I have been following the A.P.Moller/Maersk line since my Denmark days:

With a capacity of 7,000 TEU, MS GRETE MÆRSK is one of the largest container vessels in the world. The vessel was delivered to Maersk Line in 2006 by the Odense Steel Shipyard.
GRETE MÆRSK is the second ship in a new series of updated container ships which are produced with the purpose of securing an extensive automation when operating the vessel. The choice of materials for the vessel as well as the interior is of highest quality based on Danish design – a characteristic for the container ships built at Odense Steel Shipyard.
GRETE MÆRSK is yet another environmentally friendly vessel from the Yard.
The size of a container ship is defined throughout the world in terms of TEU capacity. The exception is the Maersk Sealand line. It does not quote the TEU capacity, but the maximum load capacity in terms of filled TEUs each with a 14 tonne load.
Information on true container ship capacities is commercially sensitive and may be several thousand TEUs higher.

I believe the new Maersk ships require a 17 man crew (8 pilot-nav./8engine-maint./1cook-blogposter). That is pretty phenomenal; no wonder there are no jobs, and harbors are no longer colorful places as in the movies.
Then there is this from Wikipedia:

The trend is for bigger sizes of container ships to reduce costs by economy of scales. In years to come, the limit will be the Suezmax ship, with 12000 TEU. Such vessels would need to displace 137,000 DWT, be 400 meters long, more than 50 meters large, draught nearly 15 meters and more than 85 MW to achieve 25.5 knots. Such designs are certainly already in preparation.
The next step will be the MalaccaMax ship, with 18000 TEU, of 200,000 DWT, 470 meters long, 60 large, 16 draught, with more than 100 MW for 25.5 knots. This should be the limit before major restructuring of world container trade routes. The biggest constraint of this design, the absence of a capable single engine, has been overcome by the MAN B&W K108ME-C. The ultimate problem is the (temporary) absence of a manufacturer capable of producing the 10 meters diameter, 130 tonnes propeller needed for transmitting this power. Other constraints, such as time in port and lack of flexibility of service routes are similar to the constraints that eventually limited the growth in size of the supertankers.

Major shipping harbors have channel depths of 40-42 ft. These behemoths have draughts of up to 50 ft. and require constant dredging in some areas to maintain even these depths. Of course, the dredging is environmentlaly destructive.
Nevertheless, these ships are far preferable to plane transport, which as Monbiot points out, is the single most destructive cause of global warming.
It is clear that the builders of these giants are not expecting to run out of #6 Bunker Fuel in the near future.
Really, for the way we live, these container ships are probably the least of our worries. There is this far more troubling report from Greenpeace:

Clean shipbreaking – where?
In 2003 the IMO also decided to phase out single hull oil tankers: the ban became world wide. This international law came into force on 5 April 2005. The European Parliament wanted to know the consequences of the new regulations for the shipbreaking and recycling industry. In September 2004 the European Commission published her answers in the report ‘Oil tanker phase out and the ship scrapping study’. Main conclusion: in 2010 some 2,200 single hull oil tankers have to be removed from the waters. But there are hardly any facilities for the clean and safe breaking of these ships.
Destination unknown
Furthermore the EU hardly knows which European tankers have to be removed. In December 2004 Greenpeace published the report ‘Destination unknown: European single hull oil tankers…No place to go’, a search for the European oil tankers that have to be taken out of service. Bitter conclusion: many ‘phased out’ ships can undisturbed continue sailing the high seas. The rules do exist, but they lack law enforcers.
Environmental disaster
The Greenpeace report analyses that hundreds of ships will need to be scrapped within one year. But because of the lack of shipbreaking yards capable of scrapping ships in an environmentally clean way most of the single hull oil tankers will end up on a shipbreaking beach. The investigation also reveals the staggering collective oil cargo onboard the ships – 130 million liters – equal to more than two Prestige disasters. The ships are also laden with asbestos and other toxic substances. Oil and hazardous materials will end up on the beaches of Asia and Turkey: a complete disaster for the environment and the local fishing communities. And for the safety and health of the shipbreaking workers.
New shipbreaking beaches
With the rise of the number of ships for scrap, the number of dirty shipbreaking beaches will rise as well. In the beautiful nature reserve of Bolama beach near the West African state of Guinea Bissau an international coalition lead by Greenpeace managed to stop a proposed shipbreaking project. Another area threatened by shipbreaking plans are the white sand beaches of the East Indian Kakinada and the nearby mangrove forests of Coringa. Greenpeace supports the initiative of 70,000 fishermen to stop this new shipbreaking beach.

I recently saw Alain Tanner’s IN THE WHITE CITY, with the great Bruno Ganz. Besides the haunting views of Lisbon, there is the clasic engine room sabotage scene with the huge diesel engines, probably about twice the size of any I’ve ever worked on.

Posted by: Malooga | Mar 29 2006 2:54 utc | 1