Home Business Container Ships Getting Too Big Is A Self-Solving Problem

Container Ships Getting Too Big Is A Self-Solving Problem

Author

Comments

It is indeed true that container ships are getting bigger. The usual measurement is how many 20 foot containers they can carry and that’s risen, just in the past couple of decades, from 8,000 or so to 20,000 or so as the top end of the market.

There’s also a certain rigidity to naval architecture. You can’t go on making ships longer and longer. Waves, d’ye see? The structural strength of the hull must be able to deal with waves running under it. The longer the ship the more waves can be trying to do that at the same time. Get “too long” and we’ve not got steel, nor welding, strong enough to deal with having multiple waves beneath the hull at the same time. The ship would just break its back in heavy weather.

So, ships get wider, not longer. This becomes something of a problem in canals of course. But this is all a self-solving problem all the same:

Being able to load more shipping containers onto a single vessel results in economies of scale that sink through to their owners’ bottom lines.

“The biggest cost is the ship and then fuel,” says Paul Stott, senior lecturer in ship production at Newcastle University.

“As ships get bigger, the rise in fuel costs is proportionately less, so container shipping lines naturally went bigger as the earning potential rises faster than the cost of fuelling them.

“It’s a highly competitive industry, and the shipping lines are looking for any advantage they can get.”

The incentive is to get bigger all the time. Still, self-solving:

Apart from saving on fuel costs, these seaborne leviathans derive other benefits from their size.

Docking and loading them is faster than handling a series of smaller ships, which would have to wait for a berth.

Still that get bigger incentive, still self-solving:

The limiting factor now is that when they are longer than four football pitches and stand 20 storeys from their engine room to bridge, ports and cranes are simply not big enough to handle them.

Dredging deeper harbours, and building even longer berths and higher cranes are likely to be prohibitively expensive, and put an inevitable cap on the size of ships.

There comes a point when the costs of altering the surrounding infrastructure becomes greater than the benefits of the lower running costs per TEU. This being one of those problems that markets are so excellent at solving, so much so that we don’t have to do anything, it’s self-solving.

Simply leave everyone alone. Prices are the information people need – how much does it cost to move a TEU? To rebuild a port? – to come to the correct decision. Given that we do have prices here we need do nothing else.

SUPPORT US WITH A SUBSCRIPTION?

6 COMMENTS

  1. Biggest mistake was letting the woman drive (allegedly).
    Also, not that i’m a conspiracy theorist or anything, but the timing, from a Chinese perspective, is…..fortuitous?

  2. Get “too long” and we’ve not got steel, nor welding, strong enough to deal with having multiple waves beneath the hull at the same time. The ship would just break its back in heavy weather.

    It isn’t multiple waves that are the greatest problem, it’s a single big wave that could leave the ship supported at its bow and stern but not in the middle (and, shortly thereafter, vice versa).

  3. Yup, Boeing doesn’t build 747s anymore and the Airbus people will shortly realize they’ve overstepped the bounds of the market with the A380. These things do, in fact, resolve themselves via the market.

  4. The reason the two QE carriers are the slightly weird size they are is the cost of increasing the size of the docks to hold what would have been a more sensible (in mission terms) slightly larger ship (I can’t remember where I heard this so it may be apocryphal or even incorrect.)

  5. I think the acid test for a Royal Naval ship is “can it fit into Portsmouth Harbour ?” I remember when I lived down there that the Marine carriers eg USS Wasp or Hornet could dock at HMNB, but the Nimitzes and super-Nimitzes have to wile away off of Spithead. They could always chop a bit off of the entrance, but I think that English Heritage and City/Gosport Council might not like the idea.

    The Panama Canal presents a serious problem for very wide ships, Suez is broader but as Ever Given discovered, only deep enough in the middle.

    • Panama is a problem because of the size of the locks. On any navigation system with locks, the vessels will tend to become the biggest that can possibly fit – in the case of Panama, that’s a Panamax. On the continental system of rivers and canals, the boats are built to fit into the locks with a few cm to spare in each direction.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

expunct

in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

In Praise Of Benign, Even Helpful, Beneficial, Tax Competition

Richard Murphy tells us that it is not possible for there to be anything other than harmful tax competition. All such competition must, by...

If Women Working Causes Inflation Then Women Must Be Less Productive Workers Than Men

Over at Politico there is the assertion that one reason for past inflation was that women joined the workforce. If there are more people...

The Point Of Inventions Is To Be Able To Use Them, Not Sell Them

This is a common complaint about the British economy, that we can invent things but don;t then go on to make fortunes out of...

An Interesting Method Of Avoiding Tax Rises – Just Borrow

Those progressives over at American Prospect, it is possible to wonder whether they've quite got the basics of how the economy works at times. So,...

The Truth About Biden’s Tax Plan – It’s Based Upon Lies

So Richard Murphy told us how lovely the Biden corporate tax plan is over at FT Alphaville. I pointed out in the comments that...

Recent comments