Slashdot Mirror
Bigger Isn't Better As Mega-Ships Get Too Big and Too Risky
HughPickens.com writes: Alan Minter writes at Bloomberg that between 1955 and 1975, the average volume of a container ship doubled -- and then doubled again over each of the next two decades. The logic behind building such giants was once unimpeachable: Globalization seemed like an unstoppable force, and those who could exploit economies of scale could reap outsized profits. But it is looking more and more like the economies of scale for mega-ships are not worth the risk. The quarter-mile-long Benjamin Franklin recently became the largest cargo ship ever to dock at a U.S. port and five more mega-vessels are supposed to follow. But today's largest container vessels can cost $200 million and carry many thousands of containers -- potentially creating $1 billion in concentrated, floating risk that can only dock at a handful of the world's biggest ports. Mega-ships make prime targets for cyberattacks and terrorism, suffer from a dearth of qualified personnel to operate them, and are subject to huge insurance premiums. But the biggest costs associated with these floating behemoths are on land -- at the ports that are scrambling to accommodate them. New cranes, taller bridges, environmentally perilous dredging, and even wholesale reconfiguration of container yards are just some of the costly disruptions that might be needed to receive a Benjamin Franklin and service it efficiently. Under such circumstances, you'd think that ship owners would start to steer clear of big boats. But, fearful of falling behind the competition and hoping to put smaller operators out of business, they're actually doing the opposite. Global capacity will increase by 4.5 percent this year. "Sooner or later, even the biggest operators will have to accept that the era of super-sized shipping has begun to list," concludes Minter. "With global growth and trade still sluggish, and the benefits of sailing and docking big boats diminishing with each new generation, ship owners are belatedly realizing that bigger isn't better."
Boats are even more competitive than rail once you start looking at routes like Hong Kong -> Los Angeles or London -> Mumbai
The bigger the better, growth will continue to feed these monsters, and the larger they get, the more efficient they are. I'm not really sure what the article is blabbering on about, beyond some hand-wavey fear-mongering.
moox. for a new generation.
Wow... so much information, and so much of it wrong.
You think taxation is the reason that ships use other countries' flags? Typically not. It's more about regulation. The UK is trying to win back registrations by having more responsive regulators, not by cutting taxes. Most registrations are in countries that simply have little/no regulation. Furthermore, it's simply silly to think of ship registrations as being even remotely indicative of anything. This is a ship that was built in China, owned from France, and travels around the world. Why does it even matter where it's registered?
Why do you claim that Ben Franklin would have hated the trade situation with China? My understanding of Franklin is that he would have been a big supporter of the idea of comparative advantage. The idea hadn't been developed during his lifetime, but he was a pretty smart guy and was always interested in adding new ideas to his repertoire. You could learn from that. Besides, we really don't send much raw material to China, so I don't see where you're getting that from.
Furthermore, while a supporter of independence, Franklin was hardly anti-anglo. There's a big difference between wanting to be independent and thinking of a whole nation as your enemy. Few American revolutionaries wanted to be enemies with England, they simply wanted to be independent of it. It's such a big difference, and you've completely missed it.
Earth Wrecker? Such mega ships are hugely efficient, so if anything it should be Earth Saver.
Ignorance isn't something to be embarrassed of, but being so purposefully ignorant, and publicly boasting of your ignorance the way you have.... shame on you.
That ship represents a human population that is spilling way out of control, killing Earth's ecosystems and wreaking environmental catastrophe. It represents the stripping of resources from Earth on vast scales which is totally unsustainable. That ship is a symbol of humankind's failure, not progress. If you don't believe it, wait 100 years.
The ship is better than the smaller ships, because it uses less resources to run. Shipping a toothbrush across the ocean takes less oil than driving a mile to the store to pick it up. This is a symbol of progress and good things.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Is "terrorism" the new word for "crime", and "terrorist" for "criminal"? We're going to need new dictionaries because I don't see how stealing cargo from a ship is poloitoical coercion or a method of resisting government
Twinstiq, game news
especially on fue
I know I'm repeating myself from the thread about Oasis-class ocean liner, but... How come this kind of mega-ship is powered by burning fuel ?!
Explorer-class container ships (e.g.: the mentioned CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin) are bigger and heavier than Nimitz class Aircraft carriers (e.g.: USS Georges H.W. Bush), and the later are powered by nuclear reactors.
I can understand that, in the case of tourism vessels, nuclear propulsion might sound as potential target for pirate/terrorists (though that hasn't prevent Russia to operate a few exploring/tourism nuclear vessels around the north pole).
But in the case of megaships? All the ware stored in the containers is *already* a potential target for piracy (as mentioned in the summary). Compared to potential billions worth of stolen merchandise, the nuclear propulsion is probably pocket change. It won't add much to the security challenge that these megaships are already facing.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The problem is, B and A can barely fit these ships
One of the biggest problems is that if B is located in Los Angeles or San Diego, the longshoremen's union will beat up anyone who suggests the port facilities be redesigned with more automation and less longshoremen in order to handle the new ships' capacities in a reasonable amount of time.