1600 ton-miles per gallon
John McCarthy
countries that import grain to grow their own because of the cost
of transportation. There were some figures, but they were
inconclusive, one set being based on a small warship. I tried
the web searches. The Hitachi site claimed their bulk carriers
were efficient but didn't say how efficient. I tried the
Stanford library reference desk. Finally, I called the
M.I.T. Department of Naval Architecture or maybe it's Ocean
Systems Engineering now. Anyway I got to phone Professor Hank
Marcus, who said he didn't know but would find out for me.
His email of today said in full:
About 1600 tonne-miles/gal for a large dry bulker carrying
grain.
Now we can do some arithmetic using the following facts.
There are 37 bushels of wheat per tonne.
There are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel.
Oil costs $12 per barrel at present.
I am supposing that large ships get oil for that price, but the
price may be a bit lower, because they use the heavier, less
desirable, fractions of the oil. Maybe they could use unrefined
crude oil. (I once visited an oil well in Alaska where they used
crude in their diesel engines, but they said it was very nice
crude).
Wheat costs something like $2.00 per bushel at present, but
that's an exceptionally low price because of bumper crops.
Sometimes it's $4.00 per bushel. I'm not sure I have those
prices right, so someone may want to correct me.
Imagine an average journey of 5,000 miles.
The arithmetic gives us
transportation cost per bushel =
(/ (* 5000 12.0 ) (* 37.0 42 1600)) =>0.02413127413127413,
i.e. the fuel cost to transport a bushel of wheat 5,000 miles is
$.024.
Multiplying fuel cost by 100 would add a substantial cost to
shipping wheat, but it would destroy the rest of the economy.
Conclusion: The cost of shipping grain long distances won't force
countries to be independent in food.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
That which is obvious without arithmetic is often wrong.
Bloody Viking
: Conclusion: The cost of shipping grain long distances won't force
: countries to be independent in food.
Nice work! Congratulations, you win. The .024 of a cent/bushel is small.
That would be about a dime a tonne at $12/barrel, or an awful small amount
per meal. :) No doubt the professor was using a really efficient ship for
the example, but even so, you still pretty well win. Just make sure to
avoid using warships to ship grain. :)
Now, about the fuel costs of agriculture itself....
:)
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
Humans never fly. They either ride a flying bus or drive it.
3522357 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
Donald L. Libby
>
> John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
> : Conclusion: The cost of shipping grain long distances won't force
> : countries to be independent in food.
>
> Nice work! Congratulations, you win. The .024 of a cent/bushel is small.
> Now, about the fuel costs of agriculture itself....
>
> :)
>
So energy is not much of a trade barrier (nor limit to growth through
trade). We have also established that in the cases of modern North
Korea and ancient Easter Island, not trading at all is a serious limit
to growth. Trade would therefore appear to be an efficient and
effective means of enhancing human population resilience to local supply
shocks.
I've been waiting for the ecologically enlightened to step in with their
most obvious and IMO most persuasive counter-argument to enhancing human
population resilience through global trade: exotic species damage
native species' resilience (e.g. Zebra Mussel).
We should note that efforts are underway to develop tools and techniques
for decontaminating or sterilizing ballast water. These environmental
protection efforts will add some overhead to surface shipping charges.
The economically enlightened might simply consider this a displaced
cost: the cost of decontaminating ballast water to prevent the spread
of exotic species as traded off against the (discounted future) cost of
coping with problems caused by the spread of exotic species as traded
off against the opportunity cost of not shipping at all. But regardless
of who bears the cost, biological stowaways increase shipping costs.
Those who are blithely unconcerned for the welfare of other species
should keep in mind that the US Public Health Service traces its
beginnings to inspection and quarantine of mariners bringing exotic
diseases from far off lands. Today you can hear murmurs about "airport
malaria" in the public health community. It must be admitted at least
that exotic species such as these do cause costly damage and human harm.
-dl
--
Donald L. Libby, PhD (dli...@facstaff.wisc.edu)
NOTE: TO REPLY BY E-MAIL REMOVE "nospam!" FROM MY RETURN ADDRESS
Opinions are my own not those of my employer.
Visit the Network at
http://www.medsch.wisc.edu/prevmed/network/index.html
John McCarthy
> John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
> : Conclusion: The cost of shipping grain long distances won't force
> : countries to be independent in food.
>
> Nice work! Congratulations, you win. The .024 of a cent/bushel is small.
> That would be about a dime a tonne at $12/barrel, or an awful small amount
> per meal. :) No doubt the professor was using a really efficient ship for
> the example, but even so, you still pretty well win. Just make sure to
> avoid using warships to ship grain. :)
>
> Now, about the fuel costs of agriculture itself....
It is pleasant to convince the Viking of something. He agrees and
congratulates you.
It leads to fantastical and quixotic dreams of climbing the Mount
Everest of persuasion that gleams in the distant sunlight - convincing
Scott Nudds of anything.
Bloody Viking
: So energy is not much of a trade barrier (nor limit to growth through
: trade). We have also established that in the cases of modern North
: Korea and ancient Easter Island, not trading at all is a serious limit
: to growth. Trade would therefore appear to be an efficient and
: effective means of enhancing human population resilience to local supply
: shocks.
Quite true. The ultimate limit is trade where we as a planet can't trade
with other planets. :( So, there is an "Easter Island" limit in the end.
When oil maxes out, we can't import from another planet as we can'r get
there cheaply. How, we are already importing energy in large amounts from
Sol, which is literally spamming us with energy. :) The trick is using
solar-spammed energy for our uses....
Bloody Viking
: It is pleasant to convince the Viking of something. He agrees and
: congratulates you.
And I enjoyed the discussion on top of it. I figured we'd get to the
bottom of it.
: It leads to fantastical and quixotic dreams of climbing the Mount
: Everest of persuasion that gleams in the distant sunlight - convincing
: Scott Nudds of anything.
Trying to persuade Scott Nudds of something is more like climbing Mount
Everest with emphysema and no oxygen mask.
Another, lesser challenge is convincing Jay Hanson of something
optimistic. Even so, it's vastly more possible than convincing Scott Nudds
of ANYTHING. Jay Hanson has his point, but he assumes (due to cynicism)
that his prediction is inevitable due to human nature. This makes for a
strong argument in his favour. In large part, I agree with his cynicism
and I often think of "the tragedy of the commons" in quite a few
situations (like spamming" and the Oil Max-Out. If you go to
news.admin.net-abuse.email, you'll find a Hanson-esque posting of mine
about how spam peaked. (And of course, I use oil references a la Hanson.)
My own thoughts of human activity and the environment are Hanson-esque
too, and I think his essays on his web site are good for macabre
entertainment value. Hanson parodies are easy to write with computers, the
Internet, resource use max-outs, and the tragedy of the commons as
material.
Joshua Halpern
> Someone speculated that increasing oil prices might force
> countries that import grain to grow their own because of the cost
> of transportation. There were some figures, but they were
> inconclusive, one set being based on a small warship. I tried
> the web searches. The Hitachi site claimed their bulk carriers
> were efficient but didn't say how efficient. I tried the
> Stanford library reference desk. Finally, I called the
> M.I.T. Department of Naval Architecture or maybe it's Ocean
> Systems Engineering now. Anyway I got to phone Professor Hank
> Marcus, who said he didn't know but would find out for me.
> His email of today said in full:
> About 1600 tonne-miles/gal for a large dry bulker carrying
> grain.
With or without the weight of the ship?
Josh Halpern
John McCarthy
I gave the email in full, and I don't want to bother him again.
However, costs per ton-mile of means of transportation are generally
quoted not counting the weight of the vehicle.
Anyway it doesn't matter with respect to the question asked, because
sea transportation is so cheap.
j...@yktvmv.watson.ibm.com
on 18 Feb 1999 20:10:34 -0800,
John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> writes:
>Conclusion: The cost of shipping grain long distances won't force
>countries to be independent in food.
Actually I expect gettting the grain to and from ports is
the hard part.
Another question, at what fuel cost does sail become
competitive for ocean shipping?
James B. Shearer
Bloody Viking
: Another question, at what fuel cost does sail become
: competitive for ocean shipping?
Probably high, as Sail is labour-intensive and unreliable. During the
'70s, sail was considered but not used when oil was $40 a barrel. After
the max-out, the price per barrel can potentially get REAL high, so sail
can't be ruled out in a post-petrol world. In short, there's no answer...
yet! In a post-petrol Mad Max-ish world, we may even see sailing cars on
the freeways like those "land yachts" of today. Just imagine sailing to
work onboard a sail-car. Everyone would think of cars as land-going ships
as I do today. (I was in the Navy.)
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
Humans never fly. They either ride a flying bus or drive it.
3566553 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/