3 ms·

But there's an obvious solution to that: more steel. Still, a far more effective solution would be increase width and draught likewise to reach your target vol

by usrusr 5y ago

But there's an obvious solution to that: more steel. Still, a far more effective solution would be increase width and draught likewise to reach your target volume. And that's where we're back at ${canal}max classes (locks also impose a length limit but I'd assume that those are much easier to adapt than width/depth). If Suez Canal authorities are serious about trying to prevent future Ever Given incidents (how serious they are likely depends on the exact outcome of the ongoing liability fights) they should keep some parts of the canal at the existing profile (locks perhaps?) to prevent suezmax 2.0 (or whatever their current version+1 is)

manquer 5y ago
More steel/thicker/different steel is expensive, as is say some other material like carbon fiber composites . We could make a much bigger , lighter efficient ship with carbon fiber entirely, however there is no economic incentive to spend 100x on the ship, fuel costs and economies of scale rtc don't help recover that capital cost
- dmurray 5y ago
  > More steel/thicker/different steel is expensive Expensive would be OK, of course a bigger ship costs more to build than a small one, but you hope to make the investment back by carrying more cargo and additionally benefit from some economies of scale. However, the biggest ships we have are at the limit of how thick we can join steel plates with current welding technologies. So there's some non-linearity here.
  - manquer 5y ago
    Yeah, it is ecosystem of changes, you need bigger docks , shipyards and canals in conjunction with the technology improvements. The costs of all of it needs to be economically feasible even if the technology is there, I don't think welding is only reason we have been limited in the size
    - bombcar 5y ago
      You can see the practical limit in the ships designed to go directly from China - Los Angeles - as it's just open sea.
      - manquer 5y ago
        No doubt those waters are ideal given the high traffic and limited geographic barriers, even these however ships would still need to dock in LA. I am not saying the limit doesn't play a major role, I am saying if it's was the main bottleneck there would be a lot of r&d in solving it, solving it would certainly help, but the economics and other limitations mean solving welding won't mean a revolutionary change to ship sizes
      - CalChris 5y ago
        Those ships still have to enter the harbor and then have to be unloaded. The Benjamin Franklin has a 52 foot draft and stacks containers 10 high [1]. That means deeper dredging and bigger cranes. She called on LA, Oakland and Seattle but now transits from Asia to Europe via the Suez Canal. Who pays for this dredging and these cranes? The localities. It's difficult to defray these costs with shipping fees. American President Lines pulled their headquarters from Oakland to Phoenix when Oakland did that. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMA_CGM_Benjamin_Franklin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMA_CGM_Benjamin_Franklin [2] https://www.prlog.org/10551489-apl-phoenix-headquarters-relocation-complete.html https://www.prlog.org/10551489-apl-phoenix-headquarters-relo...

by usrusr 5y ago

manquer 5y ago

More steel/thicker/different steel is expensive, as is say some other material like carbon fiber composites . We could make a much bigger , lighter efficient ship with carbon fiber entirely, however there is no economic incentive to spend 100x on the ship, fuel costs and economies of scale rtc don't help recover that capital cost

dmurray 5y ago
> More steel/thicker/different steel is expensive Expensive would be OK, of course a bigger ship costs more to build than a small one, but you hope to make the investment back by carrying more cargo and additionally benefit from some economies of scale. However, the biggest ships we have are at the limit of how thick we can join steel plates with current welding technologies. So there's some non-linearity here.
- manquer 5y ago
  Yeah, it is ecosystem of changes, you need bigger docks , shipyards and canals in conjunction with the technology improvements. The costs of all of it needs to be economically feasible even if the technology is there, I don't think welding is only reason we have been limited in the size
  - bombcar 5y ago
    You can see the practical limit in the ships designed to go directly from China - Los Angeles - as it's just open sea.
    - manquer 5y ago
      No doubt those waters are ideal given the high traffic and limited geographic barriers, even these however ships would still need to dock in LA. I am not saying the limit doesn't play a major role, I am saying if it's was the main bottleneck there would be a lot of r&d in solving it, solving it would certainly help, but the economics and other limitations mean solving welding won't mean a revolutionary change to ship sizes
    - CalChris 5y ago
      Those ships still have to enter the harbor and then have to be unloaded. The Benjamin Franklin has a 52 foot draft and stacks containers 10 high [1]. That means deeper dredging and bigger cranes. She called on LA, Oakland and Seattle but now transits from Asia to Europe via the Suez Canal. Who pays for this dredging and these cranes? The localities. It's difficult to defray these costs with shipping fees. American President Lines pulled their headquarters from Oakland to Phoenix when Oakland did that. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMA_CGM_Benjamin_Franklin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMA_CGM_Benjamin_Franklin [2] https://www.prlog.org/10551489-apl-phoenix-headquarters-relocation-complete.html https://www.prlog.org/10551489-apl-phoenix-headquarters-relo...