SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the not-the-local-bulk-cruisers-mind-you dept.
Alastair Philip Wiper writes that at at 194 feet wide and 1,312 feet long, the Matz Maersk Triple E is the largest ship ever built capable of carrying 18,000 20-foot containers. Its propellers weigh 70 tons apiece and it is too big for the Panama Canal, though it can shimmy through the Suez. A U-shaped hull design allows more room below deck, providing capacity for 18,000 shipping containers arranged in 23 rows – enough space to transport 864 million bananas. The Triple-E is constructed from 425 pre-fabricated segments, making up 21 giant “megablock” cross sections. Most of the 955,250 litres of paint used on each ship is in the form of an anti- corrosive epoxy, pre-applied to each block. Finally, a polyurethane topcoat of the proprietary Maersk brand colour, “Hardtop AS-Blue 504”, is sprayed on.
Twenty Triple-E class container ships have been commissioned by Danish shipping company Maersk Lines for delivery by 2015. The ships are being built at the Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering factory in the South Korean port of Opko. The shipyard, about an hour from Busan in the south of the country, employs about 46,000 people, and "could reasonably be described as the worlds biggest Legoland," writes Wiper. "Smiling workers cycle around the huge shipyard as massive, abstractly over proportioned chunks of ships are craned around and set into place." The Triple E is just one small part of the output of the shipyard, as around 100 other vessels including oil rigs are in various stages of completion at the any time.” The vessels will serve ports along the northern-Europe-to-Asia route, many of which have had to expand to cope with the ships’ size. “You don’t feel like you’re inside a boat, it’s more like a cathedral,” Wiper says. “Imagine this space being full of consumer goods, and think about how many there are on just one ship. Then think about how many are sailing round the world every day. It’s like trying to think about infinity.”
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 20 2014, @09:44PM
There was a big discussion pre-world trade that building a world class skyscraper was proof there would be an economic collapse in a couple years.
Similar discussion about building giant ships in the world trade era. "Imagine this space being full of consumer goods" LOL not for long!
The shame of it is a mostly empty skyscraper can creep along for decades, but you stop maint on a ship that big, the suckers going down in weeks/months. Beach it somewhere and wait for better economic conditions? Then all its systems will be out of date if its a decade. Its an environmental disaster because its all going to be wasted soon, a total loss on the environmental costs of making it, when its soon no longer needed.
Maybe people can live in it, like the float cities so popular in some sci fi. As the book said, "Maybe they'll listen to REASON". That book would make a decent movie. (Thinks about the recent Star Trek reboot). On second thought don't go ruining my memories, skip the movie.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Monday October 20 2014, @10:29PM
Maybe people can live in it, like the float cities so popular in some sci fi.
Owners of Jules Verne's Propeller Island did not need to worry about the economy. They could buy the best and not worry about where the money would come from. However in the real world a floating city would have to worry very much about the economy, as they have to buy food from earth-based farms. Perhaps fishing jobs would be available, or marine research, or some purely intellectual pursuits. But not much else - not with today's technology. People on a ship like that would have nothing to do. Even programmers would have hard time working there, due to slow, expensive and unreliable (in bad weather) satellite Internet. The best way to use one of such ships for living is by parking it at some pier forever.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday October 20 2014, @10:48PM
If you wanted, you could float your little city down to a better pier. That's a nice bonus.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday October 20 2014, @10:36PM
Lets assume the the predictions of a collapse upon which you base your post-apocalyptic musing were in fact imminent:
Shipping is drastically reduced. Which ships will be the cheapest to continue to run, those with the biggest payload and the best fuel economy and a small crew, or many may much smaller vessels with small payloads, poor fuel economy, and just about the same size crew?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday October 20 2014, @10:52PM
It depends on where you go and how much you need to carry.
So for example, a bus provides better fuel economy on a per person basis IF it exceeds a certain rider level. If the bus is carrying one passenger however, a full size pickup with a single occupant will more efficient. So with the shipping -- if you can fill the ship and arrange destinations efficiently, the big ship is better. If you can't, the small ship is.
(Score: 2) by zafiro17 on Tuesday October 21 2014, @02:32PM
The shipping business operates on razor-thin margins these days, and companies like Maersk have been in economic downturn over the past decade, squeezed by the cheaper options of sketchy Asian companies who ship for less by skimping on safety etc. So if they've decided to invest in this kind of ship you can rest assured their lawyers, accountants, planners, and managers have studied the costs and benefits and decided it makes sense. There is enormous amount of trade going on between Asia and America, all of which docks on the USA's Pacific Coast. These are ships that are too large to go through the Panama Canal because they're intended to ever need to. Companies like Maersk can't afford to make a mistake. If they're ready to invest in this kind of ship then there must be a calculated advantage to doing so.
As for measuring the ship's volume in bananas, WTF? Can I have that in Libraries of Congress or swimming pools, please?
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 21 2014, @03:23PM
Yeah you're right, we should always form opinions based on deference to authority because those in positions of authority can do no wrong and never have. What could possibly go wrong?
(Score: 2) by TK on Tuesday October 21 2014, @03:42PM
It would be much simpler to say that the new ship can transport 43 Olympic swimming pools full of bananas across 12,000 football fields and over 266 million Sydney Harbor's worth of ocean.
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum