4 ms·
I think one of the issues with the thesis that oil prices will lead to a drop in globalization is that it's actually quite fuel-efficient to ship goods. Grabbi
by mdasen 14y ago
I think one of the issues with the thesis that oil prices will lead to a drop in globalization is that it's actually quite fuel-efficient to ship goods. Grabbing fast stats from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportati...), we see that it takes 246kJ to transport 1 tonne (2,204.6 pounds) 1km by freight rail in the United States. By contrast, a car carrying a single person takes 3,594kJ to transport that person 1km. Also, I think ocean-borne freight is even more favorable than rail, but I would assume that we would also have the option of creating nuclear-powered ocean-borne freight transportation given that we do this today for military vessels.
Freight has the advantage that it often doesn't care if it arrives 6 hours late or has to wait around a bunch. That means that we can hit maximal loads nicely. Businesses also tend to pre-plan (at least the ones that do well) so that they can take advantages of the efficiencies offered by going slower.
Passenger transportation just isn't as efficient and would seem to be under a greater squeeze. Even if you go by Amtrak's rail service, to transport a tonne of humans (assuming the average North American body weight of 80.7kg) would use 80x as much fuel as transporting a tonne of freight.
Getting back to freight, a lot of the world's goods are transported by freight truck over land. Freight trucks use 2,426kJ per tonne-kilometer. So, something coming from China over water to the Western US would use considerably less fuel than something from New York trying to get to the Western US. It's under 8,000mi from China to SF and (as the crow flys) 2,500mi from New York to SF. If water-borne transit is 10x more efficient, goods from China still have a fuel advantage over freight truck.
If anything, we'd see the end of freight trucks before we saw the end of globalization. Something coming from China to the Western US and then onto New York by rail would likely use less fuel than something coming from the Western US to New York by fright truck.
I guess I just see freight trucking and passenger trips ending considerably sooner than the water-borne and rail transit that would enable globalization to continue.
- grammaton 14y ago"I think one of the issues with the thesis that oil prices will lead to a drop in globalization is that it's actually quite fuel-efficient to ship goods." Manufacturing them, on the other hand....
- DrJ 14y agoThat would be a moot point, unless we are considering cost to setup the manufacturing infrastructure. Someone is going to have to make it.
- Symmetry 14y ago... will have to be done in places with relatively cheap energy if oil runs out. Solar in deserts, geothermal in Iceland, hydroelectric in many places.
- mindslight 14y agoTaking your idea further, we'd expect mass shipping to continue as manufacturing will be much cheaper in countries that aren't so hamstrung about nuclear energy.
- chojeen 14y ago"Also, I think ocean-borne freight is even more favorable than rail, but I would assume that we would also have the option of creating nuclear-powered ocean-borne freight transportation given that we do this today for military vessels." I sincerely doubt that the US government would permit nuclear-powered civilian vessels to be constructed at all, much less allow them to travel freely in international waters.
- astrodust 14y agoWell, the NS Savannah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah) was a nuclear powered civilian vessel, the first and perhaps last of its kind. There are also a number of nuclear-powered icebreakers but most of these are non-military Russian vessels that are used for civilian tours of the arctic.
- maxerickson 14y agoGiven a desperate enough energy situation, it would be simple enough to operate a government or quasi-government fleet of such ships.
- pif 14y ago> Something coming from China to the Western US and then onto New York by rail would likely use less fuel than something coming from the Western US to New York by fright truck. Fine, but it still would use more fuel than something coming from, as an example, Philadelphia to new York! If the fuel is going to be scarcer and scarcer, than we will be forced to switch back to a proximity-based economy.
- Roboprog 14y agoWhich is cheaper: from LA to NY via rail, or NY to LA via rail? Oh, I forgot to include a trip to/from China in the problem. I also forgot to include the truck (frightening or otherwise) :-)