3 ms·

I mean hell, local could even just mean "same continent" or "within a X hundred km radius". The real key is that there's no reason for such excessive energy was

I mean hell, local could even just mean "same continent" or "within a X hundred km radius". The real key is that there's no reason for such excessive energy waste from transportation due to facilities being on the opposite side of the globe when it's easily producible locally.

perl4ever 5y ago
>there's no reason for such excessive energy waste from transportation Shipping by air, land, or sea, has radically different costs. Since time immemorial transport by water has been tremendously less expensive than the alternative. I was curious, so I looked up some figures, which probably aren't very precise, but shipping a ton of stuff from Shanghai to Los Angeles (if you can put 29 tons in a 40-foot container) costs on the order of $500. By air, maybe $20,000. People say shipping things around the world is wasteful, but 25 cents is completely different from 10 dollars a pound. Going inland can easily exceed the cost of a leisurely trip across an ocean.
- jacoblambda 5y ago
  But if you still have to go inland, it's the same problem but worse. Sure places on the coast can get cheaper/less wasteful goods by water but once you have to take those goods inland you have the same dilemma. At least with local production you only have to worry about the last X miles rather than those last X miles plus maritime travel. Additionally, local transport doesn't preclude using waterways. There's plenty of viable river shipping lanes in most regions not exposed to the coast but once again the last mile is going to probably be by road. So local production can still happen on the coasts but by making it local you free up whatever percentage of international maritime traffic that could either be used for something else or go unused and save some amount of pollution. --- Side note but if we want to cut down on pollution why isn't there a bigger push to replace diesel propulsion with nuclear propulsion in commercial vessels? Just a quick search and it looks like Maritime shipping accounts for something like 13% of Sulphur emissions, 15% of NOx emissions, and 3% of CO2 emissions. That seems like a pretty big/easy way to cut down on atmospheric and greenhouse gas pollution from a global standpoint.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >But if you still have to go inland, it's the same problem but worse. Population centers are disproportionately near the coast/harbors. This is often mentioned whenever people discuss sea level rise from climate change. According to the UN, 40% of the entire world's population lives within 60 miles of a coast. I believe the proportion for the US is similar. I think this is important in understanding why it is feasible and cheap as a % to ship things around the world. Of course, there are rivers and railroads too.
  - AdrianB1 5y ago
    I think the Sulphur and NOx emissions are that high because ocean ships are using lower grade fuel with lots of Sulphur (many times more than regular Diesel fuel) and have no NOx reduction devices like a regular truck. It is possible to reduce Sulphur and NOx emissions an order of magnitude just by making ships EURO 6-equivalent compliant. That would increase the shipping cost a bit, but it will still be the cheapest by far, the $500 per container from Shanghai to LA will go $520 or $550.

perl4ever 5y ago

>there's no reason for such excessive energy waste from transportation Shipping by air, land, or sea, has radically different costs. Since time immemorial transport by water has been tremendously less expensive than the alternative. I was curious, so I looked up some figures, which probably aren't very precise, but shipping a ton of stuff from Shanghai to Los Angeles (if you can put 29 tons in a 40-foot container) costs on the order of $500. By air, maybe $20,000. People say shipping things around the world is wasteful, but 25 cents is completely different from 10 dollars a pound. Going inland can easily exceed the cost of a leisurely trip across an ocean.

jacoblambda 5y ago
But if you still have to go inland, it's the same problem but worse. Sure places on the coast can get cheaper/less wasteful goods by water but once you have to take those goods inland you have the same dilemma. At least with local production you only have to worry about the last X miles rather than those last X miles plus maritime travel. Additionally, local transport doesn't preclude using waterways. There's plenty of viable river shipping lanes in most regions not exposed to the coast but once again the last mile is going to probably be by road. So local production can still happen on the coasts but by making it local you free up whatever percentage of international maritime traffic that could either be used for something else or go unused and save some amount of pollution. --- Side note but if we want to cut down on pollution why isn't there a bigger push to replace diesel propulsion with nuclear propulsion in commercial vessels? Just a quick search and it looks like Maritime shipping accounts for something like 13% of Sulphur emissions, 15% of NOx emissions, and 3% of CO2 emissions. That seems like a pretty big/easy way to cut down on atmospheric and greenhouse gas pollution from a global standpoint.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >But if you still have to go inland, it's the same problem but worse. Population centers are disproportionately near the coast/harbors. This is often mentioned whenever people discuss sea level rise from climate change. According to the UN, 40% of the entire world's population lives within 60 miles of a coast. I believe the proportion for the US is similar. I think this is important in understanding why it is feasible and cheap as a % to ship things around the world. Of course, there are rivers and railroads too.
- AdrianB1 5y ago
  I think the Sulphur and NOx emissions are that high because ocean ships are using lower grade fuel with lots of Sulphur (many times more than regular Diesel fuel) and have no NOx reduction devices like a regular truck. It is possible to reduce Sulphur and NOx emissions an order of magnitude just by making ships EURO 6-equivalent compliant. That would increase the shipping cost a bit, but it will still be the cheapest by far, the $500 per container from Shanghai to LA will go $520 or $550.