 |
Search Sci.Electronics.Basics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Sci.Electronics.Basics -> More on Shipping Fuel Costs; Why Globalization Will Continue Along Side Increasing Localization
There are 37 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 1 to 20.
|
Author: Bret CahillDate: 11:54 07-08-08
|
|
"It was unthinkable mere years ago, but globalization is starting to
lose momentum. High and holding fuel prices -- shipping a 40-foot
container from Shanghai to the U.S. will cost ya $5,000 more today
than a decade ago -- are making global supply chains look far less
attractive."
-- Solar Living Inst.
$5,000/container is 12 cents/lb or just 0.001 cents/lb-mile by sea.
A train hauls 1/25th the cargo at 2X the speed with 1/4th the hp of
the ship so the net energy should be 3X more /lb-mile. The ship
engine is 25% more fuel efficient and bunker is 1/2 the cost of diesel
so rail costs 0.01 cents/lb-mile.
Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
fuel as moving it from LA to Denver by train.
Semi rig moves 1/400the the cargo of the train at 1/60th the hp for
0.07 cents/lb-mile.
Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
fuel as moving it from LA to San Diego by truck.
A PU truck will haul 1/20th that of a semi at 3X the mpg or 0.5 cents/
lb-mi.
You travel more than 20 miles in a loaded PU and you might as well go
to China.
In other words, if you restrict your diet to food trucked into your
town you only have a 150 mile radius of local crop land before noodles
from China may start to become competitive on a transportation fuel
cost basis.
The reason this is true is the economies of scale for vessel
transportation. The engine might be 100,000 hp but since it's hauling
200,000 tons the specific power of a ship is very low, < 1/2 hp/ton.
Only a pipeline is more effective.
Conclusion:
Spiraling fuel costs may increase localization in some respects, i.
e., more consumption of local produce, but it won't really stop
globalization.
And we haven't even broached the issue of the effect of cheap
communications on globalization.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: loradDate: 13:39 07-08-08
|
|
On Aug 7, 8:54=A0am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
> "It was unthinkable mere years ago, but globalization is starting to
> lose momentum. High and holding fuel prices -- shipping a 40-foot
> container from Shanghai to the U.S. will cost ya $5,000 more today
> than a decade ago -- are making global supply chains look far less
> attractive."
>
> -- Solar Living Inst.
>
> $5,000/container is 12 cents/lb or just 0.001 cents/lb-mile by sea.
>
> A train hauls 1/25th the cargo at 2X the speed with 1/4th the hp of
> the ship so the net energy should be 3X more /lb-mile. =A0The ship
> engine is 25% more fuel efficient and bunker is 1/2 the cost of diesel
> so rail costs 0.01 cents/lb-mile.
>
> Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
> fuel as moving it from LA to Denver by train.
>
> Semi rig moves 1/400the the cargo of the train at 1/60th the hp for
> 0.07 cents/lb-mile.
>
> Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
> fuel as moving it from LA to San Diego by truck.
>
> A PU truck will haul 1/20th that of a semi at 3X the mpg or 0.5 cents/
> lb-mi.
> You travel more than 20 miles in a loaded PU and you might as well go
> to China.
>
> In other words, if you restrict your diet to food trucked into your
> town you only have a 150 mile radius of local crop land before noodles
> from China may start to become competitive on a transportation fuel
> cost basis.
>
> The reason this is true is the economies of scale for vessel
> transportation. =A0The engine might be 100,000 hp but since it's hauling
> 200,000 tons the specific power of a ship is very low, < 1/2 hp/ton.
> Only a pipeline is more effective.
>
> Conclusion:
>
> Spiraling fuel costs may increase localization in some respects, i.
> e., more consumption of local produce, but it won't really stop
> globalization.
>
> And we haven't even broached the issue of the effect of cheap
> communications on globalization.
>
> Bret Cahill
All of that can be easily obviated by developing cellulosic US made
ethanol.
PS: Tariffing imports would work as well.
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 15:20 07-08-08
|
|
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
> "It was unthinkable mere years ago, but globalization is starting to lose
momentum.
Nope.
> High and holding fuel prices
Another lie.
> -- shipping a 40-foot container from Shanghai to the
> U.S. will cost ya $5,000 more today than a decade ago
Just another number plucked from your arse. We can tell that from the smell.
And thats a small part of the value of the contents with some contents anyway.
> -- are making global supply chains look far less attractive."
Pity about call centers that dont have that problem. And since
services are FAR more important to modern first world economys
than manufactured goods, globalisation will continue, you watch.
And if the cost of the fuel for ships ever becomes are serious problem,
even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that nuke powered
ships have been perfectly feasible for close to half a century now and
that they close to eliminate the fuel costs for ships.
> -- Solar Living Inst.
Just another mindless packa wankers.
> $5,000/container is 12 cents/lb or just 0.001 cents/lb-mile by sea.
Just another number plucked out of someone's arse. We can tell from the smell.
> A train hauls 1/25th the cargo at 2X the speed with 1/4th the hp of the ship
Just another number plucked out of someone's arse. We can tell from the smell.
> so the net energy should be 3X more /lb-mile. The
> ship engine is 25% more fuel efficient and bunker is
> 1/2 the cost of diesel so rail costs 0.01 cents/lb-mile.
Just another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.
> Moving a container from China to LA requires the same
> expenditure on fuel as moving it from LA to Denver by train.
Wrong, as always. Pity about the different cost of producing whats in
the container and pity about what a nuke powered ship can move it for.
> Semi rig moves 1/400the the cargo of the train at 1/60th the hp for 0.07
cents/lb-mile.
Just another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.
> Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
> fuel as moving it from LA to San Diego by truck.
Just another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.
> A PU truck will haul 1/20th that of a semi at 3X the mpg or 0.5 cents/ lb-mi.
> You travel more than 20 miles in a loaded PU and you might as well go to China.
Just another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.
> In other words, if you restrict your diet to food trucked into your town
> you only have a 150 mile radius of local crop land before noodles from
> China may start to become competitive on a transportation fuel cost basis.
Wrong, as always.
> The reason this is true is the economies of scale for vessel transportation.
Wrong, as always.
> The engine might be 100,000 hp but since it's hauling 200,000
> tons the specific power of a ship is very low, < 1/2 hp/ton.
Just another number plucked out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.
> Only a pipeline is more effective.
Now try a nuke powered ship.
> Conclusion:
No conclusion is possible from your mindless silly shit above.
> Spiraling fuel costs may increase localization in some
> respects, i. e., more consumption of local produce,
Pity about the labor cost of that. Which completey dominates the price of local produce.
> but it won't really stop globalization.
Corse it wont.
> And we haven't even broached the issue of the effect of cheap communications on
globalization.
Yep. That shit at the top is even more mindless than your silly shit.
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 16:15 07-08-08
|
|
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 08:54:59 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
>"It was unthinkable mere years ago, but globalization is starting to
>lose momentum. High and holding fuel prices -- shipping a 40-foot
>container from Shanghai to the U.S. will cost ya $5,000 more today
>than a decade ago -- are making global supply chains look far less
>attractive."
>
>-- Solar Living Inst.
>
>$5,000/container is 12 cents/lb or just 0.001 cents/lb-mile by sea.
>
>A train hauls 1/25th the cargo at 2X the speed with 1/4th the hp of
>the ship so the net energy should be 3X more /lb-mile. The ship
>engine is 25% more fuel efficient and bunker is 1/2 the cost of diesel
>so rail costs 0.01 cents/lb-mile.
>
>Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
>fuel as moving it from LA to Denver by train.
>
>Semi rig moves 1/400the the cargo of the train at 1/60th the hp for
>0.07 cents/lb-mile.
>
>Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
>fuel as moving it from LA to San Diego by truck.
>
>A PU truck will haul 1/20th that of a semi at 3X the mpg or 0.5 cents/
>lb-mi.
So a pickup with 500 lbs of cargo costs $2.50 per mile to operate?
That seems high to me. Of course, if the payload is one box of
breakfast cereal, a pickup isn't an efficient way to transport it.
>You travel more than 20 miles in a loaded PU and you might as well go
>to China.
>
>In other words, if you restrict your diet to food trucked into your
>town you only have a 150 mile radius of local crop land before noodles
>from China may start to become competitive on a transportation fuel
>cost basis.
So why can I buy a pound of Italian pasta (made from American winter
wheat) for 89 cents?
John
|
|
|
|
Author: tgDate: 17:34 07-08-08
|
|
On Aug 7, 4:15=A0pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 08:54:59 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>
>
>
> <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
> >"It was unthinkable mere years ago, but globalization is starting to
> >lose momentum. High and holding fuel prices -- shipping a 40-foot
> >container from Shanghai to the U.S. will cost ya $5,000 more today
> >than a decade ago -- are making global supply chains look far less
> >attractive."
>
> >-- Solar Living Inst.
>
> >$5,000/container is 12 cents/lb or just 0.001 cents/lb-mile by sea.
>
> >A train hauls 1/25th the cargo at 2X the speed with 1/4th the hp of
> >the ship so the net energy should be 3X more /lb-mile. =A0The ship
> >engine is 25% more fuel efficient and bunker is 1/2 the cost of diesel
> >so rail costs 0.01 cents/lb-mile.
>
> >Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
> >fuel as moving it from LA to Denver by train.
>
> >Semi rig moves 1/400the the cargo of the train at 1/60th the hp for
> >0.07 cents/lb-mile.
>
> >Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
> >fuel as moving it from LA to San Diego by truck.
>
> >A PU truck will haul 1/20th that of a semi at 3X the mpg or 0.5 cents/
> >lb-mi.
>
> So a pickup with 500 lbs of cargo costs $2.50 per mile to operate?
> That seems high to me. Of course, if the payload is one box of
> breakfast cereal, a pickup isn't an efficient way to transport it.
>
> >You travel more than 20 miles in a loaded PU and you might as well go
> >to China.
>
> >In other words, if you restrict your diet to food trucked into your
> >town you only have a 150 mile radius of local crop land before noodles
> >from China may start to become competitive on a transportation fuel
> >cost basis.
>
> So why can I buy a pound of Italian pasta (made from American winter
> wheat) for 89 cents?
>
> John
Bret really is bottom-feeding these days---you don't even realize that
you are agreeing with him.
-tg
|
|
|
|
Author: Bob EldDate: 18:18 07-08-08
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:99dfab9f-ce0b-4abf-9fbd-fcaed2db84af@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> "It was unthinkable mere years ago, but globalization is starting to
> lose momentum. High and holding fuel prices -- shipping a 40-foot
> container from Shanghai to the U.S. will cost ya $5,000 more today
> than a decade ago -- are making global supply chains look far less
> attractive."
>
> -- Solar Living Inst.
>
> $5,000/container is 12 cents/lb or just 0.001 cents/lb-mile by sea.
>
> A train hauls 1/25th the cargo at 2X the speed with 1/4th the hp of
> the ship so the net energy should be 3X more /lb-mile. The ship
> engine is 25% more fuel efficient and bunker is 1/2 the cost of diesel
> so rail costs 0.01 cents/lb-mile.
>
> Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
> fuel as moving it from LA to Denver by train.
>
> Semi rig moves 1/400the the cargo of the train at 1/60th the hp for
> 0.07 cents/lb-mile.
>
> Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
> fuel as moving it from LA to San Diego by truck.
>
> A PU truck will haul 1/20th that of a semi at 3X the mpg or 0.5 cents/
> lb-mi.
> You travel more than 20 miles in a loaded PU and you might as well go
> to China.
>
> In other words, if you restrict your diet to food trucked into your
> town you only have a 150 mile radius of local crop land before noodles
> from China may start to become competitive on a transportation fuel
> cost basis.
>
> The reason this is true is the economies of scale for vessel
> transportation. The engine might be 100,000 hp but since it's hauling
> 200,000 tons the specific power of a ship is very low, < 1/2 hp/ton.
> Only a pipeline is more effective.
>
> Conclusion:
>
> Spiraling fuel costs may increase localization in some respects, i.
> e., more consumption of local produce, but it won't really stop
> globalization.
>
> And we haven't even broached the issue of the effect of cheap
> communications on globalization.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
I see that the usual characters are giving you their typical pile of crap
over your transportation comments but I think they are pretty good. You
might have mistated a number here or there but, in general your premise is
accurate. What is the actual cost of moving a container from China to LA?
High volume transportation over water is the cheapest way to go followed by
rail on land with 18 wheelers and smaller trucks being the most expensive.
It's not only the fuel but also the labor, taxes and loading and off loading
that add to this fact.
A hundred and fifty years ago, water transportation was the ONLY way to move
heavy objects until the railroads were built. That's why ocean, river and
canal transportation was so important in the development of the country.
While not as important now as back then, water transportation remains the
preeminent method to move heavy and or high volumes of goods great distances
economically.
They are now experimenting with large sailing kites to help pull container
ships across the ocean to reduce the fuel consumed. This method may help
keep water transportation preeminent and competative.
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 18:51 07-08-08
|
|
Bob Eld <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote
> Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote
>> "It was unthinkable mere years ago, but globalization is starting to lose
>> momentum. High and holding fuel prices -- shipping a 40-foot container
>> from Shanghai to the U.S. will cost ya $5,000 more today than a decade
>> ago -- are making global supply chains look far less attractive."
>> -- Solar Living Inst.
>> $5,000/container is 12 cents/lb or just 0.001 cents/lb-mile by sea.
>> A train hauls 1/25th the cargo at 2X the speed with 1/4th the hp of
>> the ship so the net energy should be 3X more /lb-mile. The ship
>> engine is 25% more fuel efficient and bunker is 1/2 the cost of
>> diesel so rail costs 0.01 cents/lb-mile.
>> Moving a container from China to LA requires the same
>> expenditure on fuel as moving it from LA to Denver by train.
>> Semi rig moves 1/400the the cargo of the train at 1/60th the hp for 0.07
cents/lb-mile.
>> Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
>> fuel as moving it from LA to San Diego by truck.
>> A PU truck will haul 1/20th that of a semi at 3X the mpg or 0.5 cents/ lb-mi.
>> You travel more than 20 miles in a loaded PU and you might as well go to China.
>> In other words, if you restrict your diet to food trucked into your
>> town you only have a 150 mile radius of local crop land before
>> noodles from China may start to become competitive on a
>> transportation fuel cost basis.
>> The reason this is true is the economies of scale for vessel
>> transportation. The engine might be 100,000 hp but since it's
>> hauling 200,000 tons the specific power of a ship is very low,
>> < 1/2 hp/ton. Only a pipeline is more effective.
>> Conclusion:
>> Spiraling fuel costs may increase localization in some respects,
>> i.e., more consumption of local produce, but it won't really stop
globalization.
>> And we haven't even broached the issue of the effect of cheap communications on
globalization.
> I see that the usual characters are giving you their typical pile of crap
> over your transportation comments but I think they are pretty good.
More fool you.
> You might have mistated a number here or there
He just plucked them out of his arse, as always.
> but, in general your premise is accurate.
Pity its absolutely no news and the numbers he plucked out of his arse dont help.
> What is the actual cost of moving a container from China to LA?
> High volume transportation over water is the cheapest way to go followed
> by rail on land with 18 wheelers and smaller trucks being the most expensive.
No news tho.
> It's not only the fuel but also the labor, taxes
> and loading and off loading that add to this fact.
Waffle.
> A hundred and fifty years ago, water transportation was
> the ONLY way to move heavy objects until the railroads
> were built. That's why ocean, river and canal transportation
> was so important in the development of the country.
Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether globalization
will be stopping due to the increased fuel costs.
> While not as important now as back then, water transportation
> remains the preeminent method to move heavy and or
> high volumes of goods great distances economically.
Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether globalization
will be stopping due to the increased fuel costs.
Of course it wont when shipping can use nuke power if it has to.
> They are now experimenting with large sailing kites to help pull
> container ships across the ocean to reduce the fuel consumed.
And that makes absolutely no sense compared with using nuke power instead.
> This method may help keep water transportation preeminent and competative.
Not a chance, you watch.
Nuke power may well do tho if the cost of fuel continues to hike.
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 19:25 07-08-08
|
|
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:34:29 -0700 (PDT), tg <tgdenning@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>On Aug 7, 4:15 pm, John Larkin
><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 08:54:59 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>>
>>
>>
>> <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >"It was unthinkable mere years ago, but globalization is starting to
>> >lose momentum. High and holding fuel prices -- shipping a 40-foot
>> >container from Shanghai to the U.S. will cost ya $5,000 more today
>> >than a decade ago -- are making global supply chains look far less
>> >attractive."
>>
>> >-- Solar Living Inst.
>>
>> >$5,000/container is 12 cents/lb or just 0.001 cents/lb-mile by sea.
>>
>> >A train hauls 1/25th the cargo at 2X the speed with 1/4th the hp of
>> >the ship so the net energy should be 3X more /lb-mile. The ship
>> >engine is 25% more fuel efficient and bunker is 1/2 the cost of diesel
>> >so rail costs 0.01 cents/lb-mile.
>>
>> >Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
>> >fuel as moving it from LA to Denver by train.
>>
>> >Semi rig moves 1/400the the cargo of the train at 1/60th the hp for
>> >0.07 cents/lb-mile.
>>
>> >Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
>> >fuel as moving it from LA to San Diego by truck.
>>
>> >A PU truck will haul 1/20th that of a semi at 3X the mpg or 0.5 cents/
>> >lb-mi.
>>
>> So a pickup with 500 lbs of cargo costs $2.50 per mile to operate?
>> That seems high to me. Of course, if the payload is one box of
>> breakfast cereal, a pickup isn't an efficient way to transport it.
>>
>> >You travel more than 20 miles in a loaded PU and you might as well go
>> >to China.
>>
>> >In other words, if you restrict your diet to food trucked into your
>> >town you only have a 150 mile radius of local crop land before noodles
>> >from China may start to become competitive on a transportation fuel
>> >cost basis.
>>
>> So why can I buy a pound of Italian pasta (made from American winter
>> wheat) for 89 cents?
>>
>> John
>
>Bret really is bottom-feeding these days---you don't even realize that
>you are agreeing with him.
>
>-tg
I have a friend who grows wheat in Suisun, about an hour's drive from
here. And I still buy Italian pasta.
In most cases, manufacturing quality and economy of scale will remain
more important than transportation costs. One thing that separates
wealthy societies from impoverished ones is the the poor ones can't
afford transportation.
I wonder how many dram simm's fit in a container.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
>They are now experimenting with large sailing kites to help pull container
>ships across the ocean to reduce the fuel consumed. This method may help
>keep water transportation preeminent and competative.
Automated freight sailers and nuclear powered freighters just might be the
next step. The reactor just might be something that ITER does research.
I think there was a "robotic" freighter departed from Germany some months
ago. Anyone seen any progress report on this?
|
|
|
|
Author: Bret CahillDate: 23:47 07-08-08
|
|
> >They are now experimenting with large sailing kites to help pull container
> >ships across the ocean to reduce the fuel consumed. This method may help
> >keep water transportation preeminent and competative.
> Automated freight sailers and nuclear powered freighters just might be the
> next step.
Now way is globalization going to come to an end.
> The reactor just might be something that ITER does research.
> I think there was a "robotic" freighter departed from Germany some months
> ago. Anyone seen any progress report on this?
Depends on if the "chief mate" gives out enough beer or wine to the
"dock dogs."
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: Bret CahillDate: 23:55 07-08-08
|
|
I'm just a garden variety incendiary.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: Bret CahillDate: 14:41 08-08-08
|
|
> > "It was unthinkable mere years ago, but globalization is starting to
> > lose momentum. High and holding fuel prices -- shipping a 40-foot
> > container from Shanghai to the U.S. will cost ya $5,000 more today
> > than a decade ago -- are making global supply chains look far less
> > attractive."
>
> > -- Solar Living Inst.
>
> > $5,000/container is 12 cents/lb or just 0.001 cents/lb-mile by sea.
>
> > A train hauls 1/25th the cargo at 2X the speed with 1/4th the hp of
> > the ship so the net energy should be 3X more /lb-mile. =EF=BF=BDThe shi=
p
> > engine is 25% more fuel efficient and bunker is 1/2 the cost of diesel
> > so rail costs 0.01 cents/lb-mile.
>
> > Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
> > fuel as moving it from LA to Denver by train.
>
> > Semi rig moves 1/400the the cargo of the train at 1/60th the hp for
> > 0.07 cents/lb-mile.
>
> > Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
> > fuel as moving it from LA to San Diego by truck.
>
> > A PU truck will haul 1/20th that of a semi at 3X the mpg or 0.5 cents/
> > lb-mi.
> > You travel more than 20 miles in a loaded PU and you might as well go
> > to China.
>
> > In other words, if you restrict your diet to food trucked into your
> > town you only have a 150 mile radius of local crop land before noodles
> > from China may start to become competitive on a transportation fuel
> > cost basis.
>
> > The reason this is true is the economies of scale for vessel
> > transportation. =EF=BF=BDThe engine might be 100,000 hp but since it's =
hauling
> > 200,000 tons the specific power of a ship is very low, < 1/2 hp/ton.
> > Only a pipeline is more effective.
>
> > Conclusion:
>
> > Spiraling fuel costs may increase localization in some respects, i.
> > e., more consumption of local produce, but it won't really stop
> > globalization.
>
> > And we haven't even broached the issue of the effect of cheap
> > communications on globalization.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> I see that the usual characters are giving you their typical pile of crap
> over your transportation comments but I think they are pretty good. You
> might have mistated a number here or there but, in general your premise i=
s
> accurate.
The point was that as long as all surface transportation was on liquid
fuel then spiraling fuel costs would cause all three modes of
transport, sea, road or rail, to approach certain distance ratios
which are fixed in the laws of thermo would not change with still
higher liquid fuel costs.
Higher energy costs increases localization but does not stop
globalization.
Railroads can be electrified which would decrease localization.
> What is the actual cost of moving a container from China to LA?
Guessing wildly maybe $5,000 for the fuel and maybe another $5,000 for
labor, capital, etc.
> High volume transportation over water is the cheapest way to go followed =
by
> rail on land with 18 wheelers and smaller trucks being the most expensive=
.
> It's not only the fuel but also the labor, taxes and loading and off load=
ing
> that add to this fact.
I was interested in the limit as fuel costs dominated everything else.
> A hundred and fifty years ago, water transportation was the ONLY way to m=
ove
> heavy objects until the railroads were built. That's why ocean, river and
> canal transportation was so important in the development of the country.
North Carolinians call the Tar Heel state a "valley of humility
between two mountains of conceit."
Why? They had no great plantations like VA or SC.
Why? They had no navigatable rivers. Check it out on a map sometime.
> While not as important now as back then, water transportation remains the
> preeminent method to move heavy and or high volumes of goods great distan=
ces
> economically.
For liquids a pipeline will beat anything.
> They are now experimenting with large sailing kites to help pull containe=
r
> ships across the ocean to reduce the fuel consumed. This method may help
> keep water transportation preeminent and competative.
At least near the jet stream.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedDate: 16:26 08-08-08
|
|
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
>>> "It was unthinkable mere years ago, but globalization is starting to
>>> lose momentum. High and holding fuel prices -- shipping a 40-foot
>>> container from Shanghai to the U.S. will cost ya $5,000 more today
>>> than a decade ago -- are making global supply chains look far less
>>> attractive."
>>
>>> -- Solar Living Inst.
>>
>>> $5,000/container is 12 cents/lb or just 0.001 cents/lb-mile by sea.
>>
>>> A train hauls 1/25th the cargo at 2X the speed with 1/4th the hp of
>>> the ship so the net energy should be 3X more /lb-mile. ?The ship
>>> engine is 25% more fuel efficient and bunker is 1/2 the cost of
>>> diesel so rail costs 0.01 cents/lb-mile.
>>
>>> Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
>>> fuel as moving it from LA to Denver by train.
>>
>>> Semi rig moves 1/400the the cargo of the train at 1/60th the hp for
>>> 0.07 cents/lb-mile.
>>
>>> Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
>>> fuel as moving it from LA to San Diego by truck.
>>
>>> A PU truck will haul 1/20th that of a semi at 3X the mpg or 0.5
>>> cents/ lb-mi.
>>> You travel more than 20 miles in a loaded PU and you might as well
>>> go to China.
>>
>>> In other words, if you restrict your diet to food trucked into your
>>> town you only have a 150 mile radius of local crop land before
>>> noodles from China may start to become competitive on a
>>> transportation fuel cost basis.
>>
>>> The reason this is true is the economies of scale for vessel
>>> transportation. ?The engine might be 100,000 hp but since it's
>>> hauling 200,000 tons the specific power of a ship is very low, <
>>> 1/2 hp/ton. Only a pipeline is more effective.
>>
>>> Conclusion:
>>
>>> Spiraling fuel costs may increase localization in some respects, i.
>>> e., more consumption of local produce, but it won't really stop
>>> globalization.
>>
>>> And we haven't even broached the issue of the effect of cheap
>>> communications on globalization.
>> I see that the usual characters are giving you their typical pile of
>> crap over your transportation comments but I think they are pretty
>> good. You might have mistated a number here or there but, in general
>> your premise is accurate.
> The point was that as long as all surface transportation was on liquid fuel
The real point is that its completely routine to use nukes to power
ships if that makes economic sense, so that wont happen.
> then spiraling fuel costs would cause all three modes
> of transport, sea, road or rail, to approach certain
> distance ratios which are fixed in the laws of thermo
> would not change with still higher liquid fuel costs.
It would be a hell of a lot more surprising if the price did change that.
> Higher energy costs increases localization but does not stop globalization.
That was always obvious. Only a fool would believe otherwise.
In spades when nukes are feasible for ships but not with other more local transport.
> Railroads can be electrified which would decrease localization.
And have been for centurys now.
>> What is the actual cost of moving a container from China to LA?
> Guessing wildly maybe $5,000 for the fuel and maybe another $5,000 for labor,
capital, etc.
Just more number plucked from your arse. We can tell that from the smell.
>> High volume transportation over water is the cheapest way to go
>> followed by rail on land with 18 wheelers and smaller trucks being
>> the most expensive. It's not only the fuel but also the labor, taxes
>> and loading and off loading that add to this fact.
> I was interested in the limit as fuel costs dominated everything else.
That wont happen, most obviously with his dram example.
In spades with illegal drugs.
>> A hundred and fifty years ago, water transportation was
>> the ONLY way to move heavy objects until the railroads
>> were built. That's why ocean, river and canal transportation
>> was so important in the development of the country.
> North Carolinians call the Tar Heel state a "valley of humility
> between two mountains of conceit."
> Why? They had no great plantations like VA or SC.
> Why? They had no navigatable rivers. Check it out on a map sometime.
And then the world moved on, just like it always does.
>> While not as important now as back then, water transportation
>> remains the preeminent method to move heavy and or high
>> volumes of goods great distances economically.
> For liquids a pipeline will beat anything.
Not when the volume isnt high enough.
>> They are now experimenting with large sailing kites to help pull
>> container ships across the ocean to reduce the fuel consumed. This
>> method may help keep water transportation preeminent and competative.
> At least near the jet stream.
There is no jet stream at sea level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Aug 7, 8:55=A0pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
> I'm just a garden variety incendiary.
It's a good thing those molotov's are going to
start costing you more then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Aug 7, 2:34=A0pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 4:15=A0pm, John Larkin
>
>
>
>
>
> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 08:54:59 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>
> > <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >"It was unthinkable mere years ago, but globalization is starting to
> > >lose momentum. High and holding fuel prices -- shipping a 40-foot
> > >container from Shanghai to the U.S. will cost ya $5,000 more today
> > >than a decade ago -- are making global supply chains look far less
> > >attractive."
>
> > >-- Solar Living Inst.
>
> > >$5,000/container is 12 cents/lb or just 0.001 cents/lb-mile by sea.
>
> > >A train hauls 1/25th the cargo at 2X the speed with 1/4th the hp of
> > >the ship so the net energy should be 3X more /lb-mile. =A0The ship
> > >engine is 25% more fuel efficient and bunker is 1/2 the cost of diesel
> > >so rail costs 0.01 cents/lb-mile.
>
> > >Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
> > >fuel as moving it from LA to Denver by train.
>
> > >Semi rig moves 1/400the the cargo of the train at 1/60th the hp for
> > >0.07 cents/lb-mile.
>
> > >Moving a container from China to LA requires the same expenditure on
> > >fuel as moving it from LA to San Diego by truck.
>
> > >A PU truck will haul 1/20th that of a semi at 3X the mpg or 0.5 cents/
> > >lb-mi.
>
> > So a pickup with 500 lbs of cargo costs $2.50 per mile to operate?
> > That seems high to me. Of course, if the payload is one box of
> > breakfast cereal, a pickup isn't an efficient way to transport it.
>
> > >You travel more than 20 miles in a loaded PU and you might as well go
> > >to China.
>
> > >In other words, if you restrict your diet to food trucked into your
> > >town you only have a 150 mile radius of local crop land before noodles
> > >from China may start to become competitive on a transportation fuel
> > >cost basis.
>
> > So why can I buy a pound of Italian pasta (made from American winter
> > wheat) for 89 cents?
>
> > John
>
> Bret really is bottom-feeding these days---
Now, now, just becaue Bret didn't want your critique
of his Mohammed Cartoons at BretCahill.com, doesn't
mean you have to get anal.
|
|
|
|
Author: Kris KriegerDate: 22:07 09-08-08
|
|
"Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:pwKmk.17292$uE5.13408@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com:
[snip]
>
> They are now experimenting with large sailing kites to help pull
> container ships across the ocean to reduce the fuel consumed. This
> method may help keep water transportation preeminent and competative.
>
Is that serious, or a joke? If it's serious, do you have any links handy?
TIA!
|
|
|
|
Author: terrycDate: 01:41 10-08-08
|
|
On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:07:07 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> Is that serious, or a joke? If it's serious, do you have any links handy?
It comes up every decade and someone plays around with it, but I'm yet to
find any company doining it as an on going activity, as opposed to giving
it a try to see if is worth the effort.
|
|
|
|
Author: Duane C. JohnsonDate: 07:27 10-08-08
|
|
Kris Krieger wrote:
> "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > They are now experimenting with large sailing kites
> > to help pull container ships across the ocean to
> > reduce the fuel consumed. This method may help keep
> > water transportation preeminent and competative.
> Is that serious, or a joke?
> If it's serious, do you have any links handy?
See:
http://skysails.info/index.php?id=13
> TIA!
Duane
--
Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver
http://www.redrok.com/led3xassm.htm [*]
Powered by \ \ \ //|
Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / |
Red Rock Energy \ \ / / |
Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / |
1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ |
USA 55110-3364 === \ |
(651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ |
redrok@redrok.com (my email: address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===
|
|
|
|
Author: Tim JacksonDate: 07:40 10-08-08
|
|
Duane C. Johnson wrote:
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>> "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > They are now experimenting with large sailing kites
> > > to help pull container ships across the ocean to
> > > reduce the fuel consumed. This method may help keep
> > > water transportation preeminent and competative.
>
>> Is that serious, or a joke?
> > If it's serious, do you have any links handy?
>
> See:
> http://skysails.info/index.php?id=13
>
>> TIA!
>
> Duane
>
That's one hell of a spinnaker. Could be interesting controlling it in
foul weather, especially if it is up in the clouds. Don't fancy hauling
it back aboard full of water.
It's fine for downhill sailing. Can they do one for beating to windward?
Come back Cutty Sark, all is forgiven.
Tim Jackson
|
|
|
|
Author: Duane C. JohnsonDate: 09:09 10-08-08
|
|
Tim Jackson wrote:
> "Duane C. Johnson" <redrok@redrok.com> wrote:
>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>> "Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > They are now experimenting with large sailing kites
>>> > to help pull container ships across the ocean to
>>> > reduce the fuel consumed. This method may help keep
>>> > water transportation preeminent and competitive.
>>> Is that serious, or a joke?
>> > If it's serious, do you have any links handy?
>> See:
>> http://skysails.info/index.php?id=13
>>> TIA!
>> Duane
> That's one hell of a spinnaker.
These are not like a spinnaker.
A spinnaker is essentially a drag sail. Yes, spinnakers
can have some aerodynamic lift but mainly drag.
These kite sails are all airfoil with tremendous
lift forces as opposed to drag forces. Lift forces
allow one to sail up wind.
> Could be interesting controlling it in foul weather,
> especially if it's up in the clouds.
There are strategies for using them at considerable
height. Generally the wind forces are greater at
increased height greatly increasing their pulling
force.
Control is done by differentially adjusting a pair
of winches.
I have a very nice flexible airfoil stunt kite.
It easily out performs by rigid frame stunt kites
in beating angle and speed.
> Don't fancy hauling it back aboard full of water.
I assume you are asking about retrieving the kite after
a mishap and it crashes into the water. Retrieving is
done essentially by winching one cable ahead of the
other. There is relatively little drag doing this.
> It's fine for downhill sailing.
> Can they do one for beating to windward?
Yes they can. And very well.
Go to a beach on a windy day and you can often see
kite surfers traveling at great speed. They easily
beat into the wind. Usually at greater angles than
conventional sails.
> Come back Cutty Sark, all is forgiven.
Kites have a distinct advantage over masted sails.
They are anchored on the deck. This allows for much
greater pulling forces compared to masted sails which
are limited by the how far the boat can heal over.
Since these boats need to heal there is less ballast
required resulting in greater efficiency.
As I recall, the many of the current unlimited
sailing speed records are possessed by sailing kites.
Even faster than the rigid airfoil boats.
> Tim Jackson
Duane
--
Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver
http://www.redrok.com/led3xassm.htm [*]
Powered by \ \ \ //|
Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / |
Red Rock Energy \ \ / / |
Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / |
1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ |
USA 55110-3364 === \ |
(651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ |
redrok@redrok.com (my email: address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact | Electronic Portal
|
|
|
