I have been searching off and on for some sort of handle on how much oil the world shipping industry uses in order to get a feel for the impact of skyrocketing oil prices. So far all I have found is this little tidbit:
Iowagrain.org
It's concerned mostly with shipping costs for grain from the US to other countries, but the amount of fuel used per ton per mile shown a llittle ways down the article is interesting.
Just a start on calculating how much gets burned by the shipping industry.
PeakOil is You
The Cost of Worldwide Shipping in Fuel?
First unread post • 7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
The Cost of Worldwide Shipping in Fuel?
by grillzilla » Sat 13 May 2006, 00:19:17
The difference between Genius and Stupidity is that Genius has its limits.
-
grillzilla - Peat
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Wed 15 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Re: The Cost of Worldwide Shipping in Fuel?
by pigleg » Sat 13 May 2006, 09:11:36
Nice! We've all been anticipating "the end of the 1000 mile caesar salad" but its been hard to say just how quickly locally grown food will gain an advantage because of transportation cost.
I still don't know what it means though.
So if I take 1 ton of food 2000 miles, and the transportation gets say 200 ton miles per gallon, if diesel is 3 bucks then that means transportation fuel costs $30?
When do I start my tomato farm?
I still don't know what it means though.
So if I take 1 ton of food 2000 miles, and the transportation gets say 200 ton miles per gallon, if diesel is 3 bucks then that means transportation fuel costs $30?
When do I start my tomato farm?
Beware the deadly bulb!
-
pigleg - Peat
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Fri 17 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Re: The Cost of Worldwide Shipping in Fuel?
by MyOtherID » Sat 13 May 2006, 11:06:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BBC 7 Dec 2005', '[')b]Electric ships
But shipping is notoriously cost-conscious. As oil prices rise, so ships will need to find ways of minimising their fuel consumption.
In an anonymous-looking test hall in the heart of England where, back in the 1930s, Frank Whittle tested the concept of a jet engine to power aircraft, engineers are testing similar techniques to power ships.
In the absence of ocean, the All Electric Ship Demonstrator project needs no hull or rudder to show the benefits of propelling a ship electrically rather than mechanically.
The programme is jointly funded by the British and French defence ministries to test the operation of an advanced naval electric propulsion system before applying the technology to a warship.
US container ship
Container ships will have to get bigger and faster
A gas turbine produces electricity to drive the system's virtual propeller via a vastly shortened propeller shaft.
It goes like a rocket and yet handles like a dream, the propeller changing direction with the click of a computer mouse in the test facility's virtual bridge or control room.
That is just one of the features of the all-electric ship that makes it so appealing, according to Professor Chris Hodge, also a chief engineer with the marine engineering consultancy BMT.
"One of the biggest problems with a mechanical engine is it can't turn backwards very easily," he said.
"An electric motor really doesn't know which way it's turning, once it's started. It's much more flexible, much more versatile and because of all of that much cheaper to run."
Nigel Gee believes that in the short term, the all electric ship will be limited to certain shipping sectors that may change in the future.
"Cruise liners have an enormous demand for electricity for services to their passengers, be it heating, water for baths, cooking or entertainment.
"And these occur at certain times of the day. At other times of the day, when the passengers are all asleep, they need to propel the ship fast.
"If you produce a lot of electricity you can choose where you divert it to, for services or weaponry, depending on need.
"In the longer term, when the oil runs out, the all electric ship may play a wider role in shipping as, indeed, may nuclear power."
But shipping is notoriously cost-conscious. As oil prices rise, so ships will need to find ways of minimising their fuel consumption.
In an anonymous-looking test hall in the heart of England where, back in the 1930s, Frank Whittle tested the concept of a jet engine to power aircraft, engineers are testing similar techniques to power ships.
In the absence of ocean, the All Electric Ship Demonstrator project needs no hull or rudder to show the benefits of propelling a ship electrically rather than mechanically.
The programme is jointly funded by the British and French defence ministries to test the operation of an advanced naval electric propulsion system before applying the technology to a warship.
US container ship
Container ships will have to get bigger and faster
A gas turbine produces electricity to drive the system's virtual propeller via a vastly shortened propeller shaft.
It goes like a rocket and yet handles like a dream, the propeller changing direction with the click of a computer mouse in the test facility's virtual bridge or control room.
That is just one of the features of the all-electric ship that makes it so appealing, according to Professor Chris Hodge, also a chief engineer with the marine engineering consultancy BMT.
"One of the biggest problems with a mechanical engine is it can't turn backwards very easily," he said.
"An electric motor really doesn't know which way it's turning, once it's started. It's much more flexible, much more versatile and because of all of that much cheaper to run."
Nigel Gee believes that in the short term, the all electric ship will be limited to certain shipping sectors that may change in the future.
"Cruise liners have an enormous demand for electricity for services to their passengers, be it heating, water for baths, cooking or entertainment.
"And these occur at certain times of the day. At other times of the day, when the passengers are all asleep, they need to propel the ship fast.
"If you produce a lot of electricity you can choose where you divert it to, for services or weaponry, depending on need.
"In the longer term, when the oil runs out, the all electric ship may play a wider role in shipping as, indeed, may nuclear power."
-
MyOtherID - Lignite
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: Vegas, America's cloaca
Re: The Cost of Worldwide Shipping in Fuel?
by Ludi » Sat 13 May 2006, 14:29:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pigleg', '
')When do I start my tomato farm?
')When do I start my tomato farm?
The sooner the better!
- Ludi
Re: The Cost of Worldwide Shipping in Fuel?
by pup55 » Sat 13 May 2006, 15:01:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 's')hipping costs for grain from the US to other countries
As you suggested:
A bushel is 54 pounds (standard weight).
A ton of grain is about 37 bushels.
The current price for corn is about $2.50 per bushel, so the value of a ton of corn is about $90 FOB the midwest.
If it takes 12.5 dollars per ton to ship grain to Japan, that's $37.50 per ton, or about 30% of the landed price in Japan due to fuel costs. So, the japanese cattle will probably be eating some locally-produced feed rather than imported corn.
another thing to take away from this article is the fact that it takes less fuel to send grain to the west coast via train than to barge it down the river to New Orleans and then to Japan, sometimes up to 4 gallons per ton.
-
pup55 - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
Re: The Cost of Worldwide Shipping in Fuel?
by MrBill » Sat 13 May 2006, 16:01:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grillzilla', 'I') have been searching off and on for some sort of handle on how much oil the world shipping industry uses in order to get a feel for the impact of skyrocketing oil prices. So far all I have found is this little tidbit:
Iowagrain.org
It's concerned mostly with shipping costs for grain from the US to other countries, but the amount of fuel used per ton per mile shown a llittle ways down the article is interesting.
Just a start on calculating how much gets burned by the shipping industry.
Iowagrain.org
It's concerned mostly with shipping costs for grain from the US to other countries, but the amount of fuel used per ton per mile shown a llittle ways down the article is interesting.
Just a start on calculating how much gets burned by the shipping industry.
First of all the numbers are very old, over 20 years, and although I know America may have stood still since then the rest of the world has not, so therefore the numbers do not reflect freight rates today.
It costs very little to ship by water. Try looking up container freight rates and comparing them to local truck freight rates, a moving company for example. Also, frieght rates are variable, try booking a single boxcar from Iowa to Lousianna versus booking 3 or 4 complete trains, and you will see the rates fall dramatically. Economies of size. Like Wal-Mart.
The best place to look for freight rates, dry & wet, is Reuters or Bloomberg via the freight exchanges. Really relying on academics is of little use. They are as usual, usually cluseless about real everyday commercial practice amoung commercial firms that charter truck, train, barge and water freight everyday.
Water is 800 times heavier than air. It takes a lot of fuel to ship via water. But the efficiencies are still there if you can carry 800+ containers on one ship or even more. Bulk transport for grain is even more efficient (no containers).
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
-
MrBill - Expert
- Posts: 5630
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Eurasia