[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '.')..
Another type of risk that is considerably higher is when you attempt to build a factory or a mine in one of these countries. Then you deal with corruption on a whole other level. And once you have sunk costs in your project it is not so easy to walk away. Therefore you're more vulnerable to corruption on an ongoing basis and officials have leverage over you because they know you cannot leave.
...

[ReverseEngineer]

I think you have two opposing forces at work here, one is the economies of scale Mr Bill talks about which make larger ships which can use a variety of fuels for propulsion as being economic, the other one is smaller ships which run primarily on wind power and human labor as being economic.

He is right in the sense that during a transition period, scaling up works, but you also have to take into account the fact that overall the trade will decrease as the products themselves become too expensive to buy. So what happens faster here, demand destruction or shipping capability?

I think relative to what we see right now, demand destruction is the leader. Beyond the necessities of life of shelter, food and water, very little is going to be sought after in the downward spiral. All those commodities have to be available locally for any given community to survive. Mass shipments of grain will decrease as the grain needs to be distributed locally. Mass shipments of oil decrease as the price of the oil is out of reach of the consumers at the end of the shipping line. Clearly it takes some time for this to happen, but eventually it makes the big ships not economic to run. Not to mention, those big ports with the huge cranes lifting the containers on and off the ships take a lot of oil powered energy to work effectively.

Mr Bill's economic analysis is one which looks at the traditional aspects of supply and demand, its essentially correct but it does not take into account catastrophic failure of the system as a whole. In other words, at some point the big boats just won't be able to refuel at the point of destination in order to return back to the point of origin. Sailboats ALWAYS can do this.

The amount of international trade of all goods shrinks as the currency gets debased in all the countries. This is happening in China just as it is here, just in a somewhat different fashion, and its slightly lagging, but it fails as the economy here fails. At what point does the international trade fall off to such a point that the big boats are no longer economic to run, because it just costs too much in fuel to push them across the ocean at any speed? when is the actual volume too small to justify such big boats?

Well, I could project out here that it takes no more than 20 years for it to devolve to this level, and for really BIG boats, your lead time in building them and getting them fit out is gonna take a couple of years to begin with, and if you are to recoup the investment, they better keep operating for at least 20 years. Very risky proposition there.

Smaller boats take a much lower investment, and shorter lead time to get operating. The human labor needed to operate them is clearly out there desperate for work. Instant boats, instant labor, lower risk.

On the question of sailing into the wind using any technology, its clearly possible, its called TACKING. Makes the trip longer, but long as you can sail even just 20 degrees into the wind, its always possible to make decent progress. Obviously well designed sailing vessels can do better than that anyhow.

Reverse Engineer

[MrBill]

cube wrote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'ve always wondered why most of the world's oil refineries were built in oil importing nations and not exporting nations. Is there some engineering rule that says an oil refinery can't be built at the point of production and an oil rich nation can get into the business of exporting gasoline and diesel fuel instead of raw crude oil? I know that gasoline is much more susceptible to evaporation which can be a serious fire hazard if stored in very large containers. This is one of the reasons why large ships are powered by bunker fuel instead of gasoline or diesel.
However if humanity has figured out a way to launch rocket ships into space I'm quite sure the technical challenges involved in figuring out how to store gasoline in very large containers can be solved.

That leads to only 1 conclusion. --> a failed government.
I guess if an investor is going to sink $10 billion into building an oil refinery, property rights would definitely trump cheap labor!

[ReverseEngineer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'I')'ve always wondered why most of the world's oil refineries were built in oil importing nations and not exporting nations. Is there some engineering rule that says an oil refinery can't be built at the point of production and an oil rich nation can get into the business of exporting gasoline and diesel fuel instead of raw crude oil? I know that gasoline is much more susceptible to evaporation which can be a serious fire hazard if stored in very large containers. This is one of the reasons why large ships are powered by bunker fuel instead of gasoline or diesel.
However if humanity has figured out a way to launch rocket ships into space I'm quite sure the technical challenges involved in figuring out how to store gasoline in very large containers can be solved.

[MrBill]

The bunkering of large ships is done by smaller fuel supply ships in any case. In the hub and spoke trans-shipment of intermodal containers there will be bunker fuel at those larger hubs where the greatest demand is. There may not be bunker fuel available at those smaller places down the line that cannot afford to buy imported goods in any case. No ability to pay, no demand, no supply.

[align=center]Bunker ship in Limassol[/align]


As these large container ships can accomodate a wide range of fossil fuels using basically anything that can burn then they outlast what many of us see as a liquid fuel crisis. Grades of heavy oil that cannot be easily turned into gasoline and diesel can still be used as bunker fuel. But also coal to liquids and bio-fuels.

[align=center]Dhows used to transport bulk goods between Dubai to India[/align]


As bulk loads are less-efficient, and cost more to transport in smaller boats than by container, then those goods become even more expensive when delivered. So if there is no ability to pay via delivery by large ship then there is no demand for delivery by sail either. Then the only solution is local production close to the consuming market or doing without.

Of course, sailing ships need to be built-out of natural resources using energy as well. Basically anything you can build a sailing ship out of like wood you can burn - wood pellets or cellulosic ethanol made from wood chips - to power a container ship. If it is steel then that steel is using energy that can power a ship as well. LPG ships run on their own cargo.

I have to disagree about the endless supply of cheap labor though. Even in days of old not everyone was cut out to be a seaman. It is very tough physical work and quite dangerous. There are very many poor people in the world today. Not all of them are flocking to the sea in search of work.

Technically if they could they would be logging trees locally, building boats by themselves and taking to the sea as either fishermen or involved in transport. There must be a reason why that is not taking place today on a wider scale? The answer is that despite having trees and surplus labor they still could not compete against modern ships. I am not of the opinion that this will change in the next twenty years. Perhaps less container traffic due to reduced world trade. But not sail replacing container ships for transport.

Plus seamen still need to be fed. Long journies mean more men to feed for longer periods of time. That reduces the economics of the voyage or adds to the cost of the goods delivered. In the past that meant only low volume, high value goods were transported by sailing ships. Again the option is locally or regionally produced or going without. If the world runs out of oil and does not have an alternative then I cannot see the demand for sailing ships either? What would be their economic purpose?

[MrBill]

RE wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his goes to a favorite concept here, EROEI. While technologically its certainly possible to transport gasoline, or compressed or cooled Propane or Natural Gas, the kind of ships you would have to build to do it would be very energy intensive. this would only make the end product more expensive than it already is for the consumer of the product.

[the48thronin]

My thinking was not that a wind only vessel could be made from existing hulls, but that a wind assisted hybrid could...

rather than direct driven, electric generated to the existing electric drive props.. the generator being one of the vertical windmills such as you can see when crossing tehachapi on rt 58.

Several years ago I saw such a design but at that time wind assist was not worth the investment.. I only brought this idea up into a conversation of using existing hulls..


PS Mr Bill... I lived and worked in central america for several years and find you statements and facts about Africa similar to what I saw there...

[Tanada]

Shipping Gasoline slightly pressureized and Propane a bit more so is not difficult, but transporting Natural Gas cryogenically is a whole different ballgame in energy intensity.

[Canuk]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'I')'ve always wondered why most of the world's oil refineries were built in oil importing nations and not exporting nations. Is there some engineering rule that says an oil refinery can't be built at the point of production and an oil rich nation can get into the business of exporting gasoline and diesel fuel instead of raw crude oil?

That leads to only 1 conclusion. --> a failed government.
I guess if an investor is going to sink $10 billion into building an oil refinery, property rights would definitely trump cheap labor!

[the48thronin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Canuk', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'I')'ve always wondered why most of the world's oil refineries were built in oil importing nations and not exporting nations. Is there some engineering rule that says an oil refinery can't be built at the point of production and an oil rich nation can get into the business of exporting gasoline and diesel fuel instead of raw crude oil?

That leads to only 1 conclusion. --> a failed government.
I guess if an investor is going to sink $10 billion into building an oil refinery, property rights would definitely trump cheap labor!

[ReverseEngineer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I')f the world runs out of oil and does not have an alternative then I cannot see the demand for sailing ships either? What would be their economic purpose?

[cube]

*warning may be controversial*
It's my observation that many people on this website like to think of themselves as "open minded" and definitely more "informed" than the majority "ignorant" unwashed masses.
A VERY common belief on this website is that in a PO world, humanity will stop transporting almost all goods beyond 1,000 miles. The argument is simple, expensive energy will make long distance transport economically unprofitable.
People who hold this position should go back and re-read their history books.
If we look at historical fact, even before the advent of steam engine ships, Europeans were drinking tea from India, smoking tobacco from Virginia, and drinking coffee from Africa. However this is not limited to "super premium" goods. Back in the old days the items listed above were luxury goods!
By very late Victorian times, steel hull sailing ships (Wind-Jammers), became efficient enough that even everyday mundane items like wool and grains could be transported from Australia to England economically.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying we're going to be transporting cheap Chinese plastic toys 10,000 miles on sailing ships post PO, obviously there will be major changes to the world.
I'm just saying this ridiculous "Locavore-theory" that many people on this website subscribes too falls apart very quickly when compared to historical fact.

I lost count how many people on this website have this silly idea they have discovered some great knowledge that puts them above the unwashed masses.
People who fall into this category usually have a very firm belief what post PO will look like.
Unfortunately once you contradict their "theories" they tend to lash out violently.
People who fall into this category often get put on my ignore list.
I'm just rambling about what happened in another thread, everything is going fine in this post.
continue on....

[cube]

To: ReverseEngineer
I believe you are misinterpreting MrBill's post.

I don't know where in the world you got all that "analysis" from but that certainly was NOT the impression I got from reading MrBill's posts.

[ReverseEngineer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '*')warning may be controversial*
It's my observation that many people on this website like to think of themselves as "open minded" and definitely more "informed" than the majority "ignorant" unwashed masses.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', '.')..
I guess I am one of the "Ignorant Unwashed Masses". LOL.
...

[ReverseEngineer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'T')o: ReverseEngineer
I believe you are misinterpreting MrBill's post.

I don't know where in the world you got all that "analysis" from but that certainly was NOT the impression I got from reading MrBill's posts.

[nobodypanic]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')esigned for a future with declining supplies of fossil fuels and increasing environmental responsibility, the concept vessel would have a capacity of 10,000 standard cars and would use only renewable energy sources and naturally-charged fuel cells for power.

[BlueGhostNo2]

Reversed, the argument seems essentially to be: you state small old-tech sailing boats will replace current container oil driven shipping. To start with you said this could happen now but you've now switched to saying it will happen sometime. This is vs Bill saying container based shipping will continue more or less as it is for a long time to come although they might switch to burning other fuels, no problem as they can burn pretty much anything.

To argue as to why I think you're wrong on this I am not going to argue 'properly' a couple of other posters have already done this and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere, instead I'm going to raise points as to why, looking from the outside and knowing nothing much about shipping I think they're right and you're wrong.

* The burden of proof is on YOU on making this claim, the market shows that it is currently economic to run oil driven container ships. To challenge that you need to prove something else is better.

* You make this claim, with no figures to back you up! So you're going on a hunch not a rigorous analysis of the costs. (These two points basically make me feel your and Bills argument is a waste of time)

* You write long waffly posts and have no 'killer fact', if for example you turned up and said 'Container based shipping needs large quantities of helium to function, helium is in short supply, therefore soon we will have to stop using container based shipping' you'd seem more factual and less waffly, you'd also waste less time writing your posts.

* You are emotionally attached to your argument. To start with you argued that small sailing boats are a better economic alternative right now. You then came to agree that this was not the case but then switched your argument to say they'd be a better alternative soon. This suggests you have come to believe a particular 'vision' and are now trying to defend it.

* You are arguing for two changes which are not connected at the same time. First that shipping will switch energy source to wind power, second that shipping will switch scale from large to small. This again suggests you are emotionally attached to this 'future vision' if you tried to argue either point singularly with facts and figures to back you up, I would think you less of a crack pot.

Anyway despite my slightly ranty and overly long post I do think you've got a valuable contribution to make on the board. If only you'd be more flexible in changing your ideas and less waffly in communicating them!

[ReverseEngineer]

If my text made it appear I think small sailing vessels could succeed economically right NOW, then I was not clear. I don't think that at all, its a projection out into the future. Right NOW, Bunker Fuel style ships of the type Mr. Bill describes ARE the more economic form of transport. But they do depend on a large volume of goods to REMAIN viable into the future. How far away is the future of reduced intercontinental transport, and by how much does it need to be reduced before the economics of this mode fail? Nobody here really has demonstrated they can accurately project that one out, so aain it is a question of time frame to amortize out the cost of any type of ship you plan for and build today. My GUESS would be its a decade or so at best before global shipping shrinks to a trickle, so what is the point in spending a lot of money on building big new ships that run on bunker fuel and big new ports that require big cranes that need oil when there just won't be that much stuff to ship?

Insofar as my emotional attachment to such concepts goes, again if it appears emotional, this is my style of writing, I'm not REALLY all that attached to it. Where some folks like to use numbers to justify their concepts, I tend to appeal to the emotions with my writing. Having been trained as a numbers guy, I am fully aware that the numbers thorwn out and the way in which they are derived are in themselves subjective quantities, but by using them you can take what is really opinion and make it seem more factual. I don't play that game, you won't find me ever quoting "hard" numbers in my posts. If this bothers you and makes you feel my posts are without merit, so be it.

What I do is look at the big picture and look for motivations and social dynamics and historical precedents, and then I work up theories based on those things. They are just theories, they are not absolute predictions of the future. I have MANY theories, and I am not all that emotionally attached to ANY of them. LOL. However, when I write about any given theory, I'll use metaphor and emotional arguments to drive home the point I am trying to make, just as others will pound you to death with numbers.

If this does not suit your taste and does not hold enough weight with you to consider the arguments for their validity, that is fine. However, I still will write in this way because its how I THINK about the topics. I'm right as often as anybody else is who does it by the numbers, about 50% of the time. LOL.

Reverse Engineer

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'I')f my text made it appear I think small sailing vessels could succeed economically right NOW, then I was not clear. I don't think that at all, its a projection out into the future. .....