I'm a retired merchant seaman and I worked on many container ships over the years. I think that your video is spot on and is appreciated. I especially liked the fact of your mention of Malcolm McClain who originally invented containerized cargo and the founding of SeaLand. He is a true hero of the worldwide maritime industry and is most often overlooked, if not totally ignored for some odd reason. Thank you.
I'm wondering if it might be economical to start putting in automated racks, instead of just stacking. You could even bring your own autonomous skates, for drive on drive off cargo. Get a whole ship done in 24 hours. I'm thinking ramps in the side. Like an upside down pez dispenser. And you wouldn't have to automate every row. Some rows could be stacked, with an automated crane to put them into the automated dispensers.
About 40 years ago, I went into Spencer's with my girlfriend. We were holding hands, as people do. I picked up a jiggly, squishy eyeball and said, "Somewhere in Asia, there's a factory that makes these." China hadn't risen yet, but I KNEW. She picked up a whoopie cushion and asked, "Do you think that they make these, too?" "Absolutely not," I replied. "Those take completely different tooling. Those come from a different factory." Fast forward. She's now my ex wife, and ADHD and fidgets are major parts of our culture. And because of fidgets, we need ships that can carry 25,000 containers. I don't really know how to feel about any of this. There's that story of highly collectible plastic ducks that washed up all over the world when a container ship ...encountered problems in the Pacific and the ducks all became part of the connected circulating gyres. They actually taught us things about the gyres that we didn't know, which... yay, science. But... goddamn, we buy a lot of crap. And that's not even Temu crap; that gets flown to us, thanks to China's "developing nation" status in the WTO. I have this weird idea that countries that have an active space program aren't actually developing nations, but I'm weird. And I'm not bashing China, it has plenty of problems without me adding my two cents, but... DAMN, we buy a lot of crap.
Depends how you define "Crap". Your crap may be the treasure of a poor family, it worth weeks of their hourly wages . I am sure there are plenty of such family in your US inner cities.
I'd love to work on one of those cargo ships if I wasn't so scared of going outside my hometown. That certain isolation... umph... it would be nice. Well sometimes at very least.
Logistics is a profession, in the Netherlands we are doing it for ages, just an example, we knew long before the public that Desert Storm was on its way, just because of the logistics. They were moving a lot of the equipment through the harbors of Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg. Most people hadn’t any clue about it.
@@americanmade-316 uh if they're Constantly moving military equipment into one area, then its very likely there is something about to happen? Smh. Its as if the world has lost their ability to critically think
@@LarryOrtwine not constantly, by the peak of movements, one way or another you can feel something Is coming. The shiploads of equipment going out of Western Europe to the Gulf were amazing, it’s just a 1 +1. It wasn’t constantly, the NDTA, the logistic organization made this all happen, train, convoy, barges, it was all used to load on the big ship and of they went.
@joostprins3381 the entire world knew desert storm was on its way, that was the in intention. George Bush gave an interview saying as much, we wanted him to stop. He thought we were playing, and he learned otherwise. And just so you know, outside of our considerable nato obligations we have and have had divisions worth of armor and supplies in the reigon long before desert storm. Your a friend, but not a close one. You don't have the relationship we have with the uk. Don't for a second think that because you knew what we were shipping commercially 35 years ago, you know or on par with the hurt and destruction we could unleash on anyone but our closest allies. Nato dues are coming up, better make sure they are paid up before trumps back.
Yeah... About the F.S.Key Bridge... I live near it and the traffic around it in Baltimore City and parts of Baltimore County has gotten so, so much worse since the bridge's fall, and the area hasn't fully recovered from the financial impact. That's another major impact the larger ships pose. If another bridge collapse like that happens in a busier port it'd be catastrophic to that area too. R.I.P the lost six workers.
I agree with all of that, except for you using the word collapse. That bridge didn't collapse. Yes it did fall, but that was from being impacted by one of those cargo ships. That bridge fell from a collision.
Not advancing our world because in the past a tragic error caused a disaster is a really poor way to live life. If we all walked our path with that attitude none of us would ever leave town or take a vacation again. You can't bubble wrap life, if you do you end up missing out on living.
A significantly smaller ship may do nearly as much damage, a direct hit on a structural support on a bridge is catastrophic with most container ships, being that your still dealing with hundreds of of thousands of tons on the smaller side
I think the US's hostilities towards port automation is also a heavy factor. Many modern ports across the world use several automation technologies to quickly and efficiently load, handle, and unload cargo. Yet US port facilities (and their unions) are extremely hostile against such efficiency gains, causing the US to fall back more and more compared to modern ports.
THE JOYS OF UNION LABOR & UNION LEADERS' CORRUPTION, & COLLUSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS & EMPLOYERS & CORRUPT UNIONS! MAKE ALL STATES RIGHT-TO-WORK! FORCE UNIONS TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL THEIR MONIES & FUNDS!
How? We don't have the infrastructure in place. By that I mean all our companies have factories outside our country. Also, some minerals needed in manufacturing are not accessible on our continent.
Yeah, sure, do it! Instead of that , you have greedy billionaires like MAGA Musk who promise to create jobs in the US and now double a Tesla factory - in China!
The same could be said for Europe and "The West" in general, but the problem is that it is simply cheaper to make it in China and then ship it around the World. Capitalists don't care about their country, only about their bank balance, so they will do what makes them the most money. After several decades of this, we no longer have the manufacturing capability in "Western" countries, and capitalist economics can't reverse this because the people with the money have no allegiance to the workers, only allegiance to maximising profit. There is no profit in investing Trillions of Dollars/Pounds/Euros in retooling Western manufacturing when it will always be cheaper to make everything in China.
You did a _LOT_ of homework and earned your like. Still, it'd be nice if instead of shipping more and more stuff, we figured out how to live without needing so damn much stuff. Oh, yes. A problem in a metallurgy homework at MIT in the 1970s asked "if a supertanker ran aground with one end in a sewage-polluted river and the other end in the ocean, the result would be a battery discharging through the ship. How much current would flow, and how much steel would be corroded away?" The answers were some really big numbers. Whatever. Keep up the good work.
Longer ships create a longer displacement wave. The longer wave can move faster and the ship can move along with it. If the ship tries to go faster it will be riding up the wave (or plowing the bow) and would waste to much fuel. These large container ships go about twice the speed as a holiday cruise ship.
If you don't think you aren't SO.... Important? Let me tell you brother. I can't get enough,... Does that mean I didn't watch EVERYTHING, You have to say? You don't know, YOUR OWN WORTH!!! We love you bub.
Interesting that when the Panama Canal opened the larger locks, the canal started having problems with sufficient water to carry it's new capacity and had to start reducing the number of vessels passing through.
The problem was a lack of rain last year due to well-known climate patterns. This year the rain is more than usual and traffic in the Panama Canal is back to previous peak levels. The new locks are more efficient in use of water than the old ones on a metric ton basis because the water is reused, unlike the older locks, and bigger ships carry more containers at lower cost and more speed than was possible previously. Climate, not the size of ships or of locks, was the issue.
Second driest year in 110 years has to do with that. Then mismanagement. Weather changing. On top of them just needing more water for their growth. Mainly drought though from all sources I have talked with. Zero mention on the increase locks being the culprit. Although obviously they are using more.
@@timrobertson8436 As Nibiru approaches we will have more and more "continental drift" (a lie started by PTB). So educated and so ignorant. It wasn't lack of rain but coverup.
@@timrobertson8436 Not exactly Tim, The real problem is that much of the rain forest in Panama has been cut down for little farms for their citizens. Who cares, right? Well, the rain forest acted like a big sponge and it soaked up rain during their rainy season and slowly released it over the following year. This kept filling Gatun Lake. No rain forests means that Gatun Lake has to release rain runoff during the rainy season, and is affected by the lack of rainfall for much of the year. It will take many years to reverse the damage to the rainforests, if it is going to be reversed.
I couldn't see the ship below but I sure could see the wake from the passenger jet I was flying in on a trip to the Philippines. It was enormous and I often wondered what could possibly leave such a wake? 21,000-25,000 containers? Amazing!
Dont look at time in port, look at time per container in port. The larger ships are actually much faster, reducing congestion for a given number of containers per quarter.
The reality is a larger ship takes less fuel per container. The real limit is the Singapore straights. It depends on who you talk to, the limit is 30k to 36k. This is to get through the Singapore straights without dredging. Why would they get smaller? If a ship is 3x bigger, it takes 2x as much cost to move. I heard with the Emma Maersk how it was too big and no one else would build that big. Now, it is considered a small ship. There is always a "hand me down" effect on building new ships. The new, more efficient and larger ships will serve from Korea to North Germany porting in Japan, China, Hong Kong, Singapore (or Klang), perhaps Colombo (Indian traffic), Suez, Spain, UK, Rotterdam By then other ports can get not the prior generation (they'll still be doing the longest routes), but two generations or older. It only takes 3 or 4 ports on each side. For US, perhaps transfer containers in Kingston Jamaca to handle undersized US ports. Charlston, Jacksonville, Prince Rupert (in Canada), and others will be able to handle the ULCVs. They'll get the prior generation; it is a question of when, not if. Then other ports will have to upgrade.
Just to point out, that strait is called the Strait of Malacca or Malacca Strait, and is Pirate Central, Earth for a reason. Most of the ship traffic with Singapore is with tankers, not container ships. All of the oil/gas pipelines in that part of the world, go right to Singapore. The average depth of the Strait of Malacca is 90', with a channel running through the middle of it.
What an extraordinary ability to present well researched and well presented topics across a broad spectrum of issues. I find myself binge watching your older videos. BTW, i always start watching with a fresh cup of coffee. Thanks so much. Paul
As a Dane we had the first built of the Danish controlled, Superlarge Containerships: Emma Maersk visiting Copenhagen for its first and only time, as it is too large to operate in Danish Waters! Named after the now late Shipowners wife.
Maybe it is time to build what you need in the country where you use the product. It is time to rely on ourselves and decrease the amount of imports from overseas. Then we won't need these big ships and can save the money fixing ports. BTW, notice the UK port expansion was done by Dubi not UK. In many ports the Chinese CCP is buying ports and renovating them for future use by the Chinese Navy. But, it seems nobody cares about that! Happy Trails
Again, the problem is money. U.S. workers cost their companies more and that would mean lower bonuses and to a CE0 that's unthinkable and he would never do such a crazy thing as to do something that would require him to receive less money.
Maersk just installed some new cranes at the Port of Los Angeles. They are CONSTANTLY upgrading equipment & increasing automation at the port, which, as the busiest port in the entire Western hemisphere, processes roughly 40% of all imported goods entering the US, down from the pre-pandemic 60%. The “supply chain issues” around that time stemmed from the fact that POLA makes everything difficult & costly for truck drivers, so they don’t like to work the port, not inadequate infrastructure. ✌🏼
@@govinda102000 Very high percentage that those were made by ZPMC of Shanghai, China, world largest advance port crane designer and manufacturer. 80% of the world ports are using their product.
Nobody but nobody is running container ships through the Red Sea. The cargo is too valuable to risk a Houthi attack. They are going around Africa for the time being.
@@rorykeegan1895 75% of shipping effectively covers 100% of containers. Bulk carriers, (carrying ore, grain, other pure bulk commodities, excluding oil) are going through. It is still possible to insure those cargos. A container ship filled with manufactured goods have cargos often exceeding a billion dollars in value. It would cost more to insure it than to move it. Egypt has been crying for more than a yaar now. Revenue from the Suez makes up an overwhelming amount of their national budget.
I get that crossing the Atlantic or Pacific could be problematic, but to say that US ports couldn't upgrade to accept bigger boats, when clearly Felixstowe and Rotterdam have, makes no sense to me
But updating the ports would cost the owners money that would be better spent on their guaranteed yearly performances bonuses and that would be catastrophic to their lifestyle.
Of course they could, physically. But, the companies and government decided that the cost is more than the profit. Maybe it would make a profit in the long term, but US business is driven by short term thinking.
@@t.n.-js6ei Only in dystopian fairy tales is 'Everyone equal.. except that "Some pigs are (throughout human history) more equal than others".. Remove profit motivation and universal poverty assumes the vacuum.. history 101. ;}
The Super ships routes is also to avoid Open sea travel. Edge hugging reduces the number of heavy seas and huge waves the ships are exposed to. the one thing ALL super ships are not made to endure is 'high centering' where a massive wave lifts the entire ship at the center of the ship breaking the keel
That's called the "hogging moment." The "sagging moment" is when the two ends of the ship are lifted between two waves. These moments cause heavy stresses on the ship's keel. Thousands of repetitions cause metal fatigue.
If you triple the volume of a given design, you only need to double the power to get the same speed. All other things being equal, bigger ships literally move more stuff for less power and in theory there is no upper limit (there is only a practical limit to the designs and materials and whatnot).
Perhaps the US must start building harbors outside of their cities, like Rotterdam. Perfect connection to the rest of Europe and no bridges around. If we smell a change, we react to it by building and modifying the harbor.
@@RussellParkerArt I get what you're saying and in a lake something like that probably could be feasible but in the open ocean, weather. they would break apart
@@robertmoore1215 Another one, attached to this thought is a covered vessel that can roll, airtight and semi-submerged. Pulled along by a ship that is sturdy. That sounds ultra-stoneage tech but seems legit.
What we need then as a modern civilization is undersea tunnels, built ahead of their time to accommodate ever increasing speeds and capabilities. Tunnels to accommodate semi's, passenger vehicles and even rail systems.
The biggest thing is? Smaller ships are much more cheaper, and cost less to operate > Plus don't need large shipping PORTS, and Deeper Cannels Plus YOUR NOT TAKE THE BANK DOWN! IF IT SINKS > There more at stakes, with bigger ships
We were walking at the beach in Vancouver two days ago and saw two huge container ships sitting out in English Bay...so yes, there are at least that many in North America, when you made this video.
@@theorenhobart certainly. Each of the two were full, with several (3-5 or 6)stacks of containers. I must add: we are never without 11-13 container ships out there. These were the only ones with cargo. By full, I mean containers visible from front to back, as we have a side view of them, from their right sides.
@@theorenhobart Also consider Empty? or Full containers, as he describes in his video, the only really large carriers (shallower draft, lower stack heights) were returning (to China) Empty containers... Due to the USA's gross imbalance percentage of Import shipping to export. Same noted on Burlington Rail freight containers. Often majority of westbound rail (well' cars) are carrying stacked empty containers.. (note less 'diesels per consist').
Don't expect things to improve at California ports any time soon. One thing California is good at doing is making things more difficult. Look at how long they've been working on the high speed train between Los Angeles and San Francisco, how much money they've spent, and how little they have to show for it. They have succeeded in one thing...regulating the state into gridlock on multiple fronts.
If California stopped all federal dollars from leaving the state that project would be completed in a year or two. Imagine all the smaller states whining when they never paid their fair share.
one like earned. also, another problem not covered, is security and illegal trade, how the living hell could you even inspect this level of import export to limit illegal activities and even human trafficking? you'd need an army of inspection teams and billions in container scanning tech to even try to keep up and keep containers flowing. the inflow of illegal shit must be truly massive.
The simple solution (in my mind) is to build offshore ports. The ships could reach without clearance issues (above or below). Then use a smaller "ferry" ship dedicated to going to mainland from the open ocean port
WATOP getting incredibly lazy with thumbnails. This thumbnail is nearly identical to the "why is the US putting oil underground" and another recent one with nearly the same picture. And the Canada video having the same thumbnail as another recent one. Honestly, I mostly stopped clicking cause I think "didn't I already watch this video?"
0:15 NOPE. Green includes container ships, but ALSO bulk carriers, which carry grains (wheat, canola, soybeans, corn, rice, cane sugar, ... yum YUM) and mineral ores (pelletized iron ore, aluminum ore, copper ore ...) and ALSO bulk intermediate products (concrete, cement, aluminum metal, steel coil), and ALSO ships carrying large finished products (wind turbines).
The further north you go on the Pacific the shorter the crossing from Asia to N. America. So a lot of trade destined for the US goes through two West Coast ports in Canada. This makes the older, smaller container ships still viable fuel wise. The Port of Prince Rupert is just south of the Alaska Panhandle, and has rail connection to the US. The Port of Vancouver, Canada has numerous container terminals, and at least one has larger derricks to cope with the larger ships. it's just 30 minutes from the Port to the US border and the I-5 freeway. Plus it has rail connections also Coal from Wyoming uses one of the three coal terminals in Vancouver to ship to China also. It's also convenient for Chinese fentanyl to use this route to the US.
You mentioned Panamax and friends, but Suezmax is a more compelling bottleneck for the ULCCs - this is why the Egyptians are digging upgrades for the canal now and Israel is actively talking about digging a parallel one
Agree. From my perspective, it only exacerbates trade deficits we haven't been minding for too long. If we're going to invest in infrastructure, freight trains loaded with cargo containers would get more tractor trailers off the bridges & highways. Rail pulling out of congested ports with higher speeds and less impact to the cities themselves. The right of ways are already established. Distribution hubs established well beyond city limits makes more sense for tractor trailer traffic, and wear and tear on the drivers themselves having to time their work hours around avoiding rush hours.
What I am hearing is that all the things in the US are too old, too small, and too slow to keep up with the rest of the world because we have no money to make them better. The unstated part is that the rest of the world has done the upgrades. I feel like for the pacific, we need large ships that hold their cargo well below the waterline. Kind of like a submarine. This will keep this ship from being split in half. If you could make those containers waterproof (and a little aerodynamic), that cage that holds them could be hung beneath the ship when at sea and raised into the ship for offloading. This would not only keep the ship from splitting, but also keep it super stable in rough seas. Even better, if you can pull that off, you don't need large ships, you could then essentially have longer sections powered by many smaller motors. Kind of like an underwater train. This makes it so that you can basically get into any port.
You know, if they used floating structures like oils rigs but called them a floating dock, and lashed them together, and have smaller vessels, or bridge they could dock big ships there, and the locals would take the cargo cans into the port, ... Don't really care, I don't have any money, it's someone else's problem...
@@kieronparr3403 I believe that rommelfcc was just using oil rigs as an example of substantial existing oceanic structure. Their key suggestion is to build and use "floating docks" that are easily accessible to larger container ships (i.e. to avoid all the port issues addressed in the video) and to have bridge structures between those floating docks and the mainland.
Merry Christmas! 🎄 ..your jokes..magnificent. My father was a petro-chemical tanker captain...Huge. Dwarfed by these! Early in career, on a container ship..a container broke open...water pistol machine guns. The whole crew waged water war the entire time at sea.. Sounded like so much fun. Edit..your haircut joke...brilliant.
The scarry thing to all this huge volume of stuff being shipped in SO many containers: Security of what's in each one of those millions of containers. Besides contraband. As a former head of the FBI stated years ago, he believes a container will probably be the way a dirty bomb makes it's way to the U.S. It's logistically impossible to check the contents of every single container out of the daily flood of tens of thousands being shipped.
In short, if large container vessels were to come to America, America would have to build completely new ports to reload containers to smaller ships, probably in Puerto Rico, for final mile. And we have seen, what this can do in Sri Lanka. Got it.
According to U.S. maritime law and regulations containers cannot be and distributed between U.S. ports. Meaning you can’t load and ship a container in Houston TX, and ship it to Savannah GA. to be unloaded, it has to go by rail or truck.
This isn't anything that anyone has been wondering about. US ports charge higher docking/port fees for larger ships than for midsized container ships. If you didn't know that you don't pay attention to shipping and never bothered to ask the question this video is addressing. I get the trend for what you have decided is the topic of the week, but this one is kinda just a ... "why did you bother" video.
Sounds like there might be some money to be made by building large (huge) transfer docks a few miles offshore of major consumption or production regions. Arbitrarily large long-haul ships could dock there to transfer containers to smaller vessels, which would then complete the "last mile" delivery/pickup of containers to/from smaller regional nodes at the shore. These smaller carriers could be tailored to whatever constraints are necessary for that particular region, without regard for international chokepoints or issues such as low bridges, narrow canals, or shallow bays in faraway ports.
Why can't we unload the ships onto an old Air Force Landing Craft Air Cushion, or an old oil rig, or maybe create a new thing that's out on the ocean instead of on land? Then it won't matter if it takes several days to unload it onto smaller ships that can be re-routed when Los Angeles is backed up. They could also prioritize food containers, so that spoilage/waste isn't the issue that it is today.
When you said 21,000 containers on a ship, it did sit right with me. I had 40 foot containers in my head. I was like, there's no way they have 21,000 40-foot containers on any ship. Just looked it up, and they use TEUs measurement, which is twenty-foot equivalent units. So, the 21,000 TEUs are equal to 10,500 40-foot units.
China has built or is building a port in Peru that can take the largest ships. Then distribute the cargo to smaller ones the canal and US ports can take.
They need to design a drone capable of transporting those containers. Imagine a fleet of drones, each carrying one container, unloading a ship. No need for the ship to get too close / within reach of a crane.
Smaller container ships make trade with America more expensive. Just wait until those new tariffs kick in and make things even more expensive for American consumers.
I wonder if the ports in the US couldn't build a floating platform in deeper water to unload the giant ships, and then the cargo it transferred to smaller ships to take to the land based part of the port. Yea, its expensive but likely cheaper than having to replace a bridge and dredge rivers and bays.
What's the schtick here ...why the silly ninja outfit? Is this channel for 12 year old boys? Why did YT algo recommend it? How does it have 3M subscribers?
Related to this I will mention the new Chancay port in Peru, it seems the Pacific storm will not be a limitation anymore for these behemoths. In any case it is a fully automatic port, so if something like that happens in London they can forget about all those new jobs
The safest route for Post Panamax ships is obviously the northern sea route and contracting a Russia ice-breaker to accompany the Post Panamax especially during harsh winter months. To me it's a no brainer!
The problem in this video isn't the routes, its the ports in the US they are too small for the new ship sizes, as pointed out the ships are getting bigger, and are now too big for the US. THere needs to be more investment in new ports, not fiddling about with existing ports.
@@Razzman-bv5qc I'd rather invest in self sufficiency (individual and national). We can make it here. We do make it here. What you fail to ask yourself is why so many cargo containers leave our shores empty when they return to China. Why WalMart does a lot of business with China for how many decades, and the stores there are the worst performing. Chinese won't buy their own manufactured goods. Maybe we should quit buying them too. Save a lot of fuel.
@@josephszot5545 Yes they do. Made in the USA or EU would do as well. Well invested money for good domestic jobs. Since a certain global warming is known, this route might get a bit easier in the future. I would hate to depend on unreliable partners like the russian federation.
you missed completely the main hub that handles by far the most of the containers in europe and is the most efficient (industrie award and they win it since it exists and that matters a lot obviously) and has already builded their port extensions into the north sea the Maasvlakte 2. Most of these biggest ships are just pendeling the 6 biggest ports in the world, the 5 Chines and Rotterdam. Rotterdam handles the whole of Europe and UK is just UK
Can I ask you a question my dude, my gf and I are video makers and we're so confused by your background. Is you + your desk one layer, and the background with the wall lights a separate layer? Bro you have VFX dancing around you while the shadow from your body is still cast on the wall hahah. Wizardry.
Many of the large primary ports in China, Europe and some in Africa have both decades (or centuries) of favorable industrial planning and incidental progression resulting in well suited deep water ports, some directly facing blue water without bridges and other infrastructure creating hinderances. In the US, many major ports face riverways or narrow shallow passages, and have grown somewhat organically from once much smaller ports. Often sprouting out geoplitically based on logistics of inland waterways, shipyards, and locations central to the logistics needs of the pre-containerized era. This is understandable to many extents - but what I've always found confusing is why the US didn go harder on its rail network in modern times, including a solid rail connection down through Central America.
Imagine you are Mrs,Mr Crab,son,daughter living at the bottom of an ocean scurrying about not a care in the world. Then a ship with 16000 containers sinks right on top of your Manor. That is going to feel like the wrath of The Crab God Crabbus.😔
I would think that a super container ship could drop anchor in the Golf of California where there are few major storms and be unloaded at sea onto a floating port and have the containers loaded and delivered by mutable smaller ships to ports around Mexico and the USA.
BS. Don't be jealous because a strong union is getting a living wage with benefits for hard working men and women. Corporate greed is where you should be focusing your anger.
I'm a retired merchant seaman and I worked on many container ships over the years. I think that your video is spot on and is appreciated. I especially liked the fact of your mention of Malcolm McClain who originally invented containerized cargo and the founding of SeaLand. He is a true hero of the worldwide maritime industry and is most often overlooked, if not totally ignored for some odd reason. Thank you.
I'm wondering if it might be economical to start putting in automated racks, instead of just stacking. You could even bring your own autonomous skates, for drive on drive off cargo. Get a whole ship done in 24 hours. I'm thinking ramps in the side. Like an upside down pez dispenser.
And you wouldn't have to automate every row. Some rows could be stacked, with an automated crane to put them into the automated dispensers.
About 40 years ago, I went into Spencer's with my girlfriend. We were holding hands, as people do. I picked up a jiggly, squishy eyeball and said, "Somewhere in Asia, there's a factory that makes these." China hadn't risen yet, but I KNEW. She picked up a whoopie cushion and asked, "Do you think that they make these, too?" "Absolutely not," I replied. "Those take completely different tooling. Those come from a different factory." Fast forward. She's now my ex wife, and ADHD and fidgets are major parts of our culture. And because of fidgets, we need ships that can carry 25,000 containers. I don't really know how to feel about any of this.
There's that story of highly collectible plastic ducks that washed up all over the world when a container ship ...encountered problems in the Pacific and the ducks all became part of the connected circulating gyres. They actually taught us things about the gyres that we didn't know, which... yay, science. But... goddamn, we buy a lot of crap. And that's not even Temu crap; that gets flown to us, thanks to China's "developing nation" status in the WTO. I have this weird idea that countries that have an active space program aren't actually developing nations, but I'm weird. And I'm not bashing China, it has plenty of problems without me adding my two cents, but... DAMN, we buy a lot of crap.
Then stop buying the crap. It helps the environment too.
Depends how you define "Crap". Your crap may be the treasure of a poor family, it worth weeks of their hourly wages . I am sure there are plenty of such family in your US inner cities.
@@Alexpktang That completely misses the point, but ...okay.
After watching this video I am pondering becoming a pirate. I do not think I would feel that bad for it. Practically doing humanity a service. Yarr
How aboug a tariff or VAT based on expected life, or warranty. No VAT if warranty is 25y. 300% VAT if warranty is 2 y or less.
I am a officer on one of these ships and I think you did this video very well
his videos are allways "on the top"
I'd love to work on one of those cargo ships if I wasn't so scared of going outside my hometown. That certain isolation... umph... it would be nice. Well sometimes at very least.
I am one of those ships, and I agree.
im a captain on one of these ships
@@elijoki99 You wouldn't want the pay since the crews mostly consist of poor Pakistanis, Indians and Arabs.
Logistics is a profession, in the Netherlands we are doing it for ages, just an example, we knew long before the public that Desert Storm was on its way, just because of the logistics. They were moving a lot of the equipment through the harbors of Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg. Most people hadn’t any clue about it.
@@americanmade-316 uh if they're Constantly moving military equipment into one area, then its very likely there is something about to happen? Smh. Its as if the world has lost their ability to critically think
Its like how theyre moving a ton of military equipment on trains on the usa for the last couples
Guaranteed the US government knew way before it was even a thought
@@LarryOrtwine not constantly, by the peak of movements, one way or another you can feel something Is coming. The shiploads of equipment going out of Western Europe to the Gulf were amazing, it’s just a 1 +1. It wasn’t constantly, the NDTA, the logistic organization made this all happen, train, convoy, barges, it was all used to load on the big ship and of they went.
@joostprins3381 the entire world knew desert storm was on its way, that was the in intention. George Bush gave an interview saying as much, we wanted him to stop. He thought we were playing, and he learned otherwise. And just so you know, outside of our considerable nato obligations we have and have had divisions worth of armor and supplies in the reigon long before desert storm. Your a friend, but not a close one. You don't have the relationship we have with the uk. Don't for a second think that because you knew what we were shipping commercially 35 years ago, you know or on par with the hurt and destruction we could unleash on anyone but our closest allies. Nato dues are coming up, better make sure they are paid up before trumps back.
Yeah... About the F.S.Key Bridge... I live near it and the traffic around it in Baltimore City and parts of Baltimore County has gotten so, so much worse since the bridge's fall, and the area hasn't fully recovered from the financial impact. That's another major impact the larger ships pose. If another bridge collapse like that happens in a busier port it'd be catastrophic to that area too. R.I.P the lost six workers.
I agree with all of that, except for you using the word collapse. That bridge didn't collapse. Yes it did fall, but that was from being impacted by one of those cargo ships. That bridge fell from a collision.
Not advancing our world because in the past a tragic error caused a disaster is a really poor way to live life. If we all walked our path with that attitude none of us would ever leave town or take a vacation again. You can't bubble wrap life, if you do you end up missing out on living.
A significantly smaller ship may do nearly as much damage, a direct hit on a structural support on a bridge is catastrophic with most container ships, being that your still dealing with hundreds of of thousands of tons on the smaller side
@@getbusylivin8826 with most ships period. momentum (p) = mass (m) x velocity (v).
I think the US's hostilities towards port automation is also a heavy factor. Many modern ports across the world use several automation technologies to quickly and efficiently load, handle, and unload cargo. Yet US port facilities (and their unions) are extremely hostile against such efficiency gains, causing the US to fall back more and more compared to modern ports.
THE JOYS OF UNION LABOR & UNION LEADERS' CORRUPTION, & COLLUSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS & EMPLOYERS & CORRUPT UNIONS! MAKE ALL STATES RIGHT-TO-WORK! FORCE UNIONS TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL THEIR MONIES & FUNDS!
Well then, let's just make the stuff here and grow what is required?
Oh I forgot about the government corruption.
Correction: unions are hostile towards port automation
The US simply needs to manufacture more things themselves
How? We don't have the infrastructure in place. By that I mean all our companies have factories outside our country. Also, some minerals needed in manufacturing are not accessible on our continent.
Unable.
US 😅 decades and lies of b******* now show😅😅😅😅😅😅
China rules if you don't get that now HA😮, No other country can get it all together like they can
😅
Yeah, sure, do it! Instead of that , you have greedy billionaires like MAGA Musk who promise to create jobs in the US and now double a Tesla factory - in China!
The same could be said for Europe and "The West" in general, but the problem is that it is simply cheaper to make it in China and then ship it around the World. Capitalists don't care about their country, only about their bank balance, so they will do what makes them the most money. After several decades of this, we no longer have the manufacturing capability in "Western" countries, and capitalist economics can't reverse this because the people with the money have no allegiance to the workers, only allegiance to maximising profit. There is no profit in investing Trillions of Dollars/Pounds/Euros in retooling Western manufacturing when it will always be cheaper to make everything in China.
I still don’t get what the thumbnail is all about.
I don't even usually notice what the thumbnail was about I read the title and make my decision based on that
You did a _LOT_ of homework and earned your like. Still, it'd be nice if instead of shipping more and more stuff, we figured out how to live without needing so damn much stuff.
Oh, yes. A problem in a metallurgy homework at MIT in the 1970s asked "if a supertanker ran aground with one end in a sewage-polluted river and the other end in the ocean, the result would be a battery discharging through the ship. How much current would flow, and how much steel would be corroded away?" The answers were some really big numbers.
Whatever. Keep up the good work.
Longer ships create a longer displacement wave. The longer wave can move faster and the ship can move along with it. If the ship tries to go faster it will be riding up the wave (or plowing the bow) and would waste to much fuel. These large container ships go about twice the speed as a holiday cruise ship.
The anonymity gimmick is creepy
And stupid
It's obviously a non-native English speaker getting dubbed over by a narrator.
He incorrectly thought he was hired to deliver a manifesto from a bunker, so he dressed appropriately.
I think it is fun. Also, the constancy of the speaker and solid color clothing enhances the images that are run in the background.
@@curbyourshi1056 The narrator is Thom Beers, who used to do most of the Discovery Channel shows.
If you don't think you aren't SO.... Important? Let me tell you brother. I can't get enough,... Does that mean I didn't watch EVERYTHING,
You have to say? You don't know, YOUR OWN WORTH!!! We love you bub.
Believe me: I used to work as IT, but managng all of these shipping rutes, and whole other tasks connected with this issue it’s huge challenge!
Good job WATOP!
Interesting that when the Panama Canal opened the larger locks, the canal started having problems with sufficient water to carry it's new capacity and had to start reducing the number of vessels passing through.
The problem was a lack of rain last year due to well-known climate patterns. This year the rain is more than usual and traffic in the Panama Canal is back to previous peak levels. The new locks are more efficient in use of water than the old ones on a metric ton basis because the water is reused, unlike the older locks, and bigger ships carry more containers at lower cost and more speed than was possible previously. Climate, not the size of ships or of locks, was the issue.
Wouldn't more ships raise the water level? Helping the low water issue?
Second driest year in 110 years has to do with that. Then mismanagement. Weather changing. On top of them just needing more water for their growth.
Mainly drought though from all sources I have talked with. Zero mention on the increase locks being the culprit. Although obviously they are using more.
@@timrobertson8436 As Nibiru approaches we will have more and more "continental drift" (a lie started by PTB). So educated and so ignorant. It wasn't lack of rain but coverup.
@@timrobertson8436 Not exactly Tim, The real problem is that much of the rain forest in Panama has been cut down for little farms for their citizens. Who cares, right? Well, the rain forest acted like a big sponge and it soaked up rain during their rainy season and slowly released it over the following year. This kept filling Gatun Lake. No rain forests means that Gatun Lake has to release rain runoff during the rainy season, and is affected by the lack of rainfall for much of the year. It will take many years to reverse the damage to the rainforests, if it is going to be reversed.
I couldn't see the ship below but I sure could see the wake from the passenger jet I was flying in on a trip to the Philippines. It was enormous and I often wondered what could possibly leave such a wake? 21,000-25,000 containers? Amazing!
Dont look at time in port, look at time per container in port. The larger ships are actually much faster, reducing congestion for a given number of containers per quarter.
This teams capacity to produce videos on interesting topics is unmatched, top if you will. They are top!
Thanks for all the great information. I really enjoy learning.
Thanks for your quality content!
And no background music.
so glad I did the thing under the video, and didn't forget. I love the topics this guy covers and he does it very well
The reality is a larger ship takes less fuel per container. The real limit is the Singapore straights. It depends on who you talk to, the limit is 30k to 36k. This is to get through the Singapore straights without dredging.
Why would they get smaller? If a ship is 3x bigger, it takes 2x as much cost to move. I heard with the Emma Maersk how it was too big and no one else would build that big. Now, it is considered a small ship.
There is always a "hand me down" effect on building new ships. The new, more efficient and larger ships will serve from Korea to North Germany porting in Japan, China, Hong Kong, Singapore (or Klang), perhaps Colombo (Indian traffic), Suez, Spain, UK, Rotterdam
By then other ports can get not the prior generation (they'll still be doing the longest routes), but two generations or older. It only takes 3 or 4 ports on each side.
For US, perhaps transfer containers in Kingston Jamaca to handle undersized US ports. Charlston, Jacksonville, Prince Rupert (in Canada), and others will be able to handle the ULCVs. They'll get the prior generation; it is a question of when, not if. Then other ports will have to upgrade.
Just to point out, that strait is called the Strait of Malacca or Malacca Strait, and is Pirate Central, Earth for a reason. Most of the ship traffic with Singapore is with tankers, not container ships. All of the oil/gas pipelines in that part of the world, go right to Singapore. The average depth of the Strait of Malacca is 90', with a channel running through the middle of it.
Don’t listen to the haters. Love your content WATOP
What an extraordinary ability to present well researched and well presented topics across a broad spectrum of issues. I find myself binge watching your older videos. BTW, i always start watching with a fresh cup of coffee. Thanks so much. Paul
Well explained
Happy Christmas 🎄 to all
@ do you speak on behalf of everyone? WOW you gave tickets on yourself.
As a Dane we had the first built of the Danish controlled, Superlarge Containerships: Emma Maersk visiting Copenhagen for its first and only time, as it is too large to operate in Danish Waters! Named after the now late Shipowners wife.
was she as big as the ship ? i've seen some pretty large rich man wives
Nice production values!
Merry Christmas from Manchester UK
Maybe it is time to build what you need in the country where you use the product. It is time to rely on ourselves and decrease the amount of imports from overseas. Then we won't need these big ships and can save the money fixing ports. BTW, notice the UK port expansion was done by Dubi not UK. In many ports the Chinese CCP is buying ports and renovating them for future use by the Chinese Navy. But, it seems nobody cares about that! Happy Trails
BINGO! Glad some people are paying attention. There's enough buyers remorse happening with Made in CCP around the globe. Enough is enough.
Again, the problem is money. U.S. workers cost their companies more and that would mean lower bonuses and to a CE0 that's unthinkable and he would never do such a crazy thing as to do something that would require him to receive less money.
Maersk just installed some new cranes at the Port of Los Angeles. They are CONSTANTLY upgrading equipment & increasing automation at the port, which, as the busiest port in the entire Western hemisphere, processes roughly 40% of all imported goods entering the US, down from the pre-pandemic 60%. The “supply chain issues” around that time stemmed from the fact that POLA makes everything difficult & costly for truck drivers, so they don’t like to work the port, not inadequate infrastructure. ✌🏼
China made?
@@govinda102000 Very high percentage that those were made by ZPMC of Shanghai, China, world largest advance port crane designer and manufacturer. 80% of the world ports are using their product.
And please pray what on Earth does POLA mean? I did google it and got nothing. Damn Port of Los Angeles.
Merry Christmas WATOP! Merry Christmas everyone! Or Happy Holidays!
Nobody but nobody is running container ships through the Red Sea. The cargo is too valuable to risk a Houthi attack. They are going around Africa for the time being.
Chinese ships are going through the red sea
What? What planet do you live on? Transit's are down by 75% but there are still ships using the Red Sea.
@@rorykeegan1895 75% of shipping effectively covers 100% of containers. Bulk carriers, (carrying ore, grain, other pure bulk commodities, excluding oil) are going through. It is still possible to insure those cargos. A container ship filled with manufactured goods have cargos often exceeding a billion dollars in value. It would cost more to insure it than to move it. Egypt has been crying for more than a yaar now. Revenue from the Suez makes up an overwhelming amount of their national budget.
I get that crossing the Atlantic or Pacific could be problematic, but to say that US ports couldn't upgrade to accept bigger boats, when clearly Felixstowe and Rotterdam have, makes no sense to me
Ok. But, there are still lots and lots and lots of ships that can deliver to USA.
But updating the ports would cost the owners money that would be better spent on their guaranteed yearly performances bonuses and that would be catastrophic to their lifestyle.
Most US ports are owned by government authorities; for example the Port of New York is operated by the Port Authority of New York and Now Jersey.
Of course they could, physically. But, the companies and government decided that the cost is more than the profit. Maybe it would make a profit in the long term, but US business is driven by short term thinking.
@@t.n.-js6ei Only in dystopian fairy tales is 'Everyone equal.. except that "Some pigs are (throughout human history) more equal than others"..
Remove profit motivation and universal poverty assumes the vacuum.. history 101. ;}
Thank god for adblockers!
The Super ships routes is also to avoid Open sea travel. Edge hugging reduces the number of heavy seas and huge waves the ships are exposed to. the one thing ALL super ships are not made to endure is 'high centering' where a massive wave lifts the entire ship at the center of the ship breaking the keel
That's called the "hogging moment." The "sagging moment" is when the two ends of the ship are lifted between two waves. These moments cause heavy stresses on the ship's keel. Thousands of repetitions cause metal fatigue.
Just as he described in this video... ;]
'Edmond Fitzgerald' demise, suspected causation.. ;[
If you triple the volume of a given design, you only need to double the power to get the same speed.
All other things being equal, bigger ships literally move more stuff for less power and in theory there is no upper limit (there is only a practical limit to the designs and materials and whatnot).
whew, glad u didnt overlook the "whatnot"
@@ImFieldy Never overlook the whatnot and always question the whosit.
The wave at the end took soooooooooooo long. L-O-V-E I-T🤣😂
Perhaps the US must start building harbors outside of their cities, like Rotterdam. Perfect connection to the rest of Europe and no bridges around. If we smell a change, we react to it by building and modifying the harbor.
Worst thumbnails ever.
Screw the thumbnails. Read the caption
They have become lazy.
Truth
HO-LEE- 💩💯! 25,OOO CONTAINERS ON A SINGLE SHIP?!?!😂🎉❤😮WOW!
25,000 if they were all 20'.
I hate the cup of coffee gag
Lighten up Francis!
Hate the coffee slurp
I'm somewhat surprised there isn't boats joining together alike pontoon boat to increase load & separate near ports or divide off like a train.
@@RussellParkerArt I get what you're saying and in a lake something like that probably could be feasible but in the open ocean, weather. they would break apart
Those type arrangements have already been designed post unloading a ship utilizing rail freight and tractor trailers for distribution branches.
@@neilwarren3322 breaking apart is an issue until you discover the solution. Cheers
@@robertmoore1215 Another one, attached to this thought is a covered vessel that can roll, airtight and semi-submerged. Pulled along by a ship that is sturdy. That sounds ultra-stoneage tech but seems legit.
What we need then as a modern civilization is undersea tunnels, built ahead of their time to accommodate ever increasing speeds and capabilities. Tunnels to accommodate semi's, passenger vehicles and even rail systems.
The biggest thing is? Smaller ships are much more cheaper, and cost less to operate > Plus don't need large shipping PORTS, and Deeper Cannels Plus YOUR NOT TAKE THE BANK DOWN! IF IT SINKS > There more at stakes, with bigger ships
The insurers for these carriers really ought to think twice.
@@robertmoore1215 Insurance companies are the biggest rip off, there are. If they pay off? IF? I don't trust them
I am much more illiterate.
I work at the port of LA/LB. There are projects underway for ocean dredging. But it did slow a bit
In Saigon, when the river level drops, the ships stick in the mud until the water rises again.
That'd suck
We were walking at the beach in Vancouver two days ago and saw two huge container ships sitting out in English Bay...so yes, there are at least that many in North America, when you made this video.
but exactly how many containers did they carry ? it's easy to say they were big. please be at least somewhat scientific in description
@@theorenhobart certainly. Each of the two were full, with several (3-5 or 6)stacks of containers. I must add: we are never without 11-13 container ships out there. These were the only ones with cargo. By full, I mean containers visible from front to back, as we have a side view of them, from their right sides.
@@theorenhobart Also consider Empty? or Full containers, as he describes in his video, the only really large carriers (shallower draft, lower stack heights) were returning (to China) Empty containers... Due to the USA's gross imbalance percentage of Import shipping to export.
Same noted on Burlington Rail freight containers. Often majority of westbound rail (well' cars) are carrying stacked empty containers.. (note less 'diesels per consist').
nice
Excellent information
Don't expect things to improve at California ports any time soon. One thing California is good at doing is making things more difficult. Look at how long they've been working on the high speed train between Los Angeles and San Francisco, how much money they've spent, and how little they have to show for it. They have succeeded in one thing...regulating the state into gridlock on multiple fronts.
If California stopped all federal dollars from leaving the state that project would be completed in a year or two. Imagine all the smaller states whining when they never paid their fair share.
one like earned.
also, another problem not covered, is security and illegal trade, how the living hell could you even inspect this level of import export to limit illegal activities and even human trafficking?
you'd need an army of inspection teams and billions in container scanning tech to even try to keep up and keep containers flowing.
the inflow of illegal shit must be truly massive.
The simple solution (in my mind) is to build offshore ports. The ships could reach without clearance issues (above or below).
Then use a smaller "ferry" ship dedicated to going to mainland from the open ocean port
WATOP getting incredibly lazy with thumbnails. This thumbnail is nearly identical to the "why is the US putting oil underground" and another recent one with nearly the same picture. And the Canada video having the same thumbnail as another recent one. Honestly, I mostly stopped clicking cause I think "didn't I already watch this video?"
😂i don’t even understand the thumbnails. This one looks like a piano pedal coming out of a warehouse with people around it.
What's it even meant to be?
Really have to stop using these ugly, useless thumbnails. They are pure sh*t.
If the thumbnail brought you here, welcome. Nice to see new people
I wound up watching the video because of that massive marshmallow looking organ pedal. Or it could be the accelerator.....
0:15 NOPE. Green includes container ships, but ALSO bulk carriers, which carry grains (wheat, canola, soybeans, corn, rice, cane sugar, ... yum YUM) and mineral ores (pelletized iron ore, aluminum ore, copper ore ...) and ALSO bulk intermediate products (concrete, cement, aluminum metal, steel coil), and ALSO ships carrying large finished products (wind turbines).
The further north you go on the Pacific the shorter the crossing from Asia to N. America. So a lot of trade destined for the US goes through two West Coast ports in Canada. This makes the older, smaller container ships still viable fuel wise.
The Port of Prince Rupert is just south of the Alaska Panhandle, and has rail connection to the US.
The Port of Vancouver, Canada has numerous container terminals, and at least one has larger derricks to cope with the larger ships. it's just 30 minutes from the Port to the US border and the I-5 freeway. Plus it has rail connections also
Coal from Wyoming uses one of the three coal terminals in Vancouver to ship to China also.
It's also convenient for Chinese fentanyl to use this route to the US.
Coffee is black and bitter, what you show being made is a hot non-alcoholic cocktail;)
Love your show. 😂😂😂😍😍😎
You mentioned Panamax and friends, but Suezmax is a more compelling bottleneck for the ULCCs - this is why the Egyptians are digging upgrades for the canal now and Israel is actively talking about digging a parallel one
Got a problem with Felixstowe: That route was planned before Brexit. It doesn't make sense to offload in the UK.
I love these videos! lol I don't know how many times I watch these videos it causes me to make a cup of coffee!!!
secret sponsor: coffee guild?
These ships are large enough. The cost to reconfigure our critical canals and ports all over the world isn’t worth the benefit.
Agree. From my perspective, it only exacerbates trade deficits we haven't been minding for too long. If we're going to invest in infrastructure, freight trains loaded with cargo containers would get more tractor trailers off the bridges & highways. Rail pulling out of congested ports with higher speeds and less impact to the cities themselves. The right of ways are already established. Distribution hubs established well beyond city limits makes more sense for tractor trailer traffic, and wear and tear on the drivers themselves having to time their work hours around avoiding rush hours.
What I am hearing is that all the things in the US are too old, too small, and too slow to keep up with the rest of the world because we have no money to make them better. The unstated part is that the rest of the world has done the upgrades.
I feel like for the pacific, we need large ships that hold their cargo well below the waterline. Kind of like a submarine. This will keep this ship from being split in half. If you could make those containers waterproof (and a little aerodynamic), that cage that holds them could be hung beneath the ship when at sea and raised into the ship for offloading. This would not only keep the ship from splitting, but also keep it super stable in rough seas. Even better, if you can pull that off, you don't need large ships, you could then essentially have longer sections powered by many smaller motors. Kind of like an underwater train. This makes it so that you can basically get into any port.
You know, if they used floating structures like oils rigs but called them a floating dock, and lashed them together, and have smaller vessels, or bridge they could dock big ships there, and the locals would take the cargo cans into the port, ...
Don't really care, I don't have any money, it's someone else's problem...
It's a good idea, though. I was thinking the same thing.
OK wtf does any of that mean? Oil grig, locals and cargo cans?
@@kieronparr3403 I believe that rommelfcc was just using oil rigs as an example of substantial existing oceanic structure. Their key suggestion is to build and use "floating docks" that are easily accessible to larger container ships (i.e. to avoid all the port issues addressed in the video) and to have bridge structures between those floating docks and the mainland.
Merry Christmas! 🎄 ..your jokes..magnificent. My father was a petro-chemical tanker captain...Huge. Dwarfed by these! Early in career, on a container ship..a container broke open...water pistol machine guns. The whole crew waged water war the entire time at sea.. Sounded like so much fun. Edit..your haircut joke...brilliant.
The ultimate solution to the shipping dilemma is to finally invent Star Trek style transporters.
I’m old enough to remember when masked men were the bad guys. But then again, one only has to be like 6 years old to know this.
The scarry thing to all this huge volume of stuff being shipped in SO many containers: Security of what's in each one of those millions of containers. Besides contraband. As a former head of the FBI stated years ago, he believes a container will probably be the way a dirty bomb makes it's way to the U.S. It's logistically impossible to check the contents of every single container out of the daily flood of tens of thousands being shipped.
In short, if large container vessels were to come to America, America would have to build completely new ports to reload containers to smaller ships, probably in Puerto Rico, for final mile. And we have seen, what this can do in Sri Lanka. Got it.
According to U.S. maritime law and regulations containers cannot be and distributed between U.S. ports. Meaning you can’t load and ship a container in Houston TX, and ship it to Savannah GA. to be unloaded, it has to go by rail or truck.
This isn't anything that anyone has been wondering about.
US ports charge higher docking/port fees for larger ships than for midsized container ships. If you didn't know that you don't pay attention to shipping and never bothered to ask the question this video is addressing.
I get the trend for what you have decided is the topic of the week, but this one is kinda just a ... "why did you bother" video.
The whole harbor infrastructure in the US Ist to small. Tug,s cranes water deep ….
Sounds like there might be some money to be made by building large (huge) transfer docks a few miles offshore of major consumption or production regions. Arbitrarily large long-haul ships could dock there to transfer containers to smaller vessels, which would then complete the "last mile" delivery/pickup of containers to/from smaller regional nodes at the shore. These smaller carriers could be tailored to whatever constraints are necessary for that particular region, without regard for international chokepoints or issues such as low bridges, narrow canals, or shallow bays in faraway ports.
Likely still cheaper to use slightly smaller ships.
Why can't we unload the ships onto an old Air Force Landing Craft Air Cushion, or an old oil rig, or maybe create a new thing that's out on the ocean instead of on land? Then it won't matter if it takes several days to unload it onto smaller ships that can be re-routed when Los Angeles is backed up. They could also prioritize food containers, so that spoilage/waste isn't the issue that it is today.
It would simply be not nearly as efficient as docking the boat and unloading it by big cranes.
And efficieny is what containers are all about.
weather
@@theorenhobart that's an engineering obstacle, not an excuse not to do it.
When you said 21,000 containers on a ship, it did sit right with me. I had 40 foot containers in my head. I was like, there's no way they have 21,000 40-foot containers on any ship. Just looked it up, and they use TEUs measurement, which is twenty-foot equivalent units. So, the 21,000 TEUs are equal to 10,500 40-foot units.
bingo !
Wondering similar, TEU is typically cited, his container count is confusing.
China has built or is building a port in Peru that can take the largest ships. Then distribute the cargo to smaller ones the canal and US ports can take.
Don't put all your eggs in one basket
How can I believe anyone who disguises himself ? What have you to hide ? Tsek !!
They need to design a drone capable of transporting those containers. Imagine a fleet of drones, each carrying one container, unloading a ship. No need for the ship to get too close / within reach of a crane.
Smaller container ships make trade with America more expensive. Just wait until those new tariffs kick in and make things even more expensive for American consumers.
I wonder if the ports in the US couldn't build a floating platform in deeper water to unload the giant ships, and then the cargo it transferred to smaller ships to take to the land based part of the port. Yea, its expensive but likely cheaper than having to replace a bridge and dredge rivers and bays.
The environmentists would have a field day and squash it, same with unions
That used to be called "lighterage", and certainly is not new.
@@bondobilly9369 rubbish. It's preferred.
I think it's a good idea
Much better to unload a ship far from populated areas in case it's carrying dangerous cargo.
Then ask the longshoremen why they don't want any automation to allow faster unloading of the mega container ships....
They want to hire more people than are needed. Unions always do.
TLDR USA dont want to modernize and utilize its cargo transportation
What's the schtick here ...why the silly ninja outfit? Is this channel for 12 year old boys? Why did YT algo recommend it? How does it have 3M subscribers?
bots, bots and bots
If you don't like it, don't watch!
Thinking if he prefers it to show face, then just don’t, boring to watch a masked dude, just show the clips…
@WATOP What about the Jones act. Limits number of ports to ONE. Devestates the US shipping industry, right?
Glad to see you drink real coffee.
Related to this I will mention the new Chancay port in Peru, it seems the Pacific storm will not be a limitation anymore for these behemoths. In any case it is a fully automatic port, so if something like that happens in London they can forget about all those new jobs
One way to solve the container ship issue is to require fewer container ships by decentralizing manufacturing from Asia to across the globe.
Greed will kill the world.
The safest route for Post Panamax ships is obviously the northern sea route and contracting a Russia ice-breaker to accompany the Post Panamax
especially during harsh winter months. To me it's a no brainer!
The problem in this video isn't the routes, its the ports in the US they are too small for the new ship sizes, as pointed out the ships are getting bigger, and are now too big for the US. THere needs to be more investment in new ports, not fiddling about with existing ports.
@@Razzman-bv5qc I'd rather invest in self sufficiency (individual and national). We can make it here. We do make it here. What you fail to ask yourself is why so many cargo containers leave our shores empty when they return to China. Why WalMart does a lot of business with China for how many decades, and the stores there are the worst performing. Chinese won't buy their own manufactured goods. Maybe we should quit buying them too. Save a lot of fuel.
Do you really want to rely on russia?
@@gluteusmaximus1657 They have the icebreakers.
@@josephszot5545 Yes they do. Made in the USA or EU would do as well. Well invested money for good domestic jobs. Since a certain global warming is known, this route might get a bit easier in the future. I would hate to depend on unreliable partners like the russian federation.
you missed completely the main hub that handles by far the most of the containers in europe and is the most efficient (industrie award and they win it since it exists and that matters a lot obviously) and has already builded their port extensions into the north sea the Maasvlakte 2.
Most of these biggest ships are just pendeling the 6 biggest ports in the world, the 5 Chines and Rotterdam.
Rotterdam handles the whole of Europe and UK is just UK
Can I ask you a question my dude, my gf and I are video makers and we're so confused by your background. Is you + your desk one layer, and the background with the wall lights a separate layer? Bro you have VFX dancing around you while the shadow from your body is still cast on the wall hahah. Wizardry.
I was told WATOP is the king of thumbnails but I am not sure, he needs to pick up his thumbnail game
Many of the large primary ports in China, Europe and some in Africa have both decades (or centuries) of favorable industrial planning and incidental progression resulting in well suited deep water ports, some directly facing blue water without bridges and other infrastructure creating hinderances. In the US, many major ports face riverways or narrow shallow passages, and have grown somewhat organically from once much smaller ports. Often sprouting out geoplitically based on logistics of inland waterways, shipyards, and locations central to the logistics needs of the pre-containerized era.
This is understandable to many extents - but what I've always found confusing is why the US didn go harder on its rail network in modern times, including a solid rail connection down through Central America.
Imagine you are Mrs,Mr Crab,son,daughter living at the bottom of an ocean scurrying about not a care in the world. Then a ship with 16000 containers sinks right on top of your Manor. That is going to feel like the wrath of The Crab God Crabbus.😔
USA’s lack of investment and low taxes - hold back efficient shipping.
Port cranes are grabbing 2 containers at once now?! I think there is a whole video that could be spent on port automation.
hey hey inforado guy READ THIS MSG!!! I LIKE THE ANIMAL VIDEOS WAAAAY MORE!!! who else with me????
I would think that a super container ship could drop anchor in the Golf of California where there are few major storms and be unloaded at sea onto a floating port and have the containers loaded and delivered by mutable smaller ships to ports around Mexico and the USA.
One barrier to upgrading US ports is the longshoremen union. They reject any attempt to automate or modernize.
BS. Don't be jealous because a strong union is getting a living wage with benefits for hard working men and women. Corporate greed is where you should be focusing your anger.
@@OleensEmbroidery Two sides of the same, corrupt coin.
Unions rarely serve an actual purpose and generally hinder progress. States already have labor laws.
@@JonathonG-pk7er OK, keep on waiting for corporations to share the wealth.
@@OleensEmbroidery I don't sense any jealousy from Lyle.
So what say you about the greed of Harold Daggett?