Y6bs evergreen in my mind
No.
I think one small gas station on the west coast is selling at 5.40 now and with the commodities market having a meltdown, no end in sight.
It's time we learn how high desiel prices can go before trucking is forced to stop.
Even if there is a miracle and a fine fuel efficient truck getting 100 miles to the gallon is built, no one will buy it, only lease it. And after two years it gets thrown back onto the junker's scrap/salvage line wore out and put up.
Keep in mind that tractors are considered disposable. No one except Owner Operators BUY trucks to keep 15-30 years.
What we can do is go back to the Oxen days and extend delivery times 9 months for a trans USA freight shipment.
diesel hit a new record us average 4 bucks a gal....
are there any hydrogen big trucks in the making????
Fed Ex cannot find my place so they are out, unreliable delivery from another town an hour away. DHL continues to hang in in my area but not very large. UPS Does a great job and earns just about all of my business either Air or Ground. US Post Office is one for getting the mail where it needs to go.
LCL is a different animal. One company I used to work for did have a large LCL operation. You had a big facility that handled LCL in Lancaster Tx and you might have 10 trailers inbound from the west and southwest and these loads are combined into one for one reciever on the east coast.
An example would be food and grocery, it might be combined and shipped to Darden in Aberdeen Md where there is split up and sent by small LCL trucks to several Red Lobster, Olive Garden type resturants on a route each day.
Sometimes a City Market might get a truck load and the local butchers, restraunts and other food users like Steamship Lines etc will come get the stuff.
The old LCL operations started dying back in the 90's with the sale of CF and others. ABF has alot of business here in Arkansas and so do the UPS. They pretty much fight each other to fill those Pup trailers.
Bucyrus wrote: shawnee wrote: In a global economy, to me it's hard to separate out "rich and free" from others when it comes to "responsibility" for pollution emissions. After all, we've been steadily outsourcing much of our manufacturing capability to countries such as China, who burn the energy to make us air conditioners, TVs and the like. If we in the USA manufactured all the stuff we actually use on a daily basis, what would be the emission for our country? It's the consumer lifestyle that generates the emissions. Where the stuff is manufactured is just a political arguing point. Granted, a lot of the countries where manufacturing has fled have lower regulatory supervision on things like pollutants. But isn't that one reason why manufacturing flees there...along with cheap labor? Now, not that I'm advocating going back to the stone age, but these national emission arguments seem to me to be a bit facile...albeit a political arguing point.It is true that China's contribution to world pollution is partially the result of manufacturing American products. But I don't think it follows that the same amount of pollution from producing those products would occur if they were made in the U.S. as opposed to China. On average, China's industrial processes produce more pollution than U.S. industrial processes.You mention that to you, national emission arguments are facile. To me, they seem really hard. They are especially difficult because they are wrapped up in subterfuge.The national emission arguments are not born of pride of the richest nations idly boasting that they are the cleanest. This response is actually the richest nations defending themselves from the world activists' charge that the richest nations are the largest part of the cause of climate destruction because those nations consume more per capita than the poor nations. While that is generally true, the activists continue the charge by saying that the richest nations also pollute more than the poorer nations. That is generally true if you compare the emissions of whole nation totals, and if you consider CO2 to be pollution. However, on a per capita basis, I think you will find that, on average, poorer nations pollute far more per capita than the richer nations. And if you take CO2 out of the equation, the richest nations are even cleaner. So the fact that the rich countries consume more per capita is somewhat of a red herring to the blame-for-climate-change argument.
shawnee wrote: In a global economy, to me it's hard to separate out "rich and free" from others when it comes to "responsibility" for pollution emissions. After all, we've been steadily outsourcing much of our manufacturing capability to countries such as China, who burn the energy to make us air conditioners, TVs and the like. If we in the USA manufactured all the stuff we actually use on a daily basis, what would be the emission for our country? It's the consumer lifestyle that generates the emissions. Where the stuff is manufactured is just a political arguing point. Granted, a lot of the countries where manufacturing has fled have lower regulatory supervision on things like pollutants. But isn't that one reason why manufacturing flees there...along with cheap labor? Now, not that I'm advocating going back to the stone age, but these national emission arguments seem to me to be a bit facile...albeit a political arguing point.
In a global economy, to me it's hard to separate out "rich and free" from others when it comes to "responsibility" for pollution emissions. After all, we've been steadily outsourcing much of our manufacturing capability to countries such as China, who burn the energy to make us air conditioners, TVs and the like. If we in the USA manufactured all the stuff we actually use on a daily basis, what would be the emission for our country? It's the consumer lifestyle that generates the emissions. Where the stuff is manufactured is just a political arguing point. Granted, a lot of the countries where manufacturing has fled have lower regulatory supervision on things like pollutants. But isn't that one reason why manufacturing flees there...along with cheap labor?
Now, not that I'm advocating going back to the stone age, but these national emission arguments seem to me to be a bit facile...albeit a political arguing point.
It is true that China's contribution to world pollution is partially the result of manufacturing American products. But I don't think it follows that the same amount of pollution from producing those products would occur if they were made in the U.S. as opposed to China. On average, China's industrial processes produce more pollution than U.S. industrial processes.
You mention that to you, national emission arguments are facile. To me, they seem really hard. They are especially difficult because they are wrapped up in subterfuge.
The national emission arguments are not born of pride of the richest nations idly boasting that they are the cleanest. This response is actually the richest nations defending themselves from the world activists' charge that the richest nations are the largest part of the cause of climate destruction because those nations consume more per capita than the poor nations. While that is generally true, the activists continue the charge by saying that the richest nations also pollute more than the poorer nations. That is generally true if you compare the emissions of whole nation totals, and if you consider CO2 to be pollution. However, on a per capita basis, I think you will find that, on average, poorer nations pollute far more per capita than the richer nations. And if you take CO2 out of the equation, the richest nations are even cleaner. So the fact that the rich countries consume more per capita is somewhat of a red herring to the blame-for-climate-change argument.
Motive is everything in this game. And its always a double standard. Until just a few months ago, the United States was a larger exporter than China, and much of that export was to developing countries. But does anyone accuse developing countries of exploiting and causing pollution in the United States by having the audacity to purchase U.S. goods? Of course not.
But just as the poster complains that Chinese air conditioners are merely exporting our own pollution, he will ignore the opposite effect: that our "pollution" is creating high tech and machine tools, advanced electronics and medicines, food and, yes, pollution control technology for export purposes that can make the advances of those nations an easier and more efficient path than our own. And he will ignore the opposite effect because those are the rules of the game.
The nations which tend to be most wasteful of natural resources, and the most unconcerned with environment degradation, tend to be the socialist nations -- recalling the essay "The Tragedy of the Commons" writ large -- and the tyrannies, which are often the same identities oddly enough.
The rich nations are rich because of cultural attitudes about law, about caring for property rights, about recognizing the importance of human capital, and for respecting economic capital.
They can feed their people because they are not busy exploiting their people but, rather, protecting the achievements of their people. Odd how that works.
But those same countries that destroy their own economies and sufficiency are the ones hollering the loudest about "exploitation" -- as though they are not the grandmasters of the idea. And, unfortunately, as oil becomes something more easily exploited as a "bargaining chip" for political purposes, it becomes a greater and more important prize for each Chavez or Quaddafi to control. It is the true "Devil's Excrement" and the so-called rich nations -- which are rich because they respect their own people -- are going to be the ultimate hostages to the short-sighted energy policies of the past 40 years: policies which arose from an agenda driven by the idea that wealth causes pollution and degradation, whereas in fact wealth has created the ability to control pollution and degradation, provided the economic incentive to do so and has done so quite effectively compared to what is passing for the fine experiments in the other approach that characterizes much of the world.
This poses some questions: Is it fair to compare the emissions amounts of whole nations and assign blame accordingly? The U.S. produces far more emissions than Cuba, so does that mean that Cuba is less of a problem than the U.S.? Or do we need to compare the per capita emissions of the two countries to make it fair?
Climate activists assign blame according to national total emissions, which leads to the conclusion that the U.S. is the largest perpetrator of climate destruction. By labeling CO2 as a pollutant, they are able to make the U.S. into an even greater perpetrator.
This leads to another question: Do climate activists target the richest nations because their emission totals are the highest, or do they target the richest nations because they are rich? Climate activists represent the world as one big community, where rich nations are less virtuous than poor nations based on national emissions. At this point in the argument, they do acknowledge the greater per capita pollution of the poorer countries, and use it to establish NEED. At the same time, they look at the greater per capita consumption and greater national emission total of the richest countries, and use it to establish EXCESS. From here, they seek to level that disparity of emission virtuosity, as they have defined it, by financially penalizing the rich countries for their excess, and using the funds to help poor countries with their need to reduce their pollution. It amounts to taking from the rich and giving it to the poor through a carbon credit trading system.
Fundamentally, there are two beneficiaries in the redistribution of wealth. One is the recipient of the redistribution, and the other is the redistributor. In this case, that would be the U.N. with their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the heart and soul of climate activism. The dream of administering a worldwide program of carbon credit trading in the name of preventing the destruction of the planet is a major aspiration of the U.N. And it reveals the motive behind their targeting the richest nations as the most blameworthy.
What I find interesting is that diesel is basically a by-product of gasoline production, yet it costs so much more.
Now of course there is one thing the government could do to bring about some relief: lift the excise tax. I don't know how much difference that would actauly make here in South Carolina where the tx is only 16 cents per gallon and diesel is going for $3.98 (right by I-95, it's cheaper as you get away from the interstate). In a state like New York with it's 10+ different taxes motor fuel, it would help a lot.
As for these idea of boycotting a particular brand, from what i've read it would backfire. Demand would increase at the other stations causing them to raise their prices.
It seems to me that if we really wanted gas and diesel prices to go down, we'd carpool more, trade our armored personel carrieres (SUVs) for Corolas and Civics that get 35 mpg.
Modeling the Pennsylvania Railroad in N Scale.
www.prr-nscale.blogspot.com
JSGreen wrote: ...Anybody else get an email about boycotting Exxon/Mobile and Citgo, not for one day but untill prices come down? I wonder who thinks these things up....
...Anybody else get an email about boycotting Exxon/Mobile and Citgo, not for one day but untill prices come down? I wonder who thinks these things up....
Heh, heh!! People who either don't drive a great deal or who think that the suppliers with lower prices are just nicer people.
I have not gotten any of those spammy emails about gasoline boycotts. Frankly all I care about is getting X number of gallons each week to fill my tank. I dont care how high the gas prices get. I really dont. If I contribute to our drying up of the gasoline supply and driving cost to 10.00 gallon so be it.
A lifetime ago I thought 1.00 was expensive. Now I ponder 200 dollar oil and wars over the supply fields.
chicagorails wrote:the railroads should get their own trucking companies.
I dunno....I think they would best stick to what they know, running a rail road. The trends seem to be outsourcing all the stuff that is not directly a part of the core business...that way, when things pick up again they are not saddled with extra infrastructure.
However, it would be a good thing to form stragetic alliances with some trucking companies, just to ensure they can get the products they are transporting to market.
I tend to agree with a previous poster, that it may take a while, but trucks wont disappear...when wages come up enough, there will be plenty of folks to drive. It will just get passed on to the consumer. Some folks may be caught in the middle for a while, but it will settle out...
Anybody else get an email about boycotting Exxon/Mobile and Citgo, not for one day but untill prices come down? I wonder who thinks these things up....
I agree..the rails would be smart to getting into trucking now. Times are tough and there are no doubt some good deals out there to be had from a purchase standpoint.
Further rail mergers may be unlikely due to the regulatory climate; however, the "new frontier" may be mergers between truckers and railroads.
One the oil/gas price and oil companies front, I do think the oil companies tend to take a bit too much of a hit. The general public has generally considered that oil and gas corporations dominate world reserves and production, fueling record profits and dictating market conditions. Yet Exxon Mobil, the world's biggest oil company ranks but 16th in terms of overall oil reserves. The truth is that while in the 1960's oil majors had access to 85% of the world's reserves, they now only have access to 16%. The rest of it is ruled by National Oil Companies, most of whom are in the "developing" world. In the last 30 years over 40 percent of all oil came from publicly traded companies. In the next 30 years 90 percent of production will come from the developing world- from National Oil Companies.
These "NOCs" are mostly nationalized companies and/or state monopolies and control of the lion's share of world oil and increasingly it's final production. One of things that drives up global prices is their inefficiency compared to the "evil" oil companies, alongside their increasing market share of the production. The fact is that many if not most of these state monopolies are inefficient compared to private companies, and need a lot of infrastructure investment. So world production has considerably shifted from efficient companies to inefficient NOCs. This drives up the average cost of a barrel of oil in a global supply and demand market. Add to this the real super-increasing energy demands of countries like India and China. Global supply isn't as efficient as it used to be, and demand is soaring. It's a global supply and demand thing, and folks, your energy bill ain't coming down much in the future despite what politicians like to say. All this, the detail of the case, too often escapes those caught up in slamming the easiest, closest target - the "big" oil companies.
Which leads me to trains. I think they're going to be an increasingly efficient option based on fuel cost rises, and the crest may have hit on the competitiveness of trucking vs. rail in more and more situations. I wonder how many companies in the next decade wish they hadn't ripped up or neglected their industrial rail sidings?
I understand that our refining capacity is strictly limited and that no new refineries are under construction. Those extant are aged....
So, while we will occasionally see the cyclical nature of liquid fuel prices, the trend in any one 24 month period has to be up...doesn't it? Population is on the rise...or is the USA static...don't think so...so more trucking capacity, or hauling capacity, is needed to bring supplies to the markets. That will further impact on prices as refineries occasionally dry up or go broken and supplies dive.
I think we're missing an important point in this discussion. That being if the trucking industry did start to implode on itself and companies started folding, that would mean fewer trucks on the road. Fewer trucks on the road would mean less fuel consumed. Less fuel consumed would mean a greater supply and prices would drop.
Granted things are bad in the US and they will get worse. This country has also seen things that are ten times worse, namely the Civil War, Both World Wars, the Great Depression and the 1970s. After all of them we bounced back stronger. This decade does seem a lot like the 1970s but look what came after the 70s, the 1980s and 1990s, two decades of great prosperity. We'll bounce back from these bad times.
Let's say that if JB gets burned out by the bad industry conditions and cannot stay in business... Walmart, Railroad Intermodal and who knows how many commercial businesses who contract for regional or day cab local dock service will need to find trucks to carry on.
Let's think for a moment that I am a local grocery chain here in arkansas. I hire JB to supply me with 50 tractors 24/7 to shuffle trailers and move my dry goods and grocery. I pay JB Hunt X dollars plus whatever ....
Warning simple economics ahead....
If JB quit serving my outfit with trucks and drivers, I will have to go out and BUY trucks, HIRE drivers and find a way to pay for it all from Desiel to Payroll at the same rate I was paying JB.
Luckly there is a mass of trucking school stock that dont understand .40 per mile yet. We can get them in for a few hundred dollars week in salary.
If I cannot do it, I will find a trucking company who can. There is always one out there, somewhere in the whole USA starving for cash and willing to drive 2000 miles to get work.
There was at last count when I was in, about 14,000 tractors, 200+ Intermodal Facilties and many many many other parts of the USA "Up to here" with Hunt's work.
It will not be the end of the road. They will always need a truck.
Now what may happen is thousands of people will not be able to earn income each week and maybe.. just maybe call it quits and go work in a gas station at home.
If One big giant falls, the work can be easily soaked up by other Giants and not allowed to splatter onto the unemployment line.
No, I think the stock will be sold. Poor, lazy, non productive drivers fired, old equiptment retired or sold (Dumped onto another company who dont yet understand that they are buying costly expensive shop queens) stock sold, nests built, office people petted down and dead wood removed and a very careful pick of the weekly orientation crop.
While that is going on, safety will go on a crusade, drivers who put a ding in the truck or a cut in a tire will be given time in the oven and made to sweat or even pay out of the wages that damage just like in the old days of gone by.. the old words..' You just boughten this new tire dum dum.. im docking ye 240 dollars to pay for it." ... "But..." ..."No buts, and stop ripping my tires on that street corner!!!"
What can a driver do? Keep on Trucking that's what. The strong roll on while the weak whine and quit all together like a very poorly built frame.
Oh, dont worry none about the Ivory tower. As long thier lives are uninterrupted by such basic problems as lack of work or other problems such as too many bills... things will carry on as always. That stock they sold probably will keep the family fed and housed very well for a number of years if need be until things turn around.
No matter how hard it gets, there are riches for the survivors. Trucking is a feast and famine world. If you dont understand this then you have no place on the road.
<:AtomicElement> I read on the OOIDA web site that a number of the top dog at J B Hunt have sold off large amounts of thier stock in the company. Do they know something the rest of us don't? I know I said before that I have heard truckers complain for years about high fuel cost and low rates but fuel is over $4.00 per gallon and freight is way down with soft rates. Something has got to give somewhere. There is going to be some big trucking companies going under soon. The boys at Hunt must be able to to the big picture.
MichaelSol wrote: selector wrote: Bucyrus wrote: selector wrote: You can't fill a bathtub when the plug is out of place. The plug orifice is miraculously eroding all the while, with the result that it's diameter is increasing. There can't be a good end to all this.-CrandellWe either have to turn the water on more or take less baths. I have heard people say that the richest nations should sacrifice some of their economic prosperity to conserve the earth's energy, which they believe to be finite. Other people say the earth has a self-sustaining principle that will never let us down.Turning up the tap would work, except the hole keeps getting bigger. More people consuming as our popoulation rises means the hole is getting bigger. These people need to live someplace, so that means deforestation...so less oxygen. If we begin to build large platforms at sea on which to build cities, less sunlight to the water so less oxygen, less plankton, less consummables...you get the idea. The problems we face are derivative of our collective penchant for taking up surface area and energy.The United States, almost alone among rich countries, reduced its carbon output last year -- something the Kyoto signatories, ironically, did not or could not do. Kyoto government mandates were less effective than the American market-based approach. Rich countries, too, tend to reduce their population growth; indeed, they tend to drop below replacement numbers.The ultimate solution to pollution, environment degradation, and overcrowding is purely economic: increasing wealth and freedom.
selector wrote: Bucyrus wrote: selector wrote: You can't fill a bathtub when the plug is out of place. The plug orifice is miraculously eroding all the while, with the result that it's diameter is increasing. There can't be a good end to all this.-CrandellWe either have to turn the water on more or take less baths. I have heard people say that the richest nations should sacrifice some of their economic prosperity to conserve the earth's energy, which they believe to be finite. Other people say the earth has a self-sustaining principle that will never let us down.Turning up the tap would work, except the hole keeps getting bigger. More people consuming as our popoulation rises means the hole is getting bigger. These people need to live someplace, so that means deforestation...so less oxygen. If we begin to build large platforms at sea on which to build cities, less sunlight to the water so less oxygen, less plankton, less consummables...you get the idea. The problems we face are derivative of our collective penchant for taking up surface area and energy.
Bucyrus wrote: selector wrote: You can't fill a bathtub when the plug is out of place. The plug orifice is miraculously eroding all the while, with the result that it's diameter is increasing. There can't be a good end to all this.-CrandellWe either have to turn the water on more or take less baths. I have heard people say that the richest nations should sacrifice some of their economic prosperity to conserve the earth's energy, which they believe to be finite. Other people say the earth has a self-sustaining principle that will never let us down.
selector wrote: You can't fill a bathtub when the plug is out of place. The plug orifice is miraculously eroding all the while, with the result that it's diameter is increasing. There can't be a good end to all this.-Crandell
You can't fill a bathtub when the plug is out of place. The plug orifice is miraculously eroding all the while, with the result that it's diameter is increasing. There can't be a good end to all this.
-Crandell
We either have to turn the water on more or take less baths. I have heard people say that the richest nations should sacrifice some of their economic prosperity to conserve the earth's energy, which they believe to be finite. Other people say the earth has a self-sustaining principle that will never let us down.
Turning up the tap would work, except the hole keeps getting bigger. More people consuming as our popoulation rises means the hole is getting bigger. These people need to live someplace, so that means deforestation...so less oxygen. If we begin to build large platforms at sea on which to build cities, less sunlight to the water so less oxygen, less plankton, less consummables...you get the idea. The problems we face are derivative of our collective penchant for taking up surface area and energy.
The United States, almost alone among rich countries, reduced its carbon output last year -- something the Kyoto signatories, ironically, did not or could not do. Kyoto government mandates were less effective than the American market-based approach. Rich countries, too, tend to reduce their population growth; indeed, they tend to drop below replacement numbers.
The ultimate solution to pollution, environment degradation, and overcrowding is purely economic: increasing wealth and freedom.
I sure agree with that, but as you know, the richest countries are seen as the cause of the earth's environmental problems including the theory of manmade climate change. They are blamed for consuming more than their share of resources and contributing more than their share of CO2. However, I have to conclude that the blame for these supposed sins is actually assigned on the basis of wealth rather than pollution, since China, a major and blatant polluter, seems to be given a pass while the U.S. is held in the greatest contempt. I agree that the ultimate solution is economic prosperity, but the solution being demanded is the punishment of achievement, rationing of resources in conjunction with an expansion of government, and equalizing the prosperity of the world's nations by taking from the rich ones and giving it to the poor ones. Some speculate that the power that flows from this redistribution is the true motivation disguised as, and being sold as a climate crisis.
Ulrich wrote:Sure...but the US has also been the greatest contibutor to CO2 emissions. African countries don't pollute as much as most of their people don't have the "big house and two cars" lifestyle freedom that we enjoy.
No, they have been committing deforestation on an unprecedented scale even as satellite photos show that the United States has, over the past 50 years, been reforesting and even pushing back the historical range of forest cover. Our watersheds now represent the most extensive and cleanest watersheds on a global scale. Our CO2 "cost" per person has been steadily declining for 20 years, even as other nations' continues to increase. Even as the United States continues to invest in control and efficiency measures, each 1% decrease in American impact is met with a 5% increase in China alone, because they don't give a d*** about any of this. China is now the largest producer of CO2 and building more coal fired plants in the next year, than we will in the next 20. Then what?
Yes, poverty and starvation is "an" argument that can be used to offer the moral high ground regarding pollution to the poor and the starving. But they probably would not care to accept the distinction willingly, nor consider it an honor that people from rich nations hold them out as an example of ... something positive when no doubt they see it from the somewhat different perspective that accompanies short life spans and misery.
You have a point, there, Michael. The "better off" people are the world over, the less inclined they are to effect the living that perpetuates the problems.
Turning up the tap would work, except the hole keeps getting bigger. More people consuming as our population rises means the hole is getting bigger. These people need to live someplace, so that means deforestation...so less oxygen. If we begin to build large platforms at sea on which to build cities, less sunlight to the water so less oxygen, less plankton, less consummables...you get the idea. The problems we face are derivative of our collective penchant for taking up surface area and energy.
Falls Valley RR wrote:I use 500 KW per month more or less of electricity.If I can find solar and cover my roof with the stuff and generate at least 1K KW per month off the sun and export to the grid what I dont use in return for income... why.. Im just happy.Be a very long time before prices fall to where anyone can do this. I understand it takes 25K dollars to build a 3K Kw/month array. You think that those van trailers will be good with solar on thier roof and generate power that might be fed to trailer motors between the wheels to assist. But I dont think anyone will want to spend more than X dollars for a trailer anyhow.
I use 500 KW per month more or less of electricity.
If I can find solar and cover my roof with the stuff and generate at least 1K KW per month off the sun and export to the grid what I dont use in return for income... why.. Im just happy.
Be a very long time before prices fall to where anyone can do this. I understand it takes 25K dollars to build a 3K Kw/month array.
You think that those van trailers will be good with solar on thier roof and generate power that might be fed to trailer motors between the wheels to assist. But I dont think anyone will want to spend more than X dollars for a trailer anyhow.
Most states I have heard of with Net Metering arrangements will credit you with enough to break even, but dont pay for extra capacity. There may be some exceptions...some will allow you to bank credit month to month only, some for a yearly basis.
Solar panels can be purchased for about $5/watt...to get a system for 3Kilowatt hours per month, depending on where you live, would be 3000watt-hours/6 hrs day avg =500 watts of panel...or about $2500 for the panels, almost that amount for the interface hardware (inverters, disconnects, etc) and at least that much for engineering and installation. $7500 or so...and up. Some states offer tax credits for installing such a system (most notably California), so do the feds, last time I checked.
If you get out west this summer, the little Town of John Day, Oregon, has a solar fair (Oregon Solwest Renewable Energy Fair) in late July that is fun to check out...
Interesting idea about powering trucks from solar panels on the top...if you could get 2.2 KW of panels (22 -100 watt panels) you would get about 3 Horsepower out of it...(750W/HP)... but every little bit helps when fuel is $3.50 or better and you get 8 mpg or less...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.