Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse | Political Discussion Forums

web analytics

web analytics

Politics | Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse

Previous 10 | Next 10

From: Wharf Rat	1/17/2012 10:06:59 PM
	of 15024

Oil-Tanker Glut Shrinks on Chinese Demand By Rob Sheridan - Jan 17, 2012 8:41 AM ET A glut of supertankers competing to load cargoes of Persian Gulf oil shrank to a 14-month low on Chinese crude purchases and persistent tensions over a possible closing of the Strait of Hormuz. Demand for crude before China’s weeklong Lunar New Year holidays starting Jan. 23 may be helping to lift charter rates, Jens Martin Jensen, Singapore-based chief executive officer of oil-tanker company Frontline Ltd. (FRO)’s management unit, said by e- mail today. Iran’s threat to block the strait may spur traders to stockpile crude, said Sverre Bjorn Svenning, an analyst at Fearnley Consultants AS. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-17/oil-tanker-glut-shrinks-to-14-m...

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read

From: Wharf Rat	1/18/2012 10:52:13 AM
	of 15024

One acre feeds a person by Jason Bradford With the holiday season behind us many are feeling the effects of eating a bit too much and are working on a New Year’s resolution to shed some pounds. This reminds me of a question I have been asked numerous times, i.e., “How much land does it take to feed somebody for a year?” To rid you of any suspense, I usually give the answer as *about one acre* when referring to the U.S. today. For those who want to understand why, what follows is an explanation. Start with the Diet A precise answer is impossible because so many variable factors are at play, including the productivity of the agricultural land. But actually, the first step in answering this is to know the diet being considered (including any big holiday turkeys consumed). The current U.S. diet is shown nicely in the graph below from Visual Economics. To summarize, the average American consumes about 2000 lbs of food per year, which works out to about 5.5 lbs and 2700 calories per day–or nearly your entire body weight in food per month. Divide those daily 2700 calories by 5.5 lbs and you get 490 calories per pound of food, on average. There are differences in the quality of various parts of the diet that are important to appreciate, including caloric density. Fruits and vegetables are abundant in the diet by weight and give us the flavors, fiber, vitamins and minerals we crave, but only typically provide 50-150 calories per pound. By contrast, a single slice of my favorite bread (pictured below) has 110 calories and only weighs a tenth of a pound. Oils and fats are about three to four times more dense, calorie-wise, than bread. Meat tends to have slightly fewer calories per pound than high starch foods. For example, boneless lamb chops without the edge fat are around 976 calories per pound, according to the USDA’s Food-A-Pedia, which I could peruse for hours. Low-fat milk, which is mostly water, still has about 200 calories per pound (about a pint). Converting to Area If we take the average U.S. diet as our starting point, we can convert each component of this diet into the area needed to produce it by using average U.S. harvest yields. For example, the USDA reported recently that the average corn harvest was 147 bushels per acre, or about 8250 lbs. It takes a true professional to sort out how much of this corn gets into the human food supply, since corn is normally eaten in highly processed and modified forms. The vast majority of corn is roughly split between ethanol factories and animal feed, with perhaps 10% or less used for food directly (e.g., polenta) and via food processing (e.g., gummy bears). This sort of complexity is why I must rely on others to make the diet to area conversion. The most recent studies I am aware of were done for the state of New York by a team of Cornell scientists led by Christian Peters. Here’s a link to one of the published papers, but a more accessible review is also available and highly recommend for those who hunger for more information. Below I have posted a key summary graphic from the paper. Along the Y-axis is land area in hectares needed to feed one person for a year, which is dependent upon the model diets shown along the X-axis. Each model diet is labeled by two dietary factors: meat and fat. Adding Meat Feeds More People The finding that gained headlines from this study some years ago had to do with the fact that adding some meat and dairy to the diet, while increasing land area, actually fed more people. This is because much land is not suited to annual crops but can be sown in pasture (most of the “perennial crops” shown in the bar graph are pasture). Cutting the average meat consumption roughly in half, which would de-emphasize hogs and poultry in the diet as these rely on grains, actually feeds more people than a vegetarian diet. And the Answer Is… Since the area of production needed is most sensitive to meat and fat consumption, we can see which of the model diets in the Cornell study is closest to the typical American diet to estimate the per capita area given current habits. To gauge the average, look at the middle of the chart above the 190 grams of meat per day and you’ll see that this converts to about 0.45 hectares, which is just a bit over one acre. It is fair to ask if New York is representative of the U.S. in terms of agricultural potential. I actually think it is pretty “average” having a mix of both good and poor soils, mountains and plains and a climate that is neither the most benign nor most extreme. Certainly California and Iowa are not average so we shouldn’t be extrapolating from those best cases. It would be nice, and possibly critical, to have this sort of research done more extensively. To that end, the Cornell group has a grant to develop a Local Foodshed Mapping Tool. It is being created for New York but the methods should be applicable anywhere. Connecting Issues Those who are savvy about how food is produced will have many follow-up questions to this direction of thought. For example, crop yields are no longer a simple function of Nature’s endowment of soil, the blessings of good weather, and irrepressible seed germination. Nearly all farmers rely on a steady stream of outside inputs in forms such as ammonia-nitrate and super phosphate. These derive from concentrated below ground sources of energy and raw materials deposited over geologic time. As I’ve explored before on this blog, food supply is over-correlated for my comfort zone with oil supply. Over the past few years I’ve also written about techniques for de-linking food production from massive external inputs. But that is a long discussion that has no easy answer either. I’ll just add that addressing the outside inputs conundrum makes one consider the role that well-managed grazing systems have in an agriculture that can sequester carbon, clean water, and build soil fertility more endemically. And for those who claim we don’t have the land area to do this, take a look at the acres of corn sown each year (about 100 million acres) and how much of that is used for direct human consumption (about 10 million acres) in the U.S. Looking at the numbers clearly shows we have a problem of too much artificially created demand. Why not put pasture on 90 million acres of cropland and let the ruminants eat their evolved diet? Most people are not looking forward to a 10 minute lecture when they ask me a supposedly simple question. So while there are many variables and lots of imprecision when answering “How much land is needed to feed a person,” for today’s American diet, with today’s agricultural system, I’ll stick with *about one acre*. energybulletin.net

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read

From: Wharf Rat	1/18/2012 10:59:51 AM
	of 15024

China’s New Strategic Target: Arctic Minerals Associated Press By Andrew Erickson and Gabe Collins As policymakers in Washington focus on China’s expanding presence in Africa and growing assertiveness in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean region, Danish diplomatic assistance is opening the gate for China to establish a strategic foothold in the Arctic. Denmark has made a strategic decision to prioritize its economic relationship with China and is now becoming the key gateway for Beijing’s commercial and strategic entrée into the Arctic. Denmark advocates giving China a seat at the Arctic policy table. Friis Arne Peterson, the Danish ambassador to China, stated in October that China has “natural and legitimate economic and scientific interests in the Arctic.” Copenhagen likewise supports giving China permanent membership on the Arctic Council, the eight-nation forum that includes the five Arctic Ocean coastal states (the U.S., Canada, Denmark, Norway and Russia) as well as Sweden, Iceland and Finland. Greenland’s substantial deposits of minerals including rare earths, uranium, iron ore, lead, zinc, petroleum, and gemstones make the Arctic island a key bargaining chip as Denmark cultivates Beijing. Copenhagen administers Greenland’s foreign policy and will likely dangle the island’s rich geological potential in front of Beijing as it works to bolster the China-Denmark trade relationship. Indeed, Greenland’s minister for minerals, industry, and labor traveled to China for a trade mission in November that included participation in a major mining and minerals trade show in Tianjin. Danish exports to China rose 17% and Chinese exports to Denmark rose 25% in 2010, according to figures provided by the Danish embassy in Beijing. Yet Danish exports to China were worth just US$2.6 billion and Chinese exports to Denmark amounted to US$6.9 billion, a small fraction of the volumes traded between China and its primary trade partners. The minerals that lie under Greenland’s snow are the real prize, worth far more in both monetary and strategic terms to China than the imported goods or export market Denmark itself can provide. Danish diplomacy is literally following the money as some of the country’s policy elites turn away from the U.S. Copenhagen’s largest embassy is in Beijing, and is twice the size of its embassy in Washington. Denmark’s ploy to pull China closer is likely to work: From Beijing’s perspective, having Chinese companies buy several billion dollars per year worth of pharmaceuticals and machinery and doing container shipping business with Maersk is well worth it to gain access to Arctic negotiating tables and Greenland’s minerals. Greenland is the best geographic entry point for Chinese entities interested in Arctic mineral resources because its government lacks the ability to develop mineral resources independently and because its Danish overseer will likely actively support Chinese investment in the island’s resources. Companies from Russia, the U.S., Canada and Norway already dominate the development of oil, gas and other natural resources within their home countries’ respective territorial zones. With this politically and geologically favorable backdrop, Greenland’s high mineral production potential will likely attract Chinese interest despite the risk and uncertainty inherent in developing a new mineral source. London Mining aims to produce 15 million tonnes per year of high grade iron ore pellets by 2015 at its Isua project, which includes investment from Sinosteel and China Communications Construction Corp. Greenland Minerals and Energy claims its Kvanefjeld deposit could produce 20% of the global rare earth supply and large amounts of uranium with first production in 2016 ( pdf). Kvanefjeld’s potential to influence global prices would make it a project of strategic interest to Chinese companies like Inner Mongolia Baotou Steel Rare Earth, the world’s largest rare earth metals producer. Chinese firms will not have first-mover advantages in Greenland, as small miners from Australia and the UK dominate the local investment scene. That said, they stand to enjoy active support from the Danish government should they choose to invest on the island. We anticipate that larger companies, including buyers from China, will seek strategic stakes in mining projects initiated by enterprising smaller firms like those mentioned above. It is also very likely that given Greenland’s small population, Chinese firms will import substantial numbers of workers from China to build the power plants, transmission lines, ore processing facilities and other supporting infrastructure for Chinese-invested mines in Greenland. As in so many other areas, China is entering a new global arena. It remains to be seen whether it will follow existing norms, or attempt to change the system over time. “China has a legitimate right to be interested in and participate in what happens in the Arctic, but it requires that the rules are observed,” Greenland premier Kuupik Kleist said in November. Countries like China “must not believe that they can come and decide about the residents and just take care of the resources in the Arctic, which are regulated by laws, treaties and binding agreements. Those cannot be tampered with.” It will be interesting to watch how Danish and other regional experts’ perceptions evolve on this issue as China’s Arctic presence increases. According to SIPRI researcher Linda Jakobson, “There is some irony in the statements by Chinese officials calling on the Arctic states to consider the interests of mankind so that all states can share the Arctic. These statements appear to be contrary to China’s long-standing principles of respect for sovereignty and the internal affairs of other states.” ( pdf) In the three Near Seas (Yellow, East China and South China), Beijing promotes an extreme minority perspective on international law at odds with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that holds that coastal states have the right to regulate and restrict non-resource-related activities between the 12 nautical mile limit of their territorial waters and the 200 nautical mile limit of their claimed exclusive economic zone, or EEZ. Beyond its own region, by this logic, Beijing must honor similar claims by Arctic states. Canada, for instance, maintains that foreign vessels must obtain permission before transiting its vast northern archipelago. Transit permission may become important if China continues building its icebreaker fleet and summer passage through the Canadian and Russian Arctic routes becomes increasingly viable. China currently has only one operational icebreaker, the Xuelong, but a new 8,000 tonne vessel is due to enter the fleet in 2014. The likely westbound route from Nuuk in Western Greenland to Qingdao via the Canadian Arctic is around one-half the distance to Qingdao through the Panama Canal, while the likely eastbound route via the Russian Arctic is less than two-thirds the distance to Qingdao via the Cape of Good Hope. The Great Game for Arctic resources is heating up and China is likely to play an expanding role as Denmark opens the door for Beijing to enter the Arctic on the diplomatic front and on the investment front via mining projects in Greenland. Erickson Collins Andrew Erickson is a professor at the U.S. Naval War College and a research associate at Harvard’s Fairbank Center. Co-founder of China SignPost ( ? ???), he blogs at www.andrewerickson.com.Gabe Collins is a Co-founder of China SignPostand is a J.D. candidate at the University of Michigan Law School. blogs.wsj.com

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

From: Wharf Rat	1/18/2012 11:47:27 AM
	of 15024

Pipeline Protest: The 99% Strike Back Against Keystone XL By Stephen Lacey on Jan 17, 2012 at 2:53 pm Activists led by 350.org are set for another round of protests against the Keystone XL pipeline next Tuesday in Washington, DC. by Stephen Lacey and Zach Rybarczyk Before the series of protests in front of the White House last summer and fall, most insiders in Washington assumed the Keystone XL pipeline would be approved. But after a strong show of force by the 99% — led by the environmental community — opposed to piping more Canadian tar sands through the country, the White House delayed the decision. The date has been set — Tuesday, January 24th – for a third round of demonstrations organized to put pressure on the Obama Administration. The White House is also getting pressure from Congressional Republicans, who slipped a provision into a last-minute tax cut package that forces the President to make a decision on Keystone XL by February 21st. An executive decision could come this week. The 350.org demonstration plays up a recently released report showing that the 234 members of Congress who voted to force a decision on Keystone XL cumulatively took $42 million in fossil fuel money: We need to be outraged—if this is what business as usual looks like, then business as usual isn’t acceptable and has to stop before the planet cooks. No one would countenance this kind of corruption at a high school gymnastics meet—it’s simply not right to take money from a company and then vote on its interests. Here’s the plan: Instead of circling the White House, this time we’re going to show up at Congress. And we’re going to do it in…referee’s uniforms. On January 23, the day they return to business, we’ll be there at 3 in the afternoon, ready to blow the whistle on their corruption. The demonstration will start on Capitol hill, and then we will head to the headquarters of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s #1 lobby. We’re going to call penalties—forget facemasking, this is vote-buying. Forget unsportsmanlike conduct—this is undemocratic conduct. Environmental groups have called Keystone XL a “line in the sand” for climate — and for their support of Obama. Last November, Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, explained that “it will be increasingly difficult for our members to stand behind the president” if Keystone XL is approved. The protesters are up against powerful forces. The Oil and Gas lobby recently rolled out an aggressive campaign to promote fossil fuels and Keystone XL during during the 2012 election. And at an event announcing the new campaign, American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard promised that a failure to approve the pipeline “will have huge political consequences” for the Obama Administration. Then again, most people thought Keystone XL was a done deal last summer. But when the 99% actually stood up with a strong voice, the dynamic changed very quickly. thinkprogress.org

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read

From: Wharf Rat	1/18/2012 11:50:42 AM
	of 15024

How Time-of-Use Electricity Pricing Can Boost Distributed Solar By Climate Guest Blogger on Jan 17, 2012 at 5:55 pm by John Farrell, cross-posted from Energy Self Reliant States What if electricity cost more when the sun was shining? Many utilities are using new electronic “smart meters” to adjust the price of electricity as often as every 15 minutes, to reflect supply and demand. And charging more when electricity is in short supply can be good news, making investments in distributed solar power pay off faster. Time-of-use (TOU) pricing is a different billing method for electricity, where the customer pays based on the time of day of using electricity rather than a flat rate per kilowatt-hour consumed. The premise is that electricity is more expensive when in high demand (e.g. by air conditioners in the afternoon on hot, sunny days) and that pricing accordingly will help reduce demand. For example, customers in Los Angeles on a TOU pricing plan have a flat rate for electricity in the fall, winter and spring. But in the summer, they pay significantly more for electricity used during “peak hours,” when the power system is at its maximum use. In June to September, electricity used from midnight to 10 AM (and from 8 PM to midnight) costs 4.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. But each kWh used from 1 to 5 PM costs 16 cents. (there are other charges on the typical bill that amount to ~6.1 cents per kWh) This pricing scheme can act as an incentive to go solar, because solar panels tend to operate at their highest capacity during summer months. The following chart shows the solar radiation falling on Los Angeles during the various seasons. The average insolation during June to September is 6.37 kWh per sq. meter per day, compared to 5.33 in the non-peak season. Solar panels also tend to have higher output during the peak hours of the day. In fact, the California Public Utilities Commission found that solar tends to have a 60% capacity factor (produce 60% of its maximum) during peak electricity periods. The following chart from SolarStik illustrates: The Economics of Time-of-Use Pricing for Solar So what will a time-of-use pricing plan mean for the economics of solar in Los Angeles? It means solar customers save more money. About 37% of annual solar production in Los Angeles comes during the peak season, and almost 90% of that during peak and near-peak (shoulder) periods. On average, year-round, the cost of grid electricity on a TOU plan is 7.3 cents during the daylight hours a rooftop solar array is producing (13.4 cents including the required other charges), modestly higher than the 7 cents (13.1 cents) customers pay on a flat rate plan. It’s not an enormous difference, but some perspective helps. The cost of solar has fallen by about 7% per year over the past 30 years. The time-of-use pricing difference in Los Angeles is about 5%, nearly as good as an additional year of solar panel price decreases. If the peak price were about 50% higher (24 cents instead of 16 cents), the average value of electricity produced by solar would be 8.6 cents (14.7 cents with fixed charges), compared to 7.3 cents (13.4 cents), good for nearly three years of price declines. For now, time-of-use electricity pricing may not be a panacea, but it’s a good policy for helping finance distributed solar. Note: For the levelized cost of solar in Los Angeles, we used an installed cost of $4.40 per Watt, 80% financed over 10 years, with a 25-year project life. – John Farrell is a senior researcher at the Institute for Local Self Reliance. This piece was originally published at Energy Self Reliant States. thinkprogress.org

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

Previous 10 | Next 10

Copyright/IP Policy

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.