More on Shipping Fuel Costs; Why Globalization Will Continu

[Bret Cahill]

"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

 

[lorad]

On Aug 7, 8:54 am, 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.
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

All of that can be easily obviated by developing cellulosic US made
ethanol.

PS: Tariffing imports would work as well.

 

[John Larkin]

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

 

[tg]

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

 

[Bret Cahill]

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

 

[Bret Cahill]

I'm just a garden variety incendiary.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

"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.

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 loading
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 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.

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.

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.


Bret Cahill

 

On Aug 7, 8:55 pm, 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 pm, tg <tgdenn...@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---

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.

 

[terryc]

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.

 

[Duane C. Johnson]

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) ===

 

[Tim Jackson]

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

 

[Tim Jackson]

Bret Cahill wrote:

ďż˝> Come back Cutty Sark, all is forgiven.

A mast on a conventional sailing vessel tacking sideways or up wind
applies a lengthwise torque to the vessel creating a list that spills
the wind out of the sails.

The new cup race boats have tilting keels that counter the bending
moment and keep the mast vertical and go 50 knots, about as fast a
nuke airfraft carrier.

The 'traditional' modern solution to that is multiple hulls, although
that has the penalty of what might be politely called a second stable
orientation. I didn't mean that we couldn't improve on the performance
of the tea clipper, I meant that maybe we need to revisit the use of
commercial sailing ships when oil gets unaffordable. Imagine what the
East India Company could have done with carbon fibre masts, automated
sail handling and modern aerodynamic theory. And radar.

Mind you a kite has several alternative stable configurations too -
stalled, aback, in the water, and knotted. It's all very well designing
for clear weather and flat seas, unfortunately commerce doesn't wait for
good weather, or confine itself to the trade wind zones. It would be
nice to imagine a kite with a control system that could fly it through a
hurricane without breaking anything

Tim Jackson

 

[Bret Cahill]

ďż˝> Come back Cutty Sark, all is forgiven.

A mast on a conventional sailing vessel tacking sideways or up wind
applies a lengthwise torque to the vessel creating a list that spills
the wind out of the sails.

The new cup race boats have tilting keels that counter the bending
moment and keep the mast vertical and go 50 knots, about as fast a
nuke airfraft carrier.

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.

There's no moment arm with a kite.

Since these boats need to heal there is less ballast
required resulting in greater efficiency.

Well, you could carry more heavy cargo without the ballast.

But ignoring that submarines are more efficient than displacement
surface vessels. That's why you see the bulbous bow protruding out of
the forward hull below the water line of empty cargo ships. A
displacement vessel really wants to be under water.

As I recall, the many of the current unlimited
sailing speed records are possessed by sailing kites.
Even faster than the rigid airfoil boats.

Are these recreational craft that skip over the water or displacement
vessels?


Bret Cahill

� � �Home of the $35 Solar Tracker � � �Receiver
� �http://www.redrok.com/led3xassm.htm� � �[*]
� �Powered by � � � � � � \ �\ � � \ � � � �//|
ďż˝ Thermonuclear ďż˝ Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ \ ďż˝\ ďż˝ ďż˝ \ ďż˝/ ďż˝/ ďż˝|
Red Rock Energy ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ \ ďż˝\ ďż˝ ďż˝ / ďż˝ / ďż˝ |
Duane C. Johnson ďż˝ Designer ďż˝\ ďż˝\ ďż˝/ ďż˝\ / ďż˝ ďż˝|
1825 Florence St �Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota ďż˝ ďż˝=== \ ďż˝ / \ ďż˝ ďż˝|
USA � � �55110-3364 � � � � � � � �=== � \ � |
(651)426-4766 � � � �use Courier New Font \ �|
red...@redrok.com ďż˝ ďż˝ (my email: address) ďż˝\ |http://www.redrok.comďż˝(Web site) ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝===

 

[Bret Cahill]

Come back Cutty Sark, all is forgiven.

A mast on a conventional sailing vessel tacking sideways or up wind
applies a lengthwise torque to the vessel creating a list that spills
the wind out of the sails.

The new cup race boats have tilting keels that counter the bending
moment and keep the mast vertical and go 50 knots, about as fast a
nuke airfraft carrier.

The 'traditional' modern solution to that is multiple hulls, although
that has the penalty of what might be politely called a second stable
orientation. �I didn't mean that we couldn't improve on the performance
of the tea clipper, I meant that maybe we need to revisit the use of
commercial sailing ships when oil gets unaffordable. ďż˝ Imagine what the
East India Company could have done with carbon fibre masts, automated
sail handling and modern aerodynamic theory. And radar.

And dacron, refrigeration, GPS, a trolling motor to get around
port, . . .

They would be spending money like drunken sailors if they had access
to a modern dock store, trying to trade all kinds of now unobtainable
or illegal stuff for it, whale oil, ivory, diamonds . . .

Mind you a kite has several alternative stable configurations too -
stalled, aback, in the water, and knotted. �It's all very well designing
for clear weather and flat seas, unfortunately commerce doesn't wait for
good weather, or confine itself to the trade wind zones. ďż˝

You don't need to eliminate the use of fuel, just reduce it as much as
possible.

The vessel would still have back up power.

The hard part would be deploying the kite.

It would be
nice to imagine a kite with a control system that could fly it through a
hurricane without breaking anything

Most masters are pretty good at avoiding hurricanes.


Bret Cahill

 

[Tim Jackson]

Rod Speed wrote:

Tim Jackson <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote:
It would be nice to imagine a kite with a control system
that could fly it through a hurricane without breaking anything

Nuke power makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Yes, and no problem with disposing of all those waste sails, or sailors
getting needle injuries from repairing them. It'd keep the treasure
seekers away from the wrecks too.

Of course if you are in the nuclear industry it makes sense.


Tim Jackson

 

[Tim Jackson]

Bret Cahill wrote:

The hard part would be deploying the kite.

Catapult? Rocket? We can deploy a jet fighter, I'm sure a kite isn't

impossible. You throw a stunt kite. Landing an unpiloted craft safely
on a carrier is I think the harder task.


Tim

 

Maybe blimps could raise the kite.

I'm trying to get a sense of the materials cost (since it seems certain
that a regular ol' parasail would wear out under that much strain), and
what the materials are. �Also what wind speed is required to actually help
pull the ship. �THe intriguing thing is that it doesn't require all of the
superstructure required for masted sails - also, as teh PDF showed, it
moves freely, so has a far smaller chance of tipping th eship.

INteresting and curious. �I'll have to look at this periodically and see
what happens.- Hide quoted text -

Towing a ship requires a steel cable rated at over a thousand tons
[several inches thick].

If it's not stainless it will rust and kink.

If it snapped it would probably remove part of the the superstructure.


Bret Cahill

 

[Rodney Long]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

Maybe blimps could raise the kite.

I'm trying to get a sense of the materials cost (since it seems certain
that a regular ol' parasail would wear out under that much strain), and
what the materials are. �Also what wind speed is required to actually help
pull the ship. �THe intriguing thing is that it doesn't require all of the
superstructure required for masted sails - also, as teh PDF showed, it
moves freely, so has a far smaller chance of tipping th eship.

INteresting and curious. �I'll have to look at this periodically and see
what happens.- Hide quoted text -

Towing a ship requires a steel cable rated at over a thousand tons
[several inches thick].

If it's not stainless it will rust and kink.

If it snapped it would probably remove part of the the superstructure.


Bret Cahill

Brent Spectra rope is ten times the strength of steel (by weight), it
has Zero stretch, thus no spring back if it breaks, I would think this
is what the sail line is made from, a 3/4 " dia. Spectra rope can easily
handle 8 tons, and is real light in weight

--
SpecTastic Wiggle Rig,
Fishing lure remote control
See lure video you won't believe
http://ezknot.com

 

Maybe blimps could raise the kite.

I'm trying to get a sense of the materials cost (since it seems certain
that a regular ol' parasail would wear out under that much strain), and
what the materials are. Also what wind speed is required to actually help
pull the ship. THe intriguing thing is that it doesn't require all of the
superstructure required for masted sails - also, as teh PDF showed, it
moves freely, so has a far smaller chance of tipping th eship.

INteresting and curious. I'll have to look at this periodically and see
what happens.- Hide quoted text -

Towing a ship requires a steel cable rated at over a thousand tons
[several inches thick].

If it's not stainless it will rust and kink.

If it snapped it would probably remove part of the the superstructure.

Brent Spectra rope is ten times the strength of steel (by weight), it
has Zero stretch,

Everything deforms.

thus no spring back if it breaks, I would think this
is what the sail line is made from, a 3/4 " dia. Spectra rope can easily
handle 8 tons, and is real light in weight

From your numbers, 8" thick to tow a ship.


Bret Cahill