Slashdot Mirror


The Box That Built the Modern World

HughPickens.com writes: Andrew Curry has an interesting article about how more than any other single innovation, the shipping container epitomizes the enormity, sophistication, and importance of our modern transportation system. It's invisible to most people, but fundamental to how practically everything in our consumer-driven lives works. "Think of the shipping container as the Internet of thing," says Curry. "Just as your email is disassembled into discrete bundles of data the minute you hit send, then re-assembled in your recipient's inbox later, the uniform, ubiquitous boxes are designed to be interchangeable, their contents irrelevant." Last year the world's container ports moved 560 million 20-foot containers. Even cars and trucks—known in the trade as "RoRo," or "roll-on, roll-off" cargo—are increasingly being loaded into containers rather than specialized ships. "Containers are just a lot easier," says James Rice. "A box is a box. All you need is a vessel, a berth, and a place to put the container on the ground.

Consider the economics of a T-shirt sewn at a factory near Beijing. The total time in transit for a typical box from a Chinese factory to a customer in Europe might be as little as 35 days. Cost per shirt? "Less than one U.S. cent," says Rainer Horn. "It doesn't matter anymore where you produce something now, because transport costs aren't important."

22 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. There's still the pollution thing by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you buy local, you need less transport

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:There's still the pollution thing by DamonHD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But quite possibly no less cost, time, energy or carbon.

      It can take more energy/cost/etc to ship something inefficiently within your local state/county/etc than to get it shipped efficiently from China.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    2. Re:There's still the pollution thing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you buy local, you need less transport

      Transport costs are very low, and energy used in transport is likely a lot lower than you think (which is why the cost is low). If you live in California, you may think you are being "green" by eating local California grapes instead of grapes from Chile. But you are wrong. The California grapes are grown with energy intensive irrigation. The water is pumped for hundreds of miles. The Chilean grapes are grown with rainwater. That makes a much bigger difference than the transport of the final product.

      As a general rule of thumb, the product produced with the least resources, is the one with the lowest price.

    3. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not necessarily. You have to take into account the efficiency of the transport. From the figures I've seen, the fuel cost to ship something from China to the U.S. is about the same as the fuel cost to transport it from a U.S. port to its final destination inland (the U.S. has a terrible rail system so most goods are transported by relatively inefficient trucks).

      Assuming the 1 cent to transport a T-shirt from China figure is correct, if you're driving more than 500 feet to buy your "local" T-shirt, you're producing more pollution buying from that local store. It's even questionable if walking that distance has a smaller pollution footprint because of the energy cost needed to produce the food you ate which powers your walk to the local store. (And no, you cannot bypass this by growing a home garden. People vastly underestimate how much land is needed to grow the food we eat. Now factor in the energy needed to work all that land, and you'll quickly find that you'll need to increase your daily caloric intake to 5000-8000 kcal/day if you farm that by hand. There's a very good reason we shifted that inefficient labor-intensive task to being done by machines.)

      Maximum energy efficiency is achieved when you multitask and group multiple tasks together. That's how buying stuff on Amazon can end up cheaper with a smaller energy footprint than buying stuff locally. Yes if Amazon were to ship just one T-shirt to you and UPS sent a truck out to deliver just one T-shirt to your house, it' be horribly inefficient. But that UPS truck makes a hundred or so deliveries on its daily route so the portion of its total drive attributable to your T-shirt package delivery is only a few hundred or few thousand feet. Likewise Amazon processes millions of orders every day, so the portion of its operating costs attributable to your single order is very small. This is also the same reason the big department stores end up being able to offer lower prices than the small mom and pop shop - greater volume of sales generates more opportunity for efficiency improvements. If you can come up with a way to combine big box efficiency with the mom and pop buying experience, you'll become the next billionaire.

    4. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh yes, I'm typing at my Canadian keyboard on my American computer sitting on my locally produced chair.... Wait, let me check. IKEA desk, made in China, keyboard, computer, chair, all China, as a matter of fact, the only things I have that are built in North America is my collection of vintage test gear.

      And this technology that keeps getting better, when will I see a reduced workweek because of it?

    5. Re:There's still the pollution thing by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Define: less.

      You certainly need to travel less distance. However, modern container ships are fearsomely efficient. They've been banging on about "green" and "low carbon" recently, but they've always been practicing that since it reduces costs and increases the very slim profit margins.

      In terms of shipping, it'll take easily as much, probably substantially more carbon getting the goods from the dock to your door as it does getting them from China to your nearest major container port. The engines on those ships hit over 50% thermal efficiency for the best of them, which is second only giant land based combined cycle plants (it's better than coal plants). That combined with immense volume (drag is related to area, so size pays off well) and slow speed means that container ships are quite astonishingly efficient.

      I crunched the numbers once for curiosity and was amazed by the results.

      Buying local can save a bit, but not nearly as much as you think. Nonetheless, there's still other good reasons for buying local, and I try to do it where possible.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:There's still the pollution thing by CharlieG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Correct. People don't realize how fuel EFFICIENT shipping really is. At "Slow" speeds (18 knots) where more than 1/2 the worlds cargo ships run, and figuring a 9000-10000 TEU ship (aka holds 9000-10000 20 ft containers, 1/2 that if all 40Ft boxes) - the ship will typically burn 100 Tons of fuel/day - or 1/100th of a ton of fuel per container/day, and roughly (because bunker C - the 'crap they burn' - Now there are roughly depending on exact fuel 250-280 gallons/ton of fuel - so it takes about 1/4 gallon of fuel per DAY to move each one of those containers. But the joke? Go to the online shipping calculators - China to west coast USA (where it will get put on a train) - 15 days, NOT 15. So you are talking roughly 3.75 gallons of fuel to move that container of tee-shirts from China to the US - that's the container, all the goods etc.
      Work the math. You probably burn more fuel per shirt driving to the store, picking up the shirt, and driving home than shipping it from China takes. Remember - ships float, and take surprisingly little fuel per ton to move freight. It is why canals were such a big deal back when - a full barge of coal or gravel or whatever could be moved by ONE horse.

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    7. Re:There's still the pollution thing by kencurry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a big factor: the cheapness and distance shipped have us moving to a disposable model vs. repair. I just went through this with a washing machine and a lawn mower. The washing machine was LG; very hard to find a schematic with labeled parts. I had to guess and was wrong twice. I didn't bother to ship back the wrong parts as they were about 10 bucks, shipping was also about 10 bucks. So I threw the bad ones away.

      Same issue with the lawnmower. Was a Yard Machines mower with Briggs & Stratton engine. tried the 800 number (was still under warrantee) which was a total joke. Web site was confusing and useless. Did not recognize my engine serial number to send me into someplace that I could get engine info/troubleshooting/parts list.

      Ended up taking it to a local place where the Mexicanos who ran it figured out the problem and fixed the mower (In your face Donald Trump!)

      So, while in theory the cost of these appliances and the world efficiency is improved with the model of cheap parts&labor from China. The reality is a lot of wasted time, shipping wrong replacement parts, and giving up and tossing out the old piece-o-crap to a landfill and buying something new.

      I am not buying into the purported efficiencies posted here.

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    8. Re:There's still the pollution thing by KGIII · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's okay - we were told, just a few days ago, that the most important innovation was the refrigerator. Now it's a shipping container. Maybe next week it will be the transistor. At this point, I guess all we're supposed to do is howl and screech like monkeys and occasionally throw poop at one another in a maelstrom of conflicting information.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re:There's still the pollution thing by CharlieG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      BTW, when you work it out to 34000 teeshirts/container, that total use of fuel is .00011 gallons of fuel to move that shirt from China to the US - so say I'm off on my numbers by a factor of 10, so it took 1/1000 of a gallon of fuel to move that shirt trans pacific. Now if we figure 10 Kilos of CO2/Gallon (Per the US EIA), we are talking .01 Kilos of CO2. Assume you live a 20 minute round trip to the store, and weigh 160 lbs (adult male) - aka 10 minutes walk to the store, 10 mins back - the formula I saw said .00002lbs of CO2 emitted per minute walking per lb of person, so you emit .029 kilos of CO2 walking to and from the store, YES, nearly THREE times the CO2 as transporting the shirt from China. Interesting to put in in perspective, isn't it? And THAT is saying my numbers are off by 10x - my actual number shows you are emitting 30x the CO2 walking to the store and back

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    10. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, while in theory the cost of these appliances and the world efficiency is improved with the model of cheap parts&labor from China. The reality is a lot of wasted time, shipping wrong replacement parts, and giving up and tossing out the old piece-o-crap to a landfill and buying something new.

      That conclusion is dependant on the value of your time (or a hired appliance repair dude @ $70/hr) looking up and understanding the schematic, deducing the cause of the failure, figuring out which part or parts need to be replaced and then doing the repair, adjusted for the probability of making a mistake anywhere in the process. Compare that with the number of engineer-hours required to design the thing, maintain the production lines and run the distribution apparatus (all of it) divided into the number of units produced. You might find that you just spent more time repairing your unit than was (amortized) spent on the entire rest of its lifetime ...

      I guess another way of saying this is that every good has an optimal level of reliability -- beyond which it costs less to regularly replace the failing units than to improve the process or to provide for repairs. We could probably build a washer (or a car, or a hard drive) that lasts longer than the ones we have today, but what would the point be if the TCO was actually higher? Unless you were running the Presidential Motorcade or going all Mad Max, would you buy a car that failed half as often if the TCO was $300/mo instead of $200/mo (and that's including cost of repairs plus your time and inconvenience to bring it to the shop already priced in)? Would Amazon buy more reliable hard drives for AWS (if they were on the market) or would they just buy the cheap ones and build in redundancy? Does my small business website need 99.99% uptime or is 99.9% sufficient? Will the business I lose in the 40 minutes per month difference make up the cost? We can always throw more money at any good/process to make it more reliable -- but there has to be some stopping point where we decide that the marginal gains no longer make sense.

      Another aspect to keep in mind is that doing things more reliably at global-scale means paying attention to all those nines. Just like getting from 99.9% uptime to 99.99% is going to cost more than each previous SLA, so to is the calculation for every input to the washer, plus the process/machinery that assembles it, plus the process/machinery that tests it. The acceptable marginal failure rate is going to scale against the marginal cost for increasing reliability.

      [ And interestingly enough, Speed Queen does specialize in super-simple super-reliable washers and dryers, largely for the commercial (coin-op) market where downtime is more expensive. If it means a lot to you for your washer, by all means pay more for one and rest easier. Last I checked, they were more than 3x the upfront cost though, meaning that even if your other washer breaks twice out of warranty and is totally unrepairable and you have to buy a new one, you're still ahead! ]

    11. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Snotnose · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I vote for the toilet. I can't see heading outside in the cold to sit on a cold toilet seat. It would definitely cut into the reading I get done.

    12. Re:There's still the pollution thing by MountainLogic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed, we did have a great rail system, but it has been perverted by energy companies exporting coal and oil. The coal and oil companies have cut monopolistic deals to buy up all the capacity on many lines. They are able to do this by making big buys. This has forced others who ship periodically to rely on much more expensive trucks. In some cases farmers who have used these lines for over 100 years have not been able to get product to market because trucking cost more than their profit. Also our rail lines are perpetually in decay and we are loosing many miles of feeder lines that service warehouse and factories districts every year causing a reverse Metcalf effect that will eventually kill the utility of our critical rail system.

    13. Re:There's still the pollution thing by InterGuru · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could always, as a friend of mine did, hang the toilet seat by the wood stove inside the house, and carry it out when you wanted to use it.

    14. Re: There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are, empirically, wrong. Global trade has helped people in the West (on average - some people have been hurt, but more have gained) and it's helped a lot of less-developed countries raise their standard of living. Westerners don't gain as much from global trade, but on the whole it does raise quality of life.

      As for saying efficiency makes quality of life worse - I cannot understand that opinion. Doing more with less is fantastic, and it's arguably one thing that makes us human.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    15. Re:There's still the pollution thing by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's okay - we were told, just a few days ago, that the most important innovation was the refrigerator. Now it's a shipping container.

      Obviously it's a shipping container full of refrigerators.

    16. Re: There's still the pollution thing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Human quality of life would be better without so much efficiency and global trade, which doesn't raise quality of life

      Nonsense. China opened to world trade in 1980. Since then, income has increased eight-fold, and hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. The poorest countries in the world today are sub-Saharan African countries with near zero trade. The world's richest countries are those with the most open economies.

  2. A great book by davebarnes · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger
    by Marc Levinson

    A really good read

    --
    Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
  3. Re:BS by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Informative

    They meant the cost to transport the shirt was one cent. Not the unit cost of the shirt, of course.

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  4. Pointless analogy by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Think of the shipping container as the Internet of thing," says Curry. "Just as your email is disassembled into discrete bundles of data the minute you hit send, then re-assembled in your recipient's inbox later, the uniform, ubiquitous boxes are designed to be interchangeable, their contents irrelevant."

    This analogy is poorly constructed. Analogies are needed when an abstract concept with no tangible component needs to be explained by substituting a tangible form in place of an abstract form. Packing shipping containers, even with disparate contents that are later 'broken down' to go to individual recipients, is a tangible concept that does not need to use an abstract concept like data into packets into frames into bits back into frames back into bits back into frames back into packets (etc) to explain.

    It doesn't even need something abstract to explain how the form factors of shipping containers impact goods, as one can simply state that due to standardization in three or four common shipping container sizes dictates the size and packing of goods that get packed into such containers, which in-turn dictate the dimensions of pallets on which goods may be placed, the size of railcars on which containers may ride, and even the size of tunnels for rail cars and the shapes of loading docks at distribution facilities.

    One can even talk about the downsides (like how the form factors were somewhat arbitrary and work equally well and poorly for both fractional and SI units) and how there's real concern for the wastes associated with moving the mass the mass of the container itself. Again, no analogy needed.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  5. Like much innovation, it was resisted by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm old enough to remember when containerization was just beginning to ramp up. The stevedores (the guys who manually shifted the goods from ship to shore and vice versa) were really upset because it would reduce the number of jobs (their contracts typically let them set the number of men on each job. Nice deal, that) and make their pilfering from the cargo much tougher. Somebody estimated that 5% or so of consumer goods never made it to the destination. There were violent strikes and sabotage of the port facilities during that time. Goes to show that when you kick over somebody's rice bowl, no matter how much better you might be making things, you're going to get pushback. A lesson that still applies, these days for the Uber economy.

    1. Re:Like much innovation, it was resisted by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There were violent strikes and sabotage of the port facilities during that time. Goes to show that when you kick over somebody's rice bowl, no matter how much better you might be making things, you're going to get pushback. A lesson that still applies, these days for the Uber economy.

      It's funny, because I think you overlook the odd commonalities between the old-fashioned stevedore model and the Uber model.

      Both of them are based on an idea that having a steady job with consistent employees is unnecessary. It's obviously cheaper to hire people on demand.

      The traditional model for stevedores were guys who'd show up at the docks every morning and just HOPE they might get enough work that day to get paid and go home and feed their families. That just depended on whether the shipping schedules and amount of goods happened to be enough to support them.

      The life of a lot of these guys was terrible -- they worked hard, when they could, but they had no job security at all... since they had no "job," per se. If they had an unlucky accident and hurt their backs or whatever, they could be out on the street begging.

      Then, at some point, through strikes workers' rights movements, the stevedores finally achieved REAL jobs.

      Ironically, the "Uber economy" you favor is heading toward putting its "contract workers" (people who struggle to cobble together enough part-time work to live) back in the same place that the stevedores were before unions... standing on the docks, hoping that enough ships come in today to feed the family.

      (P.S. I'm not arguing in favor of corrupt unions, nor am I celebrating destructive stevedore protests. But I think we need to realize why those stevedores were so upset to lose their jobs... those were hard-won concessions that they fought to get out of an "Uber economy" model, because it made their lives miserable.)