Comments on: Energy cost for shipping food is minor http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/energy-cost-for-shipping-food-is-minor/ Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:43:47 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: tommoriarty http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/energy-cost-for-shipping-food-is-minor/#comment-2241 tommoriarty Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:25:07 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=83#comment-2241 Dear Skeptical Passerby, I think you are a little confused. I am curious - What makes you think that I have assumed "that every truck is filled with 60K lbs of pure food?" I neither state nor imply such a thing. The article is based on a <a href="http://www.englishforums.com/English/BackOfTheEnvelope/hxjnr/post.htm" rel="nofollow"><b>"back of the envelope"</b></a> calculations. If you feel better about it, assume that each kilogram of food is accompanied by a kilogram of "plastic wrap, steel wire and cardboard," a gross over estimation by the way. In this case, the cost of shipping the food is now 14 cents per person per day. Still a tremendous bargain, given all the benefits of access to that food. Best Regards, <a href="http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/about/" rel="nofollow"><b>ClimateSanity</b></a> Dear Skeptical Passerby,

I think you are a little confused.

I am curious – What makes you think that I have assumed “that every truck is filled with 60K lbs of pure food?” I neither state nor imply such a thing.

The article is based on a “back of the envelope” calculations. If you feel better about it, assume that each kilogram of food is accompanied by a kilogram of “plastic wrap, steel wire and cardboard,” a gross over estimation by the way. In this case, the cost of shipping the food is now 14 cents per person per day. Still a tremendous bargain, given all the benefits of access to that food.

Best Regards,
ClimateSanity

]]> By: skeptical passerby http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/energy-cost-for-shipping-food-is-minor/#comment-2238 skeptical passerby Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:17:30 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=83#comment-2238 The author of this piece is no better at this issue than the eat local folks, in terms of personal bias and accuracy. There are numerous gross assumptions and inaccuracies in this article. This article is way too simple to give you an honest estimate. One that stands out right away is assumption that every truck is filled with 60K lbs of pure food. So that means that wood pallets, plastic wrap, steel wire and cardboard all make it to the dinner table. Another big one is mass density of food. A truck load full of potato chips and bread will not weigh 60K lbs as opposed to a load of coke soda. The author of this piece is no better at this issue than the eat local folks, in terms of personal bias and accuracy. There are numerous gross assumptions and inaccuracies in this article. This article is way too simple to give you an honest estimate.

One that stands out right away is assumption that every truck is filled with 60K lbs of pure food. So that means that wood pallets, plastic wrap, steel wire and cardboard all make it to the dinner table. Another big one is mass density of food. A truck load full of potato chips and bread will not weigh 60K lbs as opposed to a load of coke soda.

]]> By: tommoriarty http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/energy-cost-for-shipping-food-is-minor/#comment-1870 tommoriarty Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:09:34 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=83#comment-1870 Dear James, the numbers are quite simple: 7 cents for a kilogram delivered. You can nibble around the edges of this simple back of the envelope calculation and maybe get it to 8 or 9 cents. But the point remains the same. While the profound conclusion that "No matter how do the math, it will always take less energy to ship food a shorter distance than it does a longer distance" is practically a tautological, the cost is still trivial. Best regards, ClimateSanity Dear James,
the numbers are quite simple: 7 cents for a kilogram delivered. You can nibble around the edges of this simple back of the envelope calculation and maybe get it to 8 or 9 cents. But the point remains the same.

While the profound conclusion that “No matter how do the math, it will always take less energy to ship food a shorter distance than it does a longer distance” is practically a tautological, the cost is still trivial.

Best regards,
ClimateSanity

]]> By: James http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/energy-cost-for-shipping-food-is-minor/#comment-1869 James Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:15:28 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=83#comment-1869 Interesting article, and point taken. I do take issue with some of your numbers, however. An empty semi with a trailer can vary greatly in terms of weight, but most seem to agree that a standard semi full of fuel and without a refrigeration unit weighs at least 30,000 lbs., and they can often weigh as much as 40,000 lbs. You also failed to account for the weight of the product's packaging, which can be very significant especially with large quantities. And, let's not forget that even though you can conveniently convert a person's consumption and a diesel's consumption to the same units (kwh's), it's not really apples to apples. Diesels can only consume one thing: diesel fuel, which is a very finite resource and costs a lot of energy to extract and refine (and you shouldn't brush off the amount of pollution consuming diesel creates). No matter how do the math, it will always take less energy to ship food a shorter distance than it does a longer distance. Interesting article, and point taken.

I do take issue with some of your numbers, however. An empty semi with a trailer can vary greatly in terms of weight, but most seem to agree that a standard semi full of fuel and without a refrigeration unit weighs at least 30,000 lbs., and they can often weigh as much as 40,000 lbs. You also failed to account for the weight of the product’s packaging, which can be very significant especially with large quantities.

And, let’s not forget that even though you can conveniently convert a person’s consumption and a diesel’s consumption to the same units (kwh’s), it’s not really apples to apples. Diesels can only consume one thing: diesel fuel, which is a very finite resource and costs a lot of energy to extract and refine (and you shouldn’t brush off the amount of pollution consuming diesel creates).

No matter how do the math, it will always take less energy to ship food a shorter distance than it does a longer distance.

]]> By: tommoriarty http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/energy-cost-for-shipping-food-is-minor/#comment-1055 tommoriarty Tue, 05 May 2009 13:14:54 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=83#comment-1055 Auna, Thank you for your comment. The fear of CO2 has been taken to an extreme far beyond its worth. Why not go all the way and simply ban any activity that will yield CO2. For example, the breathing of a single person will yield more CO2 per day than will the $0.07 worth of gasoline needed to bring him his food. Should we all stop breathing? Climate Sanity Auna,

Thank you for your comment.

The fear of CO2 has been taken to an extreme far beyond its worth. Why not go all the way and simply ban any activity that will yield CO2.

For example, the breathing of a single person will yield more CO2 per day than will the $0.07 worth of gasoline needed to bring him his food.

Should we all stop breathing?

Climate Sanity

]]> By: Auna http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/energy-cost-for-shipping-food-is-minor/#comment-1054 Auna Tue, 05 May 2009 05:47:06 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=83#comment-1054 You are forgetting that the cost isn't simply about money. It is also about the amount of green house gases being emitted... You are forgetting that the cost isn’t simply about money. It is also about the amount of green house gases being emitted…

]]> By: upickapro http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/energy-cost-for-shipping-food-is-minor/#comment-276 upickapro Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:37:25 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=83#comment-276 While I think your expose' is laudable I think you will be hard pressed to find any plant pumping out a ratio of 40 KwH's per gallon. More like 10-12:gallon. Still, your argument is valid. The organic farmer expends more energy in driving to the seed store, buying fertilizer, grocery store for other items and to the farmer's market to sell their "faux-gween" items at inflated prices that consumers then have to drive more miles to work more hours to pay for. Sheesh! People spending bucks to save pennies. While I think your expose’ is laudable I think you will be hard pressed to find any plant pumping out a ratio of 40 KwH’s per gallon. More like 10-12:gallon. Still, your argument is valid. The organic farmer expends more energy in driving to the seed store, buying fertilizer, grocery store for other items and to the farmer’s market to sell their “faux-gween” items at inflated prices that consumers then have to drive more miles to work more hours to pay for. Sheesh! People spending bucks to save pennies.

]]> By: tommoriarty http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/energy-cost-for-shipping-food-is-minor/#comment-169 tommoriarty Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:59:45 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=83#comment-169 Dennis Falgout, Thanks for staying on topic. By the way, you are wrong. See <a href="http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/people.htm" rel="nofollow"><B>World WIde Words</B></a> for a breakdown of the use of people, peoples, person and persons. Best Regards. Tom Dennis Falgout,

Thanks for staying on topic. By the way, you are wrong.

See World WIde Words for a breakdown of the use of people, peoples, person and persons.

Best Regards.
Tom

]]> By: Dennis Falgout http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/energy-cost-for-shipping-food-is-minor/#comment-167 Dennis Falgout Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:12:45 +0000 http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/?p=83#comment-167 People is not the plural form of person. People is not the plural form of person.

]]>