Sorry, a bit confusing re tankers, but container ships get about .004 mpg so 6000 miles across the Pacific requires 1.5 million gallons of fuel.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Dreadnought
Member
Can't decide whether I rather wish the greedy bastards who gave their money to this scumbag (most probably well aware what he used it for) going down with this sinking ship below zero or see them withdraw their funding so that he has to cover his short position.
Also still undecided about naming my future Model 3 "Einhorn". On the one hand don't want to associate it with this type of being. On the other hand, getting asked about the name would be a great starter for spreading the word about the ironic turn of events when the very species that tried to benefit from the downfall of the company which tries to get humanity off of fossil fuels ultimately enriched those who believed in its success.
I don't think Trump's scattershot tarriffs are going to have the desired effect. Perhaps if we implemented tarriffs by weight it would encourage less consumption of fuel in shipping? Because we'll still be shipping small, highly specialized goods, I'm sure of that.
Try contacting IR (probably to no avail)
Next, maybe try the Fixed Income (Debt) desk at your broker.
Then try FINRA
Trump isn't; he's left the gigantic subsidies for oil & gas (and some for coal) intact. He's still putting a thumb on the scales, benefitting oil and coal at the expense of renewables.
Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought
Figure 6 is the interesting one, but it leaves out some of the biggest US subsidies for coal, oil & gas -- the lease rates on federal land are WAY less than the lease rates on state-owned or privately owned land. They've got the Powder River Basin submarket rates, but they don't have the other submarket rates -- there's lots of them.
Yes, and we need it to happen faster...
I'm betting Tesla just forgot that they were supposed to announce this by December 1, and are doing combination settlement by default.
It's quite possible that the hedges can pay off in stock, in which case it all comes out the same for Tesla anyway. Even if they don't, it's not significant dilution.
If you are a sailor, you shouldn't dismiss sails as an option. We could make modern sail ships where the sails are covered with flexible solar cells to charge battery packs that are used as a backup power for times when there is no wind.
There are various efforts to harness wind again:
Updating the Sailing Cargo Ship
Thank you for your insightful reply Neroden. Are you sure that weight is the main determinant of shipping emissions though? It may be volume since ships are piled with containers as high as they can go. My knowledge of the hydrodynamics falls short although I might figure this out in a day or two.
What if he imposed tariffs on all imports, as he threatened, no longer scattershot. And China considered tariffs on American petroleum, this would be equivalent to a carbon tax, would it not?
Global trade must be reduced, and if not be tariffs then how?
Sorry also I know I'm talking about crashing the world economy, which would hit me too, but saving the world is more important isn't it?
As a yachtie I can assure you that yachties are the worst lairs in the world. They motorboat from place to place and pretend that they sailed to steal the greater status of sailing. If small boats can't do it how could cargo ships? In fact sailing is very subtle requiring a light, low, minimum drag vessel, opposite from a cargo ship. The old square riggers were far more advanced than today's 'sail' but very capital and labor intensive. This is ten million miles from happening.
In shipping, cost is based on the greater of weight or 'dimensional weight' equivalent to volume, so they take both into consideration, whichever is overriding.
I don't think we need to crash the world economy to save the planet, since shipping is only a small part of the total:
(Environmental impact of shipping - Wikipedia)
Biofuel is already a huge industry, although I personally don't like it too much. Maybe we'll be able to generate fuel for ships (and spaceships) from just CO2 and water: Converting CO2 into usable energy.
Why producing things locally -- for environmental and/or social reasons -- would crash the world economy? I keep hearing this as an argument to support neo-liberal policies, but I can't understand it.
I admit to not knowing the full details of how hydrodynamics affects shipping costs.
It is weirder than land or air transportation. I believe it's still mostly weight though.More efficient in terms of energy conversion and losses to use the electricity but if there is abundant clean cheap solar and wind energy, which is only a matter of time now, using it wastefully to make more energy dense liquid fuel for long distance shipping, and air transport might make sense.
Thank you. Agreed producing local would have multiple benefits, and not sure about the economy crashing.
Happy to agree with the rest of your post, but you are incorrect wrt labor-intenseness of old merchant sailing vessels. I'll post corroborating material when I can.
on Twitter- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Article
