods that makes cheaper to export the iron ore to China and import the steel than manufacture here. If you want to know more about this, search for "complexo portuário tubarão" on Google.
As shown in the video, these super long, super heavy cargo ships have a nasty tendency to break in half due to rough weather. There is also the problem that most of them can't fit in smaller ports. Wouldn't the simple solution to this would be to build the ship in separate sections, say 500 meters each, with a drive section at each end? Sort of like an aquatic train? You could have 10 or more cargo sections in between the engine sections, each connected with flexible, easy to remove connectors. This would eliminate the issue of the ship breaking in half during rough weather. When arriving offshore of a port area, the forward drive section could tow one or two sections into port or you could use local tugs to move a single cargo module into port, thus allowing for easy access to smaller ports. The ship could then continue on to the next port, dropping off full cargo modules and picking up empty ones from previous trips. A single ship could deliver goods or bulk cargo to multiple ports, dropping off and picking up the cargo modules as they pass by each port. The time saved from having the entire ship wait for the cargo to be loaded or unloaded alone would make it worth it. The entire ship itself would never enter port, but if an drive section needed to be refit or undergo maintenance, it could be swapped out without taking the entire ship offline for months at a time. You would design the connection system to be quick and easy to detach or attach each cargo module - you could even build a central "spine" that would be flexible enough so it could be a couple thousand feet long, used as a floating dock for each cargo module. It would provide power and access as well as a data link to the cargo pod, to monitor each one. Cargo pods would be attached on each side, making it easy for a tug in float in and remove or attach a pod and bring it into port. This would solve the problem of having multiple sized ships needed for different ports, would cut down on transit time and fuel usage, and cut down on the number of crew needed. Really, it's just taking train tech to the sea and adapting it.
Having two ships in close proximity to each other even in calm waters is hugely dangerous, the independent movements will cause them to constantly bang into each other (there's fluid dynamics effects that actually pull the hulls towards each other too), and when you're talking hundreds of thousands of tons of inertia, a steel hull crumples like tin foil. If you're talking about towing at a distance... take a look at some of the horror stories of vessels that have been towed, lines breaking and so on. We're talking immense forces at play here, there's no such thing as "flexible easy to remove connectors" when you're operating at that scale. You're also then losing the advantages that having a larger vessel brings you anyway. Rough seas are bad on a rigid vessel, on two tethered vessels they're far far worse.
Big Ben is 2.2m high. So these ships are nearly 8.8m long? I think you probably meant the Elizabeth Tower which is 96m high, which gives a length of 384m.
You know what’s hilarious? Each one of these record breaking enormous ships that offer actual benefit to humanity costs less than 1 single F-22 fighter jet. Let that sink in.
I think it is far to compare these SUPERmassive vessels to the project that brought the airbus A380 to life. Conventional thinking, but supersized. it is particularly noteworthy that the images shown of VALE BEIJING also show, she`s run aground due to a navigation error on approach to her destination on MAIDEN VOYAGE. But when thinking fuel consumption and main engine rating, these do fall behind. The major container vessels of that time were mostly equipped with 12 or 14 cylinder engines made or licensed by MAN or Wärtsilä, being rated at around 68.5 MW maximum continous. And whike they propelled the 8500 to 11.000 TEU vessels at 25 knots and faster, a fuel consumption of 280 to 300 tons per 24 hrs was absolutely accepted. No echaust gas cleaning, no scrubber systems, emission control areas were a pain the shipping comanies thought was temporare. Let that sink in.
Hang on he said diesel powered then he said it burned fuel oil. For clarity, its a low speed diesel engine. Interestingly only generates the same power as one medium sized jet turbine.
From a mariner perspective: Yes they fit. But if at full loaded remains questionable, cause the published depth in the Suez canal is not always guaranteed.
Fuel. That's the other part of the equation. Can be cheaper to take the ore to the fuel, and with some economics, taking the ore and the fuel to a "sweet spot" where the downstream manufacturing is already running can pay off.
I already have an enlisted account but I'll make another with another of my emails, just for you Simon :~) I'm curious as to the comparrison with the aircraft carriers. Given the size and such couldn't they make them with nuclear plants completely doing away with the dirty heavy fuel?
Sure they could, but then they'd have to deal with all those regulations as well. Probably a good future upgrade for them, but not at first when they were just trying to get them working and accepted in ports.
With the panic over the so called climate change you a hearing a lot more about nuclear power. Just a short number of years ago, if you mentioned nuclear to a "greenie" they would just about shit themselves. But lately even they,(the realistic ones) are coming to recognize that solar and wind and what not, are not going to come close to giving us the energy we need. If they want to do away with fossil fuels, nuclear is going to have to play an important part. Whether some like it or not.
i don't think the holds can hold as much VOLUME as a whole container ship. you probably mean as much weight . iron ore is heavy stuff . if it could hold as much volume per hold as as a panamax container ship that would be something.
Yep, deadweight it is. Vale Brazil has 402,374 mt of deadweight - divided by 7 cargo holds (which is an approximation as we're omitting tanks and other storage spaces) this gives us 57,482 mt per hold. Most panamax bulk carriers hold about 60-80,000 mt. I'd rather compare it to modern supramax vessels which can carry about 55-65,000 mt of cargo and stores combined.
Play Enlisted for FREE on PC, Xbox Series X|S and PS®5: playen.link/megaprojects2023 Follow the link to download the game and get a free bonus pack. See you in battle!
Fun fact big Ben is the bell not the tower you mentioned.
Wait. Whut? Our Philippines have a port capable of hosting these behemoths? 😮
Chek republic? No one would have any ideas if that's impressive. They could have 3 horses only.
In the 90s I stood in front of the Empire State Building in complete awe. In 2015 I stood next to one of these ships and couldn't even come up with something to say. You really have to see them in person to get a grip on their size.
That’s exactly how I felt when I saw a big cat for the first time. It was a fully grown Male Lion, and I almost didn’t bother going to that section of the zoo, because I felt I’d seen big cats in docco’s more than enough times. There is nothing better than experiencing something directly. I could suddenly imagine how terrifying it would be to have that huge mouth crunch down on you. Terrifying.
I've been in a couple of situations like that, where you know 100% for sure that no matter how big you convince someone it is, they still don't know how big it is, it's way way bigger...
The Boeing Everett Factory is like that.
@johnnason7019 I've been in there, I'm amazed people don't get lost lol got a chance to go up on the cat walks as well, got the whole story about the bird hunters they have on the payroll.
I've had a close up look at a US Air Craft Carrier, which are huge, but this thing dwarfs them.
"Each cargo hold has the capacity of an entire Panamax"
That's what made me able to imagine it
sailed on two of those size..... they did not feel small either.
I used to work in the port of Rotterdam. We had one Panamax rustbucket that frequently came. It was 12 containers wide on Deck if recall. Back then the average was 17-18 wide.
Panamax is small looking at usual global commerce ships.
The other reason many places hate these ships is the squat damage done by the lower draft causing higher dredging costs, causing coastal/waters edge/mooring damage and raising the chances of these or smaller ships running aground due to the massive shift of silt material.
My dad is a naval engineer, and there are ship lounching events open to the public.... getting up close to those behemots I got in awe and disbelief with their huge size, and I like seeing big ships since childhood ,... 😊
What on earth is lounching and behemots?????😂😂😂😂
@@theunemployedtrucker autocorrect 😆
What the hell is a ship lunching event?
Iron ore carriers have an incredibly short life span as the constant loading of them scours the scantlings depth which unless they are maintained correctly results in structural compromise as such several bulkers have just completely disappeared of the face of the ocean, believed broken in two and sunk and given iron order is of such density there is no chance that once the hull is breached that the vessel will stay afloat longer than 30 seconds. Also add to the fact that if the iron ore has a high moisture content it will undergo a processes called liquefaction - meaning it flows like a liquid in the hold but then sets again as a massive solid on one side or the other, leading to a loss of stability. In short bulkers are much more dangerous than oil tankers and/or gas carriers as the industry around bulkers has been slow in addressing these issues.
Bulk carriers represent 7% of the world's ship fleet, by number, but 47% of lost-at-sea casualties. If you go to sea in a bulk carrier you are SEVEN TIMES more likely to be shipwrecked than the average seaman. Structural failure and liquefaction are the main causes. Carrying dry bulk cargo is a dangerous business but the world doesn't care much because most of the crew are Filipino and their families only get $500 for a lost soul.
1:05 - Chapter 1 - Design & development
4:00 - Mid roll ads
5:25 - Back to the video
7:15 - Chapter 2 - Specs & performance
10:15 - Chapter 3 - A controversial contribution
Interesting comment on the fuel consumption. A VLCC back in the 1970 would consume about 140 tonnes of FFO, furnace fuel oil , give take, per day. So the modern diesel engines are definitely getting more fuel efficient. I base that in the fuel consumption of the ST Nordic Chieftain, a 250,000 DWT crude oil tanker, but she was powered by a steam turbine. Interesting article.
Yep. That’s one of the fun things about being a naval architect: the solution to literally every problem you will ever encounter is “make it bigger”. Ships get more fuel efficient per ton of cargo as they get bigger, and engines also get thermodynamic efficiency as they get larger.
diesel have 17% to 22% less fuel consumption that steam turbines
yea because you surfaces go up by a exponent of 2 and volumes by 3 @@michaelimbesi2314
Anuvesraa: a valid point. However, back in the 1970s, the general rule was diesel engines reigned supreme up to about 190000 GRT above that size steam turbines became the preferred option. I think part of the reason is to do with crude oil needing to be kept warm. Therefore, the waste heat from the turbine was used for that purpose. Also, the winches even then were powered by steam reciprocating engines. Yes, I was very surprised to see that. Another example of using recovered energy I came across was on the MV Sir Alexander Glen, of about 198000 GRT. The main engine was either a nine cylinder Burmiester &Wein 2 stroke diesel or a Sulzer 9 cylinder 2 stroke. Probably the later. Amongst other things, the waste heat from that main engine was diverted to a boiler and used to drive a steam turbine alternator At full speed there was sufficient heat to provide all the electricity on a sea passage. I was R/O on both ships. As an aside the Sir Alexander Glen was a sister ship to the Bibby line Derbyshire, which broke up in a storm in the North Pacific . All six sister ships came to grief in one form or another.
I lived aboard a nimitz-class carrier for 2 and 1/2 years, and those things are bloody BIG, I can't imagine how big these things are.
6 times
@@anuvisraa5786 No they aren't. Nimitz class is around 100 000 tonnes while the Valemax displaces around 350 000 tonnes. But despite that they are not even 3,5 times bigger since the Nimitz is 333 m long with Valemax being 362 m. There are larger tankers and container ships than the Velamax.
I work in Iron Ore mining in Western Australia. Our ports can't handle Valemax. I can tell you, the (smaller) bulk carriers Australia uses to export iron ore are incredibly impressive machines.
I can't imagine what these must be like.
Would that be Port Headland and or Dampier went there a few times I'm the 1970's, same on the east coast, Port Mckay amongst others.
@@jimhallinsn1023
Yeah, BHP, Port Hedland.
"Puts an aircraft carrier to shame"
Posts a picture of HMAS Canberra - An amphibious assault ship
Usually they call them that to get around budget and treaty restrictions. America class 'Phibs don't have docks and was designed to accommodate F-35s. Russian Aircraft carrying cruisers are called that to go through the Bosphorus and because the Duma didn't approve Aircraft Fire Barges.
@@joshuabessire9169 the Canberra class is based on the Spanish carrier, but it is specced differently. Of note it lacks the thermal protection on deck needed to launch VTOL systems regularly (it could cross dock in an emergency) and the flight hanger that the Spanish ship has is dedicated to land vehicles.
Its not a case like with the Russians, where they a calling it an Aircraft carrying cruiser, this ship is more in line with the French Mistral - just it has a ski ramp.
Also its a moot point, Australia doesn't VTOL capable fixed wing aircraft. The idea has been floated around on converting them to take them and buying a bunch of F35Bs... but it was deemed too costly for capability we don't really need.
I used to run tankers of close to similar size (VLCC’s). They are massive pieces of engineering.
When I saw the thumbnail I thought the naming convention was like the Suezmax, the biggest size a ship can be that can go into the Suez. So I was like "what's a Vale?"
VLCCs (very large cargo/crude carriers) were a similar phenomenum when they appeared in the 60s and 70s, with 250,000 ton tankers and bulk carriers. Now such things, as well as oversized container ships, are the norm; but they are not without the downsides, such as the Berge Vanga and Istra, which sank unexpectedly en route from Brazil to the Far East, the Ever Given, which provided much media airtime. For ocean trade size is definitely better, but ... is it worth the hassle
😂 Yes it is CALLED ECONOMY'S OF SCALE ⚖! MORE CARGO, WHETHER BARRELS, BUSHELS, TONS, TEUS, IS THE REASON, VESSELS ARE LARGER. IDIOTS WHO HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT MARITME COMMERCE? NEED TO STFU!
Three additional vessels were ordered by a Japanese shipping company, bringing the total number of Valemax vessels to 68 as of 2020.
Hilarious typo in the thumbnail...looks like Simon needs to take the Blazement slaves on a day trip
Nice try, Danny, but we're on to you!
Blaze Be
What typo? Those ships are the epitome of magesty
What was the typo? Its been fixed at 1 hour in
They are created by powerful Mages using displacement magicks, it's not a typo
I once worked on a diving ship that serviced the underwater pipelines that these ships used to unload. They were so big, that they couldn't dock or even come near land. So, about 13 miles out from the refinery, were the capped off ends of these lines. The divers were always there inspecting the lines and rigging before they were lifted up to the ship deck. On our tiny ship, were two lab techs, who were dropped off by a crew boat. They were lifted onto the tanker to take crude samples and evaluate their purity before unloading. Oil prices vary from how clean it is (honey oil) to how dirty it is or how much ppm mineral is trapped in the oil.
These are Ore bulk carriers, I think you are talking about the TI/TT Class Crude Oil tankers.
More about the shipping industry, please!
Trucking industry in Europe is going a similar route, longer and heavier loads, something us in Scandinavia has been doing for decades ofc...
But rest of Europe has started changing their rules as well, trials has been going for years in many countries and now alot of them has new rules on weights and length or a truck and trailer. 1 truck hauling the load of 2 will always be more efficient. Everyone loves to bring up Australian road trains but thats a different thing, only done on specific routes likely because there is no trains to do the work or waterways to send ships, its the only option they have. In the US some states has opened up but aging bridges and roads not being up to the load seem to hold them back.
It’s depressing that you Europeans have elected to go for inefficient and environmentally destructive trucks, instead of following the example of us Americans and just using trains instead. You could significantly improve the capacity of your rail networks by adopting our heavier rails, higher axle loads, stronger couplers, and vastly longer trains. 5km long is a perfectly reasonable size for a freight train here.
@@michaelimbesi2314 Long trains are necesssary for single track working: compare the average freight train in New Zealand to one in the United Kingdom. But interesting thing, the trains in Scotland are long, and of course there's a lot of single track there. The thing with trucks is to have road-friendly suspension and lots of axles. The trucks I see in Europe are to my eyes fragile and axles overloaded. Instead of a 22- or 34- wheeler, the typical semi is only 12 wheels: single axle tractor with a dual-tyre axle driving set: in N.Z. not unusual to see two steering axles and three driving dual sets. The footprint is much lighter, although the overall vehicle weight is a lot more. Something impressive is to see a B-double (10+12+12=34 wheels) being backed up to the loading dock at a supermarket.
I have to assume a "Mage"stic ship is a ship run and/or powered by mages.
seems legit
Spelljammer up in here
It’s basically like a flytrap, but for mages.
Mage stick aka wand.
I had to scroll too far to find this
14:37 What were the reasons for those accidents? From what I understand of 'nautical rules', smaller powered ships must ALWAYS give way to larger ones, given the longer turning and stopping distances.
Problem is when all involved are bulk carriers with that kind of tonnage you have to avoid a collision last week
There's go to be a reason they don't just refine the ore to pig iron before shipping. You'd think that would save on weight like pre-planing saves it on lumber.
Massively increases density & doesn't allow control over the initial carbon content in alloys
They remind me of the Great Lakes ore carriers, just several orders of magnitude bigger :D
Being a crewmember would be a hell of travel doc.
Chief Makoi and Joe Franta make excellent videos about their experiences on commercial vessels.
@@finalascent Chief is better with the technical info, like a good teacher. But Joe is a warmer and more entertaining producer, his voice and delivery is worthy of a top actor👍👍 His Christmas special was very good entertainment.
Had my second contract on a 300 m capesize bulk carrier. We had our paint room on the forecastle (actually under the forecastle) - in order not to make a 600 m travel eaz ch time when we had painting jobs around the accomodation we would store some (quite significant amounts actually) of paint in the tally room.
To give a comparison for how just how much 400,000 tons is the Bismarck as in the gigantic German battleship from the second world war weighed about 50,000 tons.
"Two-thousand men and fifty-thousand tons of steel..."
Ford class carriers are about 110,000 tons I thought.
That's very impressive. I hope we see more bigger ships in the future, it seems to make a lot of sense to use economies of scale even if that requires harbors to be upgraded
Fun fact: a horse can produce about 5 to 10 horsepower
how much can a cow produce ?
Only high quality horse can do that
A fit Parrot produces more talk. Eight neeton metres...eight newton metres....eight neeton mtrs rggg
The two litre cow is 14 horse power
Yeah apparently the idea is a horsepower is what the average horse can output consistently throughout a working day. Also I think Watt was intentionally conservative with the measurement, since he didn't want to be accused of false advertisement, plus it's impressive enough when you say one of his engines is the equivalent of 5 horses, even if in reality it's more like 10
This is a top shelf RUclips channel. Keep up the good work, sir!
Sounds to me like they saw an opportunity and capitalized on it perfectly. More fuel efficiency, fewer trips, and lower maintenance costs overall than a larger fleet of smaller ships makes these a step in the right direction.
A1960 efficient mixed freight ship was some four thousand registered tonne. Two weeks at sea at twelve knotts, thirty crew and two weeks in port. We have forgotten. Imported goods were expensive.
Even puts the late Knock Nevis (Seawise giant) to shame regarding productivity
Im loving this Megaprojects!
I'm not sure about that. The Knock Nevis was 1504ft long with a DWT of 564,650. The Valemax class goes up to a DWT of 400,000.
@GlenCooper-sj4lh
I was thinking more on profiteering 📈
These ships are almost as massive but more easily turn a profit unlike the Knock nevis, which sadly never did despite carrying black gold as its sole cargo 🛢
I was a 3rd engineer for a vale max ship and it was good as a transhipper
8:30 I'm thinking "Huh, what is heavy fuel oil" and so I look it up and the first thing I see is the same image they used
"You're gonna need a bigger boat."
-some executive at Vale
😁😁😁😁😁😁
I just wanted to do the math real quick to see per ton efficiency.
100 tons per day, 400,000 ton capacity means that per ton of fuel oil it can move 4,000 tons of cargo per day, or per ton of cargo it needs 0.00025 tons of fuel oil per day. 1 ton (metric) of fuel oil is 1123.4 liters, so per ton of cargo it only needs about .28 liters of fuel per day. At a cruise speed of 28 kilometers per hour, that's 672 kilometers per day, at a fuel consumption of .28 liters per day per ton, thats ≈2400 ton-kilometers per liter
Good for you! I like to work the numbers like that too. Thanks a lot.
It's insane how huge they are!
"Magestic"? I am pretty sure it's "Majestic".
Big Ben is the Bell the tower is called Elizabeth tower. So the ship is probably a bit bigger than 4 bells.
Pedantic but nice👍👍
Twice the length of a concert Glockenspiel.
Any thing resulting in an interesting documentary for me to see was worth building
Oh no! I thought you were holding a giant wine glass there for a while. You looked super fancy!
...You guys spelled 'Majestic' wrong on the thumbnail...unless you mean to tell me these ships have actual magic powers.
Just close that bloody door !!!😅
Brazil mentioned!!!! 💚💛💚💛💚💛
Very Large Oar Carriers - 😂😂😂😂
The interesting part is, from an environmental and sustainability standpoint, with ships, bigger is better. The more cargo the ship can carry, the less fuel consumption and emissions you generate per ton of cargo. That is one driver behind the ever increasing size of container ships.
Petition to start measuring large quantities of horsepower in units of Czech Republics.
i feel like a class of ship the LARGE would benefit from being nuclear.
They have too many accidents i would think
such an interesting episode!
7:21.... Nice, nice, like it like it....
Ultra Large Ore. Carriers the successors to Berge Sthall. Class
So... whats the biggest ship we could theoretically build if we just accept that it wouldnt be able to dock at any modern port?
maybe the freedom ship which was never built
Depends on your other requirements. We can build entire islands, so we could, in theory at least, build one and get it moving, slowly. It would be outrageously expensive, and not overly safe, but with our current tech base, we could do it.
The entirety of the ocean can be covered, would that be a boat?
HMS Beefy was Ten miles long.
@@nmspyCurrently, it would be a ship limited by the largest available building dock, which is in Japan and is 980m long. If that’s not a concern, then the next physical limit is literally when it becomes too big to fit into the ocean.
Ships are neat.
They're now installing rotor sails on their decks to boost power and reduce fuel consumption.
A ship's speed is measured in knots - knots.
You mean gnots
@@the_niss Ask Drachinifel.
I know you are but what am I.
Majestic is spelled with J, redo the thumbnail
Nope. These ships are definitely Mage Sticks.
Didn't you mean 4x's the length of the Elizabeth tower that big Ben is in.
That is some awesome footage you have mixed. I always see your videos as a must watch because it is something so few of us know anything about, yet vital to all of us. Can't wait for your next one.
Truly crazy is also conceptualizing a global economy...and how saving a few pennies per ton of ore is largely what's prevented major wars.
Your dialogue was a bit too fast for me at times. I missed a few key words. Otherwise fascinating stuff, as always with you. Thanks again and keep up the good work.
I bought a toy version at Wally World. It didn't fit in my bathtub. Stay safe.
I can't wait to hear all the marketing about how the size of the ship reduces the carbon footprint per ton of cargo!😂
The problems with valemax is cost.the port in vancouver,bc have roberts banks for coal loading.the huge cost of dredging is massive and huge ship don't come every week right so planning for invesment is massive but when this ship show up get load coal is insane,this huge pile coal end up in ship and float yup.vale knew what get involve long before they build because they watch oiltanker and containership before make call.thank video😅
It seems absurd that anyone would want to transport iron war over a ridiculous long distance, as so much of it is going to be discarded anyway. Why isn’t it at least processed into pig iron, which can then be finished elsewhere?
Need a lot of fuel for that first stage. If the fuel is someplace else, it might well be better to transport the ore, especially if it can be concentrated.
Brazil does produce steel with it's own ore. But for whatever reasons they don't sell enough to use all the ore they produce. That ore is valuable enough that it is worthwhile to ship it across the world. The smelting process does need significant amounts of coal to turn the ore into pig iron, but it's still just a fraction of the amount of ore needed. It does seem backwards but between subsidized industries, complex import/export tariffs, different environmental regulations and costs besides the raw materials somehow it works out to be cheaper for China to buy and process the ore than to buy the steel they would produce with it.
A different example of the same phenomenon is that whole teak tree trunks get sent to India and Vietnam for processing from Costa Rica. Didn't make any sense to me either at first but talking to one of the guys working for the buyers in India he said they tried operating a lumber mill in Costa rica in order to reduce shipping costs at first. But between a more costly labor situation in Costa Rica and subsidized shipping for containers going back to Asia (all those containers full of Asian exports need to get back to Asia) it made sense to ship the whole logs to India and process them there.
I live closely to the port where Vale loads the valemax and about 300 meters from the railroad that supply the port complex with the iron ore. I visit once and it's huge. They extract a lot. The train unload 2 wagons at time, flipping both, without the need to desconect from the locomotive, which every train travel with 2 or 3 locomotives and 64 bulk wagons that hold more than 120 tonnes each wagon. At night I can hear the engine of the locomotive due to the silence in the environment.
The port complex have 5 or 6 steel continuous furnaces from Arcelor Mittal, working 23/7. They haul a lot of iron and Vale makes more money with shipping and train freight than mining.
For closure, the tax code in Brazil it's very complex and heavy in industrialized goods that makes cheaper to export the iron ore to China and import the steel than manufacture here.
If you want to know more about this, search for "complexo portuário tubarão" on Google.
*Majestic
(Please disregard this comment once the titlecard is changed)
As shown in the video, these super long, super heavy cargo ships have a nasty tendency to break in half due to rough weather. There is also the problem that most of them can't fit in smaller ports.
Wouldn't the simple solution to this would be to build the ship in separate sections, say 500 meters each, with a drive section at each end? Sort of like an aquatic train? You could have 10 or more cargo sections in between the engine sections, each connected with flexible, easy to remove connectors. This would eliminate the issue of the ship breaking in half during rough weather.
When arriving offshore of a port area, the forward drive section could tow one or two sections into port or you could use local tugs to move a single cargo module into port, thus allowing for easy access to smaller ports. The ship could then continue on to the next port, dropping off full cargo modules and picking up empty ones from previous trips. A single ship could deliver goods or bulk cargo to multiple ports, dropping off and picking up the cargo modules as they pass by each port. The time saved from having the entire ship wait for the cargo to be loaded or unloaded alone would make it worth it. The entire ship itself would never enter port, but if an drive section needed to be refit or undergo maintenance, it could be swapped out without taking the entire ship offline for months at a time.
You would design the connection system to be quick and easy to detach or attach each cargo module - you could even build a central "spine" that would be flexible enough so it could be a couple thousand feet long, used as a floating dock for each cargo module. It would provide power and access as well as a data link to the cargo pod, to monitor each one. Cargo pods would be attached on each side, making it easy for a tug in float in and remove or attach a pod and bring it into port.
This would solve the problem of having multiple sized ships needed for different ports, would cut down on transit time and fuel usage, and cut down on the number of crew needed. Really, it's just taking train tech to the sea and adapting it.
Having two ships in close proximity to each other even in calm waters is hugely dangerous, the independent movements will cause them to constantly bang into each other (there's fluid dynamics effects that actually pull the hulls towards each other too), and when you're talking hundreds of thousands of tons of inertia, a steel hull crumples like tin foil.
If you're talking about towing at a distance... take a look at some of the horror stories of vessels that have been towed, lines breaking and so on. We're talking immense forces at play here, there's no such thing as "flexible easy to remove connectors" when you're operating at that scale. You're also then losing the advantages that having a larger vessel brings you anyway.
Rough seas are bad on a rigid vessel, on two tethered vessels they're far far worse.
Imagine the sizes u could reach in space where u could build without the limitations of gravity.
what makes brazilian iron ore higher quality?
Episode idea Fact Boy- Atomic Clocks ☢️
Spellcheck spellcheck lalala spellllllcheck
Big Ben is 2.2m high. So these ships are nearly 8.8m long?
I think you probably meant the Elizabeth Tower which is 96m high, which gives a length of 384m.
You know what’s hilarious? Each one of these record breaking enormous ships that offer actual benefit to humanity costs less than 1 single F-22 fighter jet. Let that sink in.
A shippy video! I went off Portishead!
Big Ben is the bell, not the tower. It is called St.Stephen's tower.
The open door again 😂
I think it is far to compare these SUPERmassive vessels to the project that brought the airbus A380 to life. Conventional thinking, but supersized. it is particularly noteworthy that the images shown of VALE BEIJING also show, she`s run aground due to a navigation error on approach to her destination on MAIDEN VOYAGE.
But when thinking fuel consumption and main engine rating, these do fall behind. The major container vessels of that time were mostly equipped with 12 or 14 cylinder engines made or licensed by MAN or Wärtsilä, being rated at around 68.5 MW maximum continous. And whike they propelled the 8500 to 11.000 TEU vessels at 25 knots and faster, a fuel consumption of 280 to 300 tons per 24 hrs was absolutely accepted. No echaust gas cleaning, no scrubber systems, emission control areas were a pain the shipping comanies thought was temporare.
Let that sink in.
Can you do an episode on the American Antarctic snow cruiser?
is that great wall of china tidbit refering to the current version of the wall or the wall at its full estimated extent?
Majestic
Wow what a great ship(s)
Big Ben is a bell, not a tower :)
These ships are ideal for shipping massive amounts of battery materials ore
the real danger is they trying to make these unmanned
would you do a comparison of these ships & the areocron?
Maybe it would just be better to build more steel mills in Brazil, or close to brazil
Or move Brazil.
Carriers are designed to be as small as they can so they can dock at most ports.
There’s a story behind the sovereign class of Maersk check it out 😊
I'd like to see that diesel engine ! Or a piston and rod at least .
Im calling it theres gonna be nuclear powered fully electric super haulers in another 30 years
Hang on he said diesel powered then he said it burned fuel oil.
For clarity, its a low speed diesel engine. Interestingly only generates the same power as one medium sized jet turbine.
TWENTYTHREE meters of draft?! What in the name of pizza is that monster?!
Big Ben is the bell not the tower, its the Elizibeth Tower
Why did this vid remind me "a bit" of Isambard Kingdom Brunel and the Great Eastern.
So they scrap the Jarhi Viking only to have a whole fleet of iron ore the same size 🤷🏾♂️
So these do go through the Suez canal or not? That part left me confused.
From a mariner perspective: Yes they fit. But if at full loaded remains questionable, cause the published depth in the Suez canal is not always guaranteed.
For that much money, why wouldn't they build a smelting plant and just ship the steel?
Some actually did.
Fuel. That's the other part of the equation. Can be cheaper to take the ore to the fuel, and with some economics, taking the ore and the fuel to a "sweet spot" where the downstream manufacturing is already running can pay off.
I already have an enlisted account but I'll make another with another of my emails, just for you Simon :~) I'm curious as to the comparrison with the aircraft carriers. Given the size and such couldn't they make them with nuclear plants completely doing away with the dirty heavy fuel?
Sure they could, but then they'd have to deal with all those regulations as well. Probably a good future upgrade for them, but not at first when they were just trying to get them working and accepted in ports.
Lots of ports refuse access to nuclear powered vessels. With their selection of ports already severely limited, it likely wouldn't be worth it.
@@Zeppathy All of New Zealand, for example.
Nuclear power plants are expensive, and so are the people to operate and maintain them.
With the panic over the so called climate change you a hearing a lot more about nuclear power. Just a short number of years ago, if you mentioned nuclear to a "greenie" they would just about shit themselves. But lately even they,(the realistic ones) are coming to recognize that solar and wind and what not, are not going to come close to giving us the energy we need. If they want to do away with fossil fuels, nuclear is going to have to play an important part. Whether some like it or not.
The building to get these ships in and out is killing fish near the ports. Also it is intresting what the max size can be built.
Crazy big!!!!!!!!!!
i don't think the holds can hold as much VOLUME as a whole container ship. you probably mean as much weight . iron ore is heavy stuff . if it could hold as much volume per hold as as a panamax container ship that would be something.
Yep, deadweight it is. Vale Brazil has 402,374 mt of deadweight - divided by 7 cargo holds (which is an approximation as we're omitting tanks and other storage spaces) this gives us 57,482 mt per hold. Most panamax bulk carriers hold about 60-80,000 mt. I'd rather compare it to modern supramax vessels which can carry about 55-65,000 mt of cargo and stores combined.
So are these valemax ships anywhere near the size of the seawise giant even though that was an oil carrier????
Equip them with a DynaRig, and CO²-Emissions won't pose an issue, any more.