[dashster]

I thought that as transportation is impacted by rising oil prices, tanker ships would be the least affected as they are so efficient compared to plane, truck and rail. But I was surprised to read Krugman touting Slow Steaming. Slow Steaming (cargo ships reducing their speed to save fuel) apparently started in 2007 as a response to higher fuel prices. Are trucks and freight trains driving slower or planes flying slower as a response to the higher fuel prices?

It would be nice if tanker shipping costs started "job import" to the USA and other OECD countries after decades of "job export", but in the USA at least, the elite would call for more "worker import" at the same time to perform the returned jobs, ultimately negating the job import or even making things worse by "over importing workers" and making our energy problems worse with an even faster population growth.

[tom_s2]

Hi dashster,

The fuel economy of a ship is largely determined by its size and speed. Larger and slower ships use far less energy per ton-mile. For example, a ship which is 4x the size uses 1/2 the fuel per ton-mile, and a ship which is travelling at half the speed uses 1/4th the fuel per ton-mile. As a result, a ship which is 4x the size and half the speed uses 12.5% as much fuel per ton-mile.

Shipping companies select a level of fuel efficiency they want, within limits. More fuel efficient ships are more expensive, so it's only worth it when fuel prices are higher. There's an "ideal" size and speed of a ship to minimize monetary costs depending on a given fuel price. This is a basic calculus optimization problem, which shipping companies carry out routinely. When the price of fuel goes up, the fuel consumption of ships goes down (and vice-versa) as older ships are replaced with more (or less) fuel efficient ones. Of course it takes about 30 years for the entire fleet of ships to turn over, so the average fuel consumption of ships changes fairly gradually.

Very large, slow ships, such as iron ore carriers, which are 400,000 dwt and travel at 8 knots, use an absurdly small amount of fuel. They use less than 5% as much fuel as a tractor-trailer truck per ton-mile.

I wrote something about this on my blog, if you're interested:
http://bountifulenergy.blogspot.com/201 ... nding.html

-Tom S

[tom_s2]

Are trucks and freight trains driving slower or planes flying slower as a response to the higher fuel prices?

Trucks and other motorized vehicles will only save fuel by slowing down if they were traveling at freeway speeds. If you're only going 25 mph then the big problem is rolling resistance. The only way to solve rolling resistance is to use trains instead. I realize there are low-resistance tires but they don't help that much.

It would help a lot at freeway speeds to have longer trucks, like 4 or 5 trailers. At freeway speeds, that makes a big difference because the tractor is pushing air out of the way for the entire train and subsequent trailers have lower wind resistance. Of course there's a safety issue.

IIRC, trucks have far less scope for improvement in fuel economy, because of basic physics. I think it would be hard to more than double the fuel economy of trucks by any combination of strategies (slowing down, regenerative braking, etc).

One possible response to peak oil, is a migration to dense "port cities" such as San Francisco, Shanghai, London, Hong Kong, etc, and a migration away from inland suburbs. Almost everyone in dense port cities lives within 10 miles of a railroad or port. Railroads in very dense cities (such as those of Japan) are often electrified using overhead wires anyway.

-Tom S

[KaiserJeep]

The short answer is YES, slowing down generally saves energy. This is because the drag on a moving object (air drag for an airplane, vehicle, or train, water drag for a ship) goes up as the square of the speed (i.e. a car going 80 miles an hour experiences four times the air drag of a car going 40 miles an hour). Therefore you save a disproportionate amount of the drag resistance by slowing down. However the friction losses in the engine, powertrain, and wheels (or propellor) remain the same, and slowing down makes the trip longer in duration which increases labor costs.

The exception to the above is a turbofan jet engine, which is designed to operate at a specific altitude (air density) and speed (air velocity). When operated faster, slower, higher, or lower than the designed operating speed and altitude, efficiency is lost and fuel consumption goes up. So slowing down airplanes doesn't work, you need to switch to a different engine type such as a turboprop or piston engine and propellor when you want slower or lower operation.

The untold part of the "slow steaming" is that as ocean trips lengthen, the number of crew members is reduced to save labor expenses. This results in such abuses as the illegal and dangerous practice of a huge container ship or tanker steaming on autopilot with NOBODY AT THE WHEEL. This is why for example a tanker like the Exxon Valdez ends up on one of the few rocks in a huge body of water - because the drunken captain allowed the ship's only watchstander to make his rounds and glance at the radar screen only every 30 minutes or so. Which is also why many wooden or fiberglass sailing craft go missing when they get run over by a giant ship driven by an autopilot.

[dashster]

Ships are the most efficient, and going slower saves fuel . But, while I see the most efficient transportation has made an effort to slow down due to the fuel costs, I haven't heard about the others. It seems odd for the most efficient to be the one making the adjustment. I was wondering if trains were doing "slow chugging" or trucks were doing "slow rolling". But from Kaiser Jeep's comment, jet planes can't do "slow flying" as a response to fuel prices.

[dashster]

Trucks and other motorized vehicles will only save fuel by slowing down if they were traveling at freeway speeds.

That's what I was referring to. Big rigs traveling on freeways.

If you're only going 25 mph then the big problem is rolling resistance.

I wonder what the average speed of a freight train is? I guess those long trains with a big load don't go that fast normally, so they can't gain by slowing down.

It would help a lot at freeway speeds to have longer trucks, like 4 or 5 trailers. At freeway speeds, that makes a big difference because the tractor is pushing air out of the way for the entire train and subsequent trailers have lower wind resistance. Of course there's a safety issue.

I would advocate 4 or 5 trailers on those long flat stretches in the heartland if trains didn't exist. It would be nice if trains became the standard way to move freight cross-country and trucks were only used locally. But I believe that the truck lobby pumps more money into politicians pockets so they get the more preferential treatment from Congress at the moment.

IIRC, trucks have far less scope for improvement in fuel economy, because of basic physics. I think it would be hard to more than double the fuel economy of trucks by any combination of strategies (slowing down, regenerative braking, etc).

It wouldn't have to double. Just improve significantly. Although I believe there is a minimum speed limit on freeways. There would have to be laws passed to allow trucks to go 35 or 45 on one.

One possible response to peak oil, is a migration to dense "port cities" such as San Francisco, Shanghai, London, Hong Kong, etc, and a migration away from inland suburbs. Almost everyone in dense port cities lives within 10 miles of a railroad or port. Railroads in very dense cities (such as those of Japan) are often electrified using overhead wires anyway.

Another possible response is the exact opposite. A migration out of the mega-cities that produce no food or fuel or raw materials (although they could go big on recycling) and must have it all transported in, and also have low per-capita manufacturing, to mini-cities in location that can be much more self-sufficient. I was dismayed to learn that the sewage treatment plant in my area puts its solid waste in the local landfill. It is deemed to expensive to transport it to farms which could use it as fertilizer. You can't have any onshore windfarms in the mega-cities, and there are probably too many people to be supported via off-shore wind. Their big hope with regard to renewables would be roof-top solar, but that can't take advantage of the trick where they heat up water and use it to turn a turbine 24 hours. But maybe they would end up tearing down the big sports stadiums and amusement parks and other entertainment options in the mega-cities and replacing them with thermal solar installations. Or instead of "infill", where the cities councils authorize re-zoning so warehouses and other one or two story buildings are torn down to build high density housing and office space, they could tear down and build solar arrays. It is sad that the USA still sees population growth as part of the solution so that when buildings go down the replacement is always a bigger building. A farm would be out of the question.

[tom_s2]

dashster,

The problem with moving to more rural locations is that people's energy requirements increase so much. The denser an area is, the less energy people use there. IIRC people in New York City use approximately 1/4th the energy per capita as people in exurbs in Texas. Although people in NYC must have their food transported further, that's completely outweighed by their reduced energy requirements in other ways.

Very long-distance transport of cargo is done using such energy-efficient modes of transportation that reducing it wouldn't matter very much. Most oil is spent transporting people so that's what we should try to reduce.

Wind farms and so on which provide electricity, don't need to be in the city themselves. The wind farms can be more than 500 miles away with only slight electrical losses if we used HVDC lines.

-Tom S

[toolpush]

From an outsider point of view, if slowing traffic is the aim to save fuel, then the logical conclusion is to return the US freeways to 55 mph. That will slow the 18 wheeler, as well as the favoured commute vehicle, the Ford F-250
Now what politician is going to run on that platform and get more than a handful votes.

[dashster]

From an outsider point of view, if slowing traffic is the aim to save fuel, then the logical conclusion is to return the US freeways to 55 mph. That will slow the 18 wheeler, as well as the favoured commute vehicle, the Ford F-250
Now what politician is going to run on that platform and get more than a handful votes.

It is sad how many large trucks and SUVs are used for commuting. But commuting bycar (at least gas-powered) is a luxury that probably won't be around in a few decades.

As for driving at 55, they don't have to run on that platform. They can just push it from some committee and then "reluctantly" vote on it. But yeah, something like that won't fly with rampant articles about the "shale revolution" and "US energy independence" around. But a nice sustained price rise or sustained shortage in availability should make folks more amenable to it, just as they were in the 1970's.

[vtsnowedin]

From an outsider point of view, if slowing traffic is the aim to save fuel, then the logical conclusion is to return the US freeways to 55 mph. That will slow the 18 wheeler, as well as the favoured commute vehicle, the Ford F-250
Now what politician is going to run on that platform and get more than a handful votes.

You have that right. We will have to wait until gas gets north of $7.00 a gallon and stays there a while before they park the F-250s or start driving 55 again. But that will happen soon enough. The country is still served pretty well with its rail and canal/river transport system and they will gain market share as fuel prices rise. Locations close to active rail lines will rise in value and suburbs not served by rail will decline. Watch the government get in the way of the market driven transition and create trillions in unnecessary hardship.

[dashster]

The problem with moving to more rural locations is that people's energy requirements increase so much. The denser an area is, the less energy people use there. IIRC people in New York City use approximately 1/4th the energy per capita as people in exurbs in Texas.

The are several issues. One is, single car commuting. When Peak Oil hits, people aren't going to be doing anywhere near the single car commuting they do now. That will be a luxury for the rich or a burden for the remote and isolated. So Dallas suburbs will use much less oil per-capita as will every other place in the country. And I would like to know if the per-capita data on NYC included what the city spends on energy. New York City is not just expensive from the standpoint of the massive land prices from overcrowding - that city requires an income tax to run (on top of a state income tax that must give it some money). All that massive development - all those property taxes being paid on inflated-from-overcrowding land values - and they still require a city income tax. So it is hard for me to think of that kind of massive overcrowding as efficient in anything, including energy. The New York City subway system is over 100 years old and underneath the densest part of the country and last I checked it's fares didn't come close to paying for the and haven't for decades, if ever.

And people will wake up to the idea of building all the office buildings in one spot. The people in the Dallas or New York suburbs don't need to be commuting into the city center to get to work. You can build office buildings in the suburbs. The current paradigm of all the jobs in the hub and all the people living around it in a sprawl, is great for people who want to switch jobs but retain the same house. That needs to change. Jobs should be close to workers. The workers can live in houses, apartments or condos, but preferably houses, since the other two have no chance of a garden and are so much worse as time goes on with respect to high density and crime and conflict and noise. If you get a new job - you move to where the new job is. The luxury of living in the same house for 40 years due to long commutes, goes away. Unfortunate, but just a sad fact of life.

You can build office buildings in towns. The ideal situation would be small main street towns, with enough jobs for their limited number of residents - farms all around. Commutes would be primarily on foot, or bikes or van-pools or a commute bus service.

Although people in NYC must have their food transported further, that's completely outweighed by their reduced energy requirements in other ways. Very long-distance transport of cargo is done using such energy-efficient modes of transportation that reducing it wouldn't matter very much.Most oil is spent transporting people so that's what we should try to reduce.

Single commute gasoline powered automobile use is going to go the way of the dodo bird. And it may even have to be outlawed if enough people are willing to try and bid oil away from truckers and trains. I think that whether someone lives in the suburbs or in downtown Manhattan they won't be single-car commuting. At that point reducing the cost of goods transportation becomes much more significant. It becomes a fight between, construction/farm equipment, goods transportation, and leisure transportation.

Wind farms and so on which provide electricity, don't need to be in the city themselves. The wind farms can be more than 500 miles away with only slight electrical losses if we used HVDC lines.

Hopefully they don't get first priority on it. But I guess power companies buy from windfarms and give it to all of their customers equally.

[dashster]

Locations close to active rail lines will rise in value and suburbs not served by rail will decline. Watch the government get in the way of the market driven transition and create trillions in unnecessary hardship.

Yeah, you can find unused or very little used rail tracks going to old, often abandoned, buildings in cities. Being on a rail line was once a big plus. I have seen very old department and hardware stores that were built right next to rail lines, and I have to assume that was for deliveries. I agree that it will become a big plus again in the future.

[dashster]

*duplicate*

[toolpush]

vtsnowedin,

Thanks for the support for my points, but it is really fascinating the denial in the system of the wastage in the US light transport system. That, with a change of mind set would be a easy and relative fast change, and that is drive smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles. But only just last weekend at the G-20 in Brisbane, they come out with a G20 ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTION PLAN.

https://www.g20.org/sites/default/files ... n_plan.pdf

And it says.

Participating countries will work together to improve vehicle energy
efficiency and emissions performance, particularly for heavy duty vehicles.
In 2015, this work will include developing recommendations, for G20
consideration, including for strengthened domestic standards in G20
countries in as many areas as possible related to clean fuels, vehicle
emissions and vehicle fuel efficiency, and for green freight programs.
Participating countries will work together with IPEEC and relevant expert
international organisations to establish a new IPEEC Transport Task Group
to support this work.

Now to me, the Heavy Vehicles, are operated on a cost basis, and therefore are run as efficiently as possible. Currently an American 18 wheeler gets around 6 mpg pulling 40 ton, while some personal transport get in the low teens mpg.
Surely this should be the easy low hanging fruit, but unfortunately the politics of getting these fuel wasters off the road is unacceptable and therefore untouchable. Until this social issue is tackled then anybody looking for change is just pissing in the wind, and can't be taken seriously.
The fact the G-20 are diverted from the obvious just shows what hot political potato this subject is. Of course the easy way to make this change is to allow/force the price of transport fuels rise, and that is where the fun will begin.
Australia, actually just reinstated CPI adjustment plus 3c a litre to our fuel, after many years of having the fuel tax frozen as in the US. You should have heard the squeals. I imagine it would be worse over your way.

[dashster]

The problem with moving to more rural locations is that people's energy requirements increase so much. The denser an area is, the less energy people use there. IIRC people in New York City use approximately 1/4th the energy per capita as people in exurbs in Texas.

The are several issues. One is, single car commuting. When Peak Oil hits, people aren't going to be doing anywhere near the single car commuting they do now. That will be a luxury for the rich or a burden for the remote and isolated. So Dallas suburbs will use much less oil per-capita as will every other place in the country, including the New York City suburbs.

I think the idea of building all the office buildings in one hub, with people living and commuting from the spokes will end. The people in the Dallas or New York suburbs don't need to be commuting into the city center to get to work. You can build office buildings in the suburbs. The current paradigm is great for people who want to switch jobs but retain the same house. That needs to change. Jobs should be close to workers. The workers can live in houses, apartments or condos, but preferably houses, since the other two have no chance of a garden and are so much worse as time goes on with respect to the negatives of high density - crime, conflict and noise. If you get a new job - you move to where the new job is. The luxury of living in the same house for 40 years due to long commutes or being in a high density office building area goes away. Unfortunate, but just a sad fact of life.

Office buildings can be built in smaller town and cities just like factories and warehouses. The ideal situation would be small main street towns, with enough jobs for their limited number of residents - and farms all around. Commutes would be primarily on foot, or bikes or van-pools or bus service.

Although people in NYC must have their food transported further, that's completely outweighed by their reduced energy requirements in other ways. Very long-distance transport of cargo is done using such energy-efficient modes of transportation that reducing it wouldn't matter very much.Most oil is spent transporting people so that's what we should try to reduce.

Single commute gasoline powered automobile use is going to go the way of the dodo bird. And it may even have to be outlawed if enough people are willing to try and bid oil away from truckers and trains. I think that whether someone lives in the suburbs or in downtown Manhattan they won't be single-car commuting. At that point reducing the cost of goods transportation becomes much more significant. It becomes a fight between, construction/farm equipment, goods transportation, mass transit, and leisure transportation.

Wind farms and so on which provide electricity, don't need to be in the city themselves. The wind farms can be more than 500 miles away with only slight electrical losses if we used HVDC lines.

Hopefully they don't get first priority on it. But I guess power companies buy from windfarms and give it to all of their customers equally.

[vtsnowedin]

vtsnowedin,

Thanks for the support for my points, but it is really fascinating the denial in the system of the wastage in the US light transport system. .....
.....
Australia, actually just reinstated CPI adjustment plus 3c a litre to our fuel, after many years of having the fuel tax frozen as in the US. You should have heard the squeals. I imagine it would be worse over your way.

Yes gas tax increases are a sure vote loser here in the USA.
But I wouldn't characterize it as denial as much as it is inertia. After all the highway system here and the suburbs it spawned were built from the 50's to the mid 70's. One of the first things it accomplished was breaking the monopoly the railroads had on both freight and passenger service saving customers billions. There is no wish to become beholden to the railroads once again even if it is inevitable. Also as late as the late 90's gas was less then $1.50 a gallon and it takes a dozen years or more to turn over the vehicle fleet. When the price of gas gets high enough people will consider it when buying a new vehicle and when choosing where to live in relation to their job. I have a daughter that is moving to a job in the urban south. She can rent apartments for $1100 a month with a hour commute in horrendous traffic or a small house in walking distance for $1600 + utilities. She will probably take the house if it proves to be as advertised.

[dashster]

**duplicate**

[GHung]

Slow steaming? All of these occurred during a period of ~$100 oil.

Maine Turnpike, interstate speed limits set to rise - The Portland ...
http://www.pressherald.com/2014/05/24/m ... ing_soon_/

Texas Raising Speed Limit for Title of Fastest in the Land
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/us/te ... -land.html

Government plans to raise speed limit to 80mph | UK news |
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/s ... ised-80mph

Parts of turnpike now 70 mph
http://www.wtae.com/news/pennsylvania-t ... h/27032312

.... I could go on,,, but somebody either doesn't get it or doesn't care.

[Subjectivist]

For a large ship if max speed is 33 knots like some cruise ships or military ships slowing from 33 to 28 knots cuts fuel consumption by half. Slowing to 21 knots cuts it by another half, one quarter of max fuel consumption. If a large ship is most interested in fuel economy think of it this way, at 21 knots it takes 48 hours to go 1,000 nautical miles while burning four times as much fuel to go 33 knots only cuts then time to 31 hours. Unless what you are doing is time critical adding 15 hours per thousand nautical miles is well worth saving 75 percent on your fuel costs.

[Newfie]

Someone mentioned "slow chugging" or slowing freights to save fuel.

The problem with this is the Right Of Way ROW is a very high capital and high maintenance investment. To get the maximum return on that investment they want to run it at full capacity. And much of the US freight rail is already capacity constrained.

They do take measures to conserve fuel and are making attempts at remote monitoring their logos. As are some oil field supply companies who run the supply vessels.