|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Aug 7, 2008 08:54
"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.
|
| Show full article (1.83Kb) |
|
| | 33 Comments |
|
|
Author: loradlorad Date: Aug 7, 2008 10:39
On Aug 7, 8:54 am, Bret Cahill 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 ...
|
| Show full article (2.09Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Aug 7, 2008 12:20
Bret Cahill 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.
|
| Show full article (3.60Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John LarkinJohn Larkin Date: Aug 7, 2008 13:15
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 08:54:59 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
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...
|
| Show full article (1.74Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: tgtg Date: Aug 7, 2008 14:34
On Aug 7, 4:15 pm, John Larkin
highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 08:54:59 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>
>
>
> 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 ...
|
| Show full article (2.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bob EldBob Eld Date: Aug 7, 2008 15:18
> "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.
> ...
|
| Show full article (3.18Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Aug 7, 2008 15:51
> Bret Cahill 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.
|
| Show full article (3.80Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John LarkinJohn Larkin Date: Aug 7, 2008 16:25
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:34:29 -0700 (PDT), tg earthlink.net>
wrote:
>On Aug 7, 4:15 pm, John Larkin
> highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 08:54:59 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>>
>>
>>
>> aol.com> wrote:>>>"It was unthinkable...
|
| Show full article (2.53Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Aug 7, 2008 20:55
I'm just a garden variety incendiary.
Bret Cahill
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Aug 8, 2008 11:41
>> "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. ...
|
| Show full article (4.08Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
