Real Way to Save Oil..............

[FinanceDude]

It is tough to operate a barge or a ship where the vessel won't float, just as it is tough to use train transportation where there is no rail head. To discuss which mode is cheaper or more cost effective it is necessary to choose between available options.

So how is the Mississippi River these days? Is the CoE maintaining a deep enough channel?

They dredge different parts every year.............however a lot of it is on hold because a lot of them are scratching their heads about levees down my New Orleans.........

In regards to shipping costs, I think you have to look at TOTAL COST..............if you ship to a rail head, and then truck to the end-user, that's a double cost. However, for shipping one way to enduser, either container ship or rail is probably cheapest. However, if you have time-sensitive stuff, neither works extremely well..............

 

[Brat]

Today most "goods" (mfg items) are shipped in intermodal containers from the factory. If manufactured internationally they are rucked to the port, transported by ship, off loaded to a truck or train car that transports the container to a distribution center. From there most are transported by truck.

If manufactured in the US then remove the ship leg, and sometimes the train transportation.

Bulk cargo (grain, coal) are usually transported first by truck in a hopper container of various types, then loaded onto train cars/barges for transport to the user. Some are destined internationally, that goes by ship.

Liquids are piped and transported by ship in large part. Locally they are transported by truck.

Bunker oil that ships burn can be so heavy it is like tar. Trains and tug-boats use the same type of oil that is used for home heat or they use diesel.

In my lifetime tremendous efficiencies have been made through the use of intermodal containers. Each shipper uses the most cost effective way to transport their cargo. Our challenge as a society is to free us from dependency on oil. What this means to me is that to the extent we use oil we must be very efficient, and where ever possible find alternative sources of energy whatever the mode of transportation.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I give up a little, but like my 4-cyl Accord. I get 34-35 on the highway, and about 25 in the city. I have averaged 28-29 with my driving being mixed............

My wifes lexus gets 99mpg going downhill with your foot off the gas.

Now i'm looking for a new house thats in a very hilly area...

 

[FinanceDude]

My wifes lexus gets 99mpg going downhill with your foot off the gas.

Now i'm looking for a new house thats in a very hilly area...

Yeah, I love those fuel economy meters too.........

Seriously, I think GM's hybrid Suburbans have the potential to scare big oil..........except they will be $50,000 +!!

 

[jazz4cash]

My understanding is that the typical US locomotive uses diesel-electric technology,
in which the wheels are driven purely by electric motors, which in turn are powered
by generators driven by a diesel engine running at laximum efficiency. Seems like
a much simpler system than today's hybrid automobile, and it's unclear to me why
the cars don't work the same way.

Of course, the bigger point still remains, that trains are a more efficient way of
moving freight across long terrestrial distances.

Actually, that is pretty much how the cars work.

 

[jazz4cash]

GM has an urban bus hybrid system. There logic was to roll out hybrids in busses first because one hybrid bus=several hundred hybrid cars in terms of fuel saved. Seattle has over 200 60ft articulated busses in service for 2 years. They are catching on pretty well in DC/Balto/Philly/ Wilmington and lots of other places too. The upfront cost is huge, but Federal Gov't subsidizes busses big time. In order for trucking to catch on, it will take some high volume and/or US Army contracts. I think school busses maybe next. The point about Post Office and UPS is right on also as hybrids really only help in stop and go duty cycles.......so even if big rigs DID get 7 MPG (which they dont), hybrids dont do much for over the road operation. EPA regulations just kicked in which will cut fuel economy significantly, but noone knows exactly how much (or if the new engines will even work) at this point.

 

[thefed]

i did not read this whole thread, but i noticed your mention of 7.5 mpg for semis


i had a talk with my stepdad the other day, and he gets a big bonus if he hits 5.9mpg. 5.3 -5.5 is average...this is loaded with a gvw ranging from 30-75k lbs

 

[samclem]

i had a talk with my stepdad the other day, and he gets a big bonus if he hits 5.9mpg. 5.3 -5.5 is average...this is loaded with a gvw ranging from 30-75k lbs

So, they weigh as much as about 15 automobiles, and they get 5.5 mpg. That's pretty darn good in comparison. Not as good a a train or barge, but more efficient than what most of us drive by a long shot.

I remember a piece of environmental agitprop wailing about how wasteful air travel is. "A 747 flying cross country just one time burns more fuel than a family car burns in its lifetime!" Well, lets see, that jet holds 400 people plus their bags. 400 people x 3000 miles = 1,200,000 person-miles. That's about 8 times the number of person-miles the car would typically have delivered. I don't know if any of the numbers were right, but the factoid itself argued for more, not less, air travel in place of car travel.

Subsequent Edit: Ooops-- I added a zero above. The plane delivered 120,000 person miles, which is probably about the same or slightly less than a car would have been expected to deliver in those days. So, environmental impact of both modes of travel might be expected to be roughly equal.

 

[Nords]

I don't know if any of the numbers were right, but the factoid itself argued for more, not less, air travel in place of car travel.

Better drivers & lower accident rates, too...

 

[dumpster56]

Rebuild the american railroads!!

 

[landover]

Rebuild the american railroads!!

Hybrid Loco
http://www.railpower.com/products_hl_ggseries.html

 

[eridanus]

I remember a piece of environmental agitprop wailing about how wasteful air travel is. "A 747 flying cross country just one time burns more fuel than a family car burns in its lifetime!" Well, lets see, that jet holds 400 people plus their bags. 400 people x 3000 miles = 1,200,000 person-miles. That's about 8 times the number of person-miles the car would typically have delivered. I don't know if any of the numbers were right, but the factoid itself argued for more, not less, air travel in place of car travel.

Uhh, the environmental agitprop was correct in terms of both BTU/passenger mile and in terms of CO2 emissions. Planes are worse than (non-SUV) cars.

 

[samclem]

Uhh, the environmental agitprop was correct in terms of both BTU/passenger mile and in terms of CO2 emissions. Planes are worse than (non-SUV) cars.

Uhh, are you talking about a real car, the way Amercians drive them (1-2 people, 22 mpg) or a Prius with 4 people aboard?
According to the link below, a 747 gets 100 person/miles per gallon. There's absolutely no way that it is putting out more CO2 (or BTU) per passenger mile than a car.

http://travel.howstuffworks.com/question192.htm

 

[eridanus]

Uhh, Are you talking about a real car, the way Amercians drive them (1-2 people, 22 mpg) or a Prius with 4 people aboard?
According to the link below, a 747 gets 100 person/miles per gallon. There's absolutely no way that it is putting out more CO2 (or BTU) per passenger mile than a car.

http://travel.howstuffworks.com/question192.htm

Yes, a real car the way Americans drive them. That's why I wrote "BTU/passenger mile."

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_20.html

It turns out that flying has been more fuel efficient than driving in 2003 and 2004, breaking a 35 year trend. Who knows why this is? CAFE is down, winglets, older planes retiring?

 

[sgeeeee]

Rebuild the american railroads!!

Yes. It was a dumb move to let the railroads die because we didn't want to subsidize them. We subsidize trucking through road taxes in very dramatic ways. Semis are very destructive to our highways and the tax they pay does not come close to paying the difference between the wear and tear they do to the highways and that done by small cars.

We Americans want our cars, but we do not really appreciate what we are paying for the roads and highways we drive them on.

 

[samclem]

Yes, a real car the way Americans drive them. That's why I wrote "BTU/passenger mile."

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_20.html

It turns out that flying has been more fuel efficient than driving in 2003 and 2004, breaking a 35 year trend. Who knows why this is? CAFE is down, winglets, older planes retiring?

Okay, we agree that airplanes used fewer BTUs per passenger mile than cars did for the last two years figures were available.

But, the info you provided on BTU/mile seemed different enough from my WAG ealier that I took another look at my math--sure enough, I'd inserted an extra zero. So, the fuel burn (in BTU) per passenger mile for cars and airliners is about the same. That is still fairly amazing, given that the majority of fuel burned by a car at highway speeds is used to overcome air drag, and that air drag is proportional to airspeed squared. With a car moving at 60 mph and a jetliner is moving at approx 500 mph, the difference of the squares is a lot, and it is impressiive that the airliners can get the job done at approx the same btu/passenger mile as a car. I'd guess this is mostly attributable to the thinner air at altitude and less frontal/wetted area per unit volume for the airplane.

Back to the info in your link: I'm surprised that the airlines used more BTU per passenger mile in international service than in domestic service. Bigger airplanes and a higher percentage of time at higher altitudes should have given the international flights an edge. Maybe they fly with a larger percentage of empty seats?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I think everyone should drive a 727, yet long to own a 747 while making catty remarks about 747 drivers.

 

[ERD50]

If there was a way to increase gas mileage 50% in semis, US oil consumption would drop 10-15% just from that...........

I would think the transportation industry is already plenty motivated to achieve this - just pure economics, no 'green' needed.

I also don't think there is any silver bullet for trucks like this - 50% would be a HUGE number. That reminds me of 200mpg carburetor and cow magnets on the fuel line talk. As others pointed out, it is amazing that these trucks can get the mileage they do considering their size and weight.

-ERD50

 

[FinanceDude]

I would think the transportation industry is already plenty motivated to achieve this - just pure economics, no 'green' needed.

I also don't think there is any silver bullet for trucks like this - 50% would be a HUGE number. That reminds me of 200mpg carburetor and cow magnets on the fuel line talk. As others pointed out, it is amazing that these trucks can get the mileage they do considering their size and weight.

-ERD50

Coming your way in LESS than a YEAR...........Hybrid GMC and Chevy Suburbans and Yukons that get 25% better fuel economy than now.........up to 28 highway for the 2wd ones..............

 

[ERD50]

Coming your way in LESS than a YEAR...........Hybrid GMC and Chevy Suburbans and Yukons that get 25% better fuel economy than now.........up to 28 highway for the 2wd ones..............

But that is for a small truck, not for a semi with a huge payload that spends 90% of it's time cruising at highway speeds. A hybrid can actually hurt performance in that case (drag along more weight in the battery and electric motor that go unused 95% of the time).

In a hybrid, the motor/battery help to provide power at acceleration, and recover it while braking. For stop/go driving it is great (but still expensive). But for 90% 'go' driving, it is mostly dead weight.

Hybrid cars also get better highway mileage, because, due to the balance of stop/go, the ICE is smaller (does not need to be so big to provide acceleration), so that smaller ICE is more efficient at highway speeds - less throttle drag. But, diesel engines don't have that same drag. They have no air throttle, the injectors control combustion, one of the reasons that they are much more efficient.

But, technology aside, just use some logic. A big rig is owned by for-profit companies, it gobbles expensive fuel at single digit mpg rates, and travels over 100,000 miles a year. If it was cost effective, wouldn't the transportation companies be buying hybrid semi trucks? And wouldn't the manufacturers jump at the chance to sell them a more expensive product?

My guess is simple - the numbers don't work. In fact, in most cases, the numbers don't work for the hybrids cars sold today. People buy them to feel good about using less fuel and polluting less, which is nice, but the economics are seldom in their favor - unless they drive lots and lots of miles. And hope the batteries do not need replacing.

-ERD50

 

[Brat]

Let's admit it, oil is cost efficient and because it is a fluid it is easy to deploy. If availability decreases, and the price increases, over years technology will adapt. Our real risk is sudden disruptions in supply.

 

[Telly]

Let's admit it, oil is cost efficient and because it is a fluid it is easy to deploy. If availability decreases, and the price increases, over years technology will adapt. Our real risk is sudden disruptions in supply.

I can't argue with that, Brat.

But I sometimes do go off on a flight of fancy about how nice it would be if we were not dependent on the mid-east, and could just let them all go at it and stew in their own juices (my bets would be on the continuing survival of the Israelis!)

 

[ERD50]

But I sometimes do go off on a flight of fancy about how nice it would be if we were not dependent on the mid-east, and could just let them all go at it and stew in their own juices (my bets would be on the continuing survival of the Israelis!)

Well, as it was pointed out to me in a recent thread, oil is a fungible commodity. If we reduced our oil consumption by 12% or so (the % of the oil we use that comes from the middle east), the rest of the world would keep buying from them. We would drive up the price of non-middle-east oil. I'd guess those countries would resell us the oil they bought from the middle-east. What are you going to do - ask for a DNA test?

Now, get the whole world to stop using oil, that could do something. I wonder what the result would be?

-ERD50

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

if you have money to burn this will help save a little oil.

 

[Brat]

It is interesting to me that geothermal isn't explored more for power generation.