Cargo ships, then and now

On an early afternoon last month, the Eugen Maersk (the world's longest ocean freighter at 1,300 feet) has left Rotterdam, the Netherlands, on the tail end of a journey from Shanghai. But the giant freighter is cruising at 10 knots, well shy of her 26-knot top speed. At about half speed, fuel consumption drops to 100-150 tons of fuel a day from 350 tons, saving as much as $5,000 an hour.

The German Preussen (picture above), the largest sailing ship ever built, was launched in 1902 and travelled mainly between Hamburg (Germany) and Iquique (Chile). It was rammed by a large steam vessel in 1910. A one way trip between Germany and Chile took the cargo vessel between 58 and 79 days. The best average speed over a one way trip was 13.7 knots.

One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50 million cars, study finds. Time for a new age of sail.

Picture credit.

Comments

[MANSOR BIN ARIFFIN]

(11)

The size of the ship goes by the volume but the size of the sail only by the area, for example if we double the ship Preussen on all the sides we have 8 times the weight but only 4 times the sail area, so the pushing power per ton of ship is reduced to half so it will go slower.

[kdd]

(10)

The distance between Rotterdam and Shanghai is 9,600 nautical miles (=17,280 km).

If the ship cruises at 26 knots (47.7 kmh) it needs 15 days x 350 tons of fuel = 5,283 tons in total.

If the ship cruises at 10 knots (18.3 kmh) it needs 39 days x 100 tons of fuel = 3,900 tons in total.

That is a savings of 1,383 tons of fuel. With a cost of $300 to $500 per ton of marine bunker fuel, that is a savings of $ 414,900 to $ 691,500.

If fuel consumption at lower speed is 150 tons instead of 100 tons per day, you have a point (then fuel consumption is even higher: 5,900 tons).

The main reason for the lower speed is probably not (or not only) the cost of fuel, but a lower demand for the goods being transported.

Anyway the WSJ-article I quoted is incorrect, since they state a fuel savings of $5,000 per hour, without mentioning that the trip takes more days if you lower the speed. And $ 5,000 an hour seems wildly exaggerated, if compared to the calculation above.

[Antonio]

(9)

And where is the benefit? With the change, it produce 1.2 knots per ton of fuel. Before, you produced 1.78 knots per ton of fuel. I don't understand where is the save.

[kdd]

(8)

As Mehul Kamdar notes, some European companies are using cargo sailing vessels again:

http://www.ctmv.eu/en/home.html
http://www.zeilendehandelsvaart.nl/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/24/food.carbonemissions?gusrc=rss&feed=environment
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0316/1224242907260.html

[Mehul Kamdar]

(7)

There is a definite point to be made in favor of sailships being used to transport cargo like tea, coffee, cocoa and other beverages these days. Other processed foods could also be shipped on sailships - the China Clippers touched speeds as high as 16 knots in the 1860s and the rationale that guided their existence back then, that of shipping valuable, light cargo fast to its destination, still exists. I am not an expert on trading in carbon credits etc but I do think that the already low cost of using sail to transport cargo as compared to using oil could get pushed down even more if sailship owners are allowed to sell carbon credits.

As someone who was born in an old sea-port that saw ships trade from the Roman era in India, I have long wished to see sailships brought back. With modern materials and with the current concerns that the world has over the environment, this is a good time for a potential entrepreneur to look at reviving a new era of sailships. European wine-makers slready ship their wines on sailships in Europe. Now someone just needs to become aggressive and look at shipping cargo across the oceans.

[mike]

(6)

"Take that away and grain shipments, as well as commodities are no longer economical to ship. Say goodbye to your shopping cart full of low cost goods from China."

Promise?

[Dale]

(5)

eeeeeeeeeeg!,, oops sorry, i simply meant to say Please, o Please: o'bomb us back, well almost back to the stone age.

[Dale]

(4)

Diesel burning engines do not employ catalytic converters, they employ scrubbers in their exhaust stack configurations to reduce pollution, however this process is expensive so they don't use them, nor do they utilize cleaner fuels,,,, seems they really don't care about the environment, that is except the one immediately surrounding their pocket books, as is evidenced by the quote that they are saving fuel by slowing down. Hello!!! We don't care, clean up the air. Produce near home or do without. Somebody, please..... somebody, please bomb us back to the , well almost stone age.....

[John]

(3)

The cost per ton\mile for ocean shipping is far less than any other shipping method. Only rail comes close. Neither method uses the dirty "bunker oil" they did in years past.

So while a ship it might emit the pollution of 50 million cars, it's also carrying a load that would take a billion cars, so the comparison isn't really valid.

The reason international trade works on the scale it does is due to cheap oceanic shipping.

Take that away and grain shipments, as well as commodities are no longer economical to ship. Say goodbye to your shopping cart full of low cost goods from China.

[kdd]

(2)

Correct. The problem with cargo ships is that they burn extremely dirty fuel.

We don't have to go back to sailing boats to solve this: forcing cargo vessels to use diesel that is used by trucks and buses would be an enormous leap forward.

[anonymous]

(1)

"One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50 million cars, study finds."

That's probably cuz they don't have nifty catalytic converters.