Experts: Climate change is affecting Maine's ecosystem

http://www.bangordailynews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=150974&zoneid=500

Scientists and wildlife experts agree that Maine’s ecosystem is changing, and the insects, mammals and trees are giving us early warning signals that the changes are happening quickly.

The Maine of the future will feature warmer winters, less snow cover and increased rain and sleet, Paul Mayewski, director of the University of Maine’s Climate Change Institute, said during a recent interview. As the Atlantic Ocean begins to warm, Maine will see more hurricane and tropical storm activity, which will change the face of the state’s rugged coastline, and its cherished moose could disappear completely.

"Over the next few decades, the climate in Maine will become much more like northern Massachusetts," Mayewski said.

Whatever the terminology used to describe the phenomenon — global warming or climate change — scientists say the process already is under way and is tangible, and no one will have to wait for centuries to see the impact.

<more>

It was a *real* "wake-up call".

All kidding aside, I was shocked and saddened when I heard it (back in the early '90's) because I knew what the implications were...

And we now have dog ticks out the wazzoo...I've seen deer and moose covered with them in the summer.

We're seeing more cardinals. A lot more. They used to be a rare sight in this area. I remember grandma running in the house to get us kids so we could see what one looked like. Yesterday, while we were sitting on the front porch, we saw several of them at one time. My husband and I sat there and talked about how weird that was. We also have noticed the lack of red-breasted robins. They used to be everywhere, now I hardly ever see them. We also don't see as many blue jays. My husband said he heard one the other day, presumably bitching out the booming squirrel population, but he hasn't actually seen a blue jay in quite a while. I saw one last week but they aren't all over like they used to be.

As for the ticks, tell me about it. We've been going to this wooded area for seven years now to let the dogs run wild. This year the ticks are bad. I'm on antibiotics right now (and for another ten days) because of a bite I received that looked like it was developing into lyme disease (and thanks to evlbstrd and Admiral Loinpresser for pointing out that the bite didn't look good and I should get to the doctor). Naturally, we've stopped going to the wooded area which I will miss. It has the best lightning bug displays in the evenings.

Since then, I can't walk 2 minutes in the orchard without picking a dozen of them.

can't stand them...

I grew up around animals so I can't even remember the first time I saw one. Our walks in the woods are done until the first hard freeze.

I grew up in Illinois, close to Missouri, and cardinals weren't rare there. You should know your own state, so I'll take your word for it, but it's very surprising to me.

and that's just to the border. There's a lot of geographical variability between here and there. In fact, if you look at maps of the habitat of the Northern Cardinals Kansas is on the western border of the cardinal habitat.



But I suppose I should take your word for it that I should be seeing cardinals all over the place since you see them in Illinois. :eyes:

It's very instructive. I would have thought more of the central plains area had them, but obviously I was wrong. At the same time, I'd NOT have guessed the lower SW states included them.

But you know, that snarky comment is completely inappropriate.

I expressed surprise, but went out of my way to say that I was not questioning your credibility. Nor did I suggest, let alone assert, that just because Illinois has them you must too. I really don't appreciate the snark.

I admit I was snarky but the four question marks (denoting emphasis) in your subject line threw me off. I'm not sure how including four question marks in a subject line (which was my first impression of your response and set the tone for how I read it) was going out of your way not to question my credibility. How many questions marks would you have used in your subject line if you didn't believe me? I guess we see things differently since we're on opposite sides of Missouri.

I'm just saying, if you didn't mean to be snarky I think you have a strange way of showing it. Anyway, if you have taken offense at anything I said I apologize.

My brothers have them all winter at their feeders...

If they were concerned about climate change they would stop that.

Interestingly the idea of burning more natural gas has been very popular in Maine. They can't get enough of it, which is why there are so many nervous glances and the dubious Sable Island natural gas fields.

Maine has been increasing its reliance on fossil fuels for quite some time. In fact in percentage terms - let's speak like someone from Greenpeace and pretend that real numbers should be substituted by percentage - Maine went from a state that relied on fossil fuels for less than half of its electricity to a state that now relies on fossil fuels for almost all of its electricity. Maine went from being a state that produced less than 40% of its electricity from fossil fuels in 1990 to being a state that now produces almost 66% of its electricity from fossil fuels.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept04me.xls

The theory in Maine seems to be that natural gas isn't a "real" fossil fuel, but in fact it is.

http://www.nrcm.org/news_detail.asp?news=1597

Tuesday June 5th, 2007

Today, the Maine Senate voted 35-0 for final passage of “An Act To Authorize the State's participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative” (LD 1851, known as RGGI).

Today’s vote makes Maine the third northeast state to pass a law that requires power plants to reduce their emissions of global warming pollutants as part of a region-wide “cap-and-trade” system. Vermont and Connecticutt have already passed RGGI legislation -- altogether ten northeast states are in the process of adopting similar policies, and five western states are not far behind.

Together the northeast states add up to the seventh largest source of global warming pollution in the world and more than 30% of this pollution comes from dirty power plants.

This bill, which was introduced by Maine Governor Baldacci, was sponsored by Rep. Theodore Koffman and Sen. Phil Bartlett, and co-sponsored by a bi-partisan group of lawmakers.

<more>

Sorry, in a few years, Maine will be producing up to 40% of its peak demand with wind power alone.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/060724kj.shtml

<snip>

The Mars Hill project in Aroostook County, the first utility-scale wind power project approved in Maine, will produce 50 megawatts of power at peak production when completed.

(The Mars Hill Wind Farm became operational in March 07, it's New England's largest - so far)

The Linekin Bay project in northern Aroostook County calls for installing wind turbines capable of generating 500 megawatts of electricity in a phased process that could be completed by 2010.

The Kibby Mountain project in western Maine, which is also in the very early stages, would have between 100 and 200 megawatts of capacity, possibly by the end of 2008.

<snip>

If those projects live up to their potential, they would create roughly 800 megawatts of generation capacity, or about 40 percent of the energy Maine residents use during peak periods.

<more>

You can also add another 57 MW from the Stetson Mountain Wind Project to this list...

on edit: and the Beaver Ridge wind farm too...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=99969&mesg_id=99969

In 2005, Maine generated 18.8 million MWh of electricity but consumed only 12.3 million MWh. The remainder, 6.5 million MWh, was exported to southern New England or Canada.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/e_...

In 2006, Maine generated 7.5 million MWh with renewables (biomass and hydro)...61% of its in-state demand.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cf...

Maine's existing paper mill natural gas CHP plants and new wind power capacity - and existing biomass and hydro power capacity - could produce all of the state's electricity.

...and that's not counting tidal power from the Penobscot, Kennebec and Piscataqua Rivers (FERC permits already applied for)...

...or any future off-shore wind and wave power...

...or the 74,579 MWh (AKA "NEGAwatt hours") hours in energy savings achieved by Efficiency Maine in 2006.

http://www.efficiencymaine.com /

Maine doesn't need another Maine Yankee.

(clue: Central Maine Power only owned 38% of the plant, the rest was owned by out-of-state utilities that shipped their share of the juice south of the border. Maine's dependence on nuclear power from Maine Yankee was less than what some people think).

...and Maine doesn't need it's two 500 MW gas fired plants - but southern NE does.

Maine is on track to be 100% Clean, Green and Nuclear Free.

Finally, here's some cool pictures of gas- and coal-fired power plants built in New Jersey since 1990...

http://www.industcards.com/cc-usa-nj.htm

http://www.industcards.com/st-coal-usa-de-nj.htm

Enjoy...

I also note the New Jersey is a net importer of electricity - 21.3 million MWh in 2005. Where, oh where, did that power come from??? Certainly not from any new nuclear power plants...

Success would be defined as reducing fossil fuel use, not increasing it.

People like you were saying the same kind of shit in the 1990's that you are saying now.

Wind farm, wind farm, Maine solar house...

Get back to me when you can show that 66% is smaller than 40%. Let me know too, if you ever learn the difference between power and energy. As always we have no reason to be optimistic that you will with your 200 Mega"watts" wind farms.

In the meantime, in the real world, Maine set a record for energy production from "other renewables" in 1994, not 2005.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05me.xls

The share of "other renewables" (chiefly wood products) is almost exactly the same in 2005 (including the Maine Solar House McMansion) as it was in 1990.

But talk, talk, talk.

Gonna, gonna, gonna.

By 2010. By 2030. By 2050...by...by...by...

When Sable Island's gone Maine is going to be in a world of hurt that's the only "by such and such a year" we're going to hear for real. Maine is more dependent on fossil fuels than it has ever been, I predict it's going to get worse and worse and worse and worse.

This is why people are talking about three new gas terminals in that state:

http://clf.org/programs/cases.asp?id=746

It's not because they have big faith in wind, wood, and a big roof extension on the Maine Solar House McMansion.

As was the case in Germany, Maine shut a nuclear plant to use more fossil fuels.

Like all "renewables will save us" programs, Maine's is a failure.

It might be interesting by the way to see what happens if climate change takes out some hydroelectricity capacity up there as it is doing in Australia, Italy, South America and some other places. If they have another year like 2002, they're go burn a hell of a lot more gas, just as they did then. That was a year of record piggishness for burning gas in Maine. That year 60% of Maine's electricity was produced by the dangerous fossil fuel natural gas, generating huge tonnage of dangerous fossil fuel waste, carbon dioxide, which Maine dumped into the atmosphere with no restrictions.

New Jeresy *imports* (21 million MWh) more fossil fuel generated electricity each year than Maine produces from all sources (18 milliom MWh).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html

Maine produced more electricity from renewable sources last year than from natural gas...

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=ME

Maine does not have any large coal-fired power plants - New Jersey does and they are some of the worst in the nation...

http://njpirg.org/NJ.asp?id2=15559&id3=NJ&

75 Percent of New Jersey’s Dirtiest Power Plants Have Increased Soot Pollution in Past Decade

TRENTON—As a key U.S. Senate committee considers the Bush administration’s bill to delay and weaken clean air safeguards, a new Clear the Air report released today by the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group (NJPIRG) finds that 75 percent of New Jersey’s oldest and dirtiest power plants are getting dirtier, not cleaner.

“When it comes to power plant pollution, many of New Jersey’s dirtiest power plants just keep getting dirtier,” said Emily Rusch from NJPIRG. “Pollution from power plants fuels global warming and causes serious health problems, including asthma attacks, heart and lung disease, and even premature deaths.”

New Jersey routinely tops national lists for unhealthy soot and smog pollution from power plants and transportation. Most recently, in December 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that 13 New Jersey counties have unhealthy levels of fine particle soot.

According to the new report, annual soot-forming sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions increased at many of New Jersey’s oldest and dirtiest power plants and 24 percent on average statewide from 1995 to 2003. Smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions decreased statewide, but increased at PSEG’s Hudson plant. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the largest contributor to global warming, increased at most power plants and 25 percent on average statewide. There are no limits on carbon dioxide pollution.

<more>

and another one...

www.net.org/air/local/nj.pdf

New Jersey is buying increasing amounts of out-of-state electricity generated by coal...

http://wvbusinessblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_archive.html

And New Jersey is actively pursuing a large LNG facility at Crown Landing....

http://cryptome.org/ferc050506-2.htm

They are fighting Delaware to build it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Landing_LNG_Terminal

In contrast, voters in Harpswell, Maine rejected an LNG terminal there in 2004. Two proposed LNG terminals in Casco Bay were withdrawn as well.

Furthermore, the Canadian government will not let LNG tankers enter Passamaquoddy Bay - the 2 proposed LNG terminals there won't fly either...

http://www.bangordailynews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=146375&zoneid=164

Climate warming is projected in increase rainfall in the higher latitutes (Maine is ~45 degrees N latitute) - not decrease it. It is not along term threat to Maine's hydroelectric power production.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/01/BAGD4Q5TM91.DTL&type=science

Nice try though...

On a per capita basis, they are not really as dramatic as the vast failure in Maine, since only 50% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels here - even though we have very little in the way of hydroelectric resources. (Then again we're not going to be in much trouble when we have a "Maine 2002-like hydroelectric crash.)

You like to compare New Jersey and Maine even when you're not telling us all about New Jersey's wonderful renewable credits blah, blah, blah, blah.

We have zillion solar roof programs here blah, blah, blah...

I don't know how many times you've come here talking about the wonders of New Jersey's failed renewable tax credits program or wonderful New Jersey windmills. In fact you are here contradicting yourself (yet again) contradicting yourself.

These programs are all fly swatting and don't work. They have never had a chance of working, because implicitly their design is faulty. Renewable energy is a failure, where failure is defined as making substantial inroads against the use of fossil fuels.

Our reliance for fossil fuels has increased slightly since 1990, from 40.2% then to 46.1% now.
Our "other renewables" (the solar, wind, blah, blah blah you come here shilling for all of the time has increased in that period from zero to almost 1%).

Here are the numbers (deny away):

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05nj.xls

I agree that New Jersey needs cleaner air, which is why I support more nuclear power here. I note that anti-nuclear activists are the reason for fossil fuel filth in New Jersey, but fortunately they are losing credibility here just as they are losing credibility everywhere.

We hope that a new reactor (perhaps several) will be built at Salem Creek and will prevent the use of fossil fuels.

For the record I oppose every single natural gas facility in the United States as I want fossil fuels banned. I note that if people here weren't day dreaming about windmills and other toys - if we weren't spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to give rich boys solar toys for one or two McMansions - we could do it.

I regard the dire situation here as an outgrowth of antinuclear ignorance. This is why I have chosen to become a pronuclear activist in my State. I'm tired of foreign ignorance holding sway here. I don't want fucking natural gas plants here - I want nuclear plants, preferably <em>many</em> nuclear plants.

As for your comparison between Maine and New Jersey, I note that your continuous attempts to ignore basic mathematical concepts is as transparent as ever. When you learn to compare two integers, you will be able to compare populations. There is no real hope of this happening of course, since this is at least the 9,000th time you have produced a post of this quality.

Finally, it doesn't matter what NIMBY shit goes on in Maine. Either they will get access to natural gas, or they will import electricity or the lights will go out. All three options suck and I note that if any of them occur, you will have as much responsibility for the outcome as anyone. If the gas terminals are not built, the consequences will become readily apparent. If they are built, there may not be natural gas for them to receive. Maine is over a barrel. I'll bet that the end result is going to be coal.

Personally I can't support climate change by the way as a means of increasing Maine's output of hydroelectricity. The fact is that in 2002 (not really that long ago) Maine's hydroelectric infrastructure was severely impacted by a climatic swing as shown in my previous post. They burned a shit load of gas. They didn't pull out back yard solar cells and backyard windmills. They burned gas.

Frankly I don't believe you have a clue about what climate change will do in Maine or anywhere else for that matter. Nobody knows about climate change and thus far we have seen that most optimistic representations have proved ridiculous. Things are worse than predicted. With this in mind we can state definitively that the case can made that the antinuke "renewables will save us" crowd is simply playing Russian Roulette with the heads of all humanity. Renewable programs are failing to reduce fossil fuels world wide, everywhere. It is thus time to put up or shut up and you and your friends cannot put up.

If climate change brings parasites into Maine that kill half of its trees, I would hardly be surprised if you came here exulting over the wonderful opportunity to fire power plants with the dead wood. Put that in your biomass fired denial machine and pyrolyze it.

given this quote...

"I oppose every single natural gas facility in the United States as I want fossil fuels banned"

hmmmm???

1) Why do you think fossil fuel use continues to rise, and that decomissioned nuclear plants are displaced by coal and gas, as opposed to solar or wind? Those of us who advocate nuclear think the reasons are pretty straightforward: wind and solar are much more expensive than coal and gas, and cannot in any case provide baseload energy to a grid. You evidently think those reasons are bogus.

2) How many of the 300 million people in America can burn wood sustainably? If you want to, include sawdust pellets or other wood waste, but wood waste also comes from trees that were chopped down. And whatever cellulose we're burning in our homes can't be turned into ethanol. Assuming that technology pans out.

Increases in US fossil fuel consumption come from all sectors - especially the transportation and residential sectors.

Bigger cars/trucks/SUVs/homes/appliances since 1980 - it has nothing to do with nuclear plant retirements.

Wind power is competitive with coal and cheaper than gas (and that's the reason there are 800 MW+ of wind power projects in the works in Maine - and no plans for new coal, gas or nuclear plants).

Last year the US installed 2400 MW of wind capacity - this year 3000 MW (equivalent to a 1000 MW nuclear plant). But this somehow doesn't displace any fossil-fired capacity???

Of the 6 new nuclear plants to be subsidized by the 2005 GOP energy bill - how many coal or gas plants will they replace???

Zero.

None of the US utilities that are considering new nuclear plants have any plans to replace existing coal or gas plants - in fact they are planning on adding more fossil-fired capacity and will fight like hell to retain their grandfathered coal-fired plants.

(note: these are the same utilities that oppose the proposed federal RPS and advocate for "clean coal" subsidies - ugh)

Furthermore, the notion that renewables can't replace baseload plants reflects a lot more bias than fact.

Wind turbines produce power 60-80% of the time but generally below their rated capacity.

Hydroelectricity, biomass and wind power can complement each other to meet electrical demand 24/7/365.

Maine case in point:

There are 2 wind farms in development in western Maine (near Eustis and Stratton): Black Nubble and Kimby Mountain (200+ MW total capacity combined).

There is a 50 MW biomass plant already operating in Stratton and large hydroelectric storage dam at nearby Flagstaff Lake that is currently used to provide on-demand water to hydroelectric dams downstream in the Kennebec River drainage.

All three elements (wind, biomass and hydro) can operate in concert to provide electricity to meet any and all local power demand (and more if the Flagstaff Lake dam was redeveloped with turbines).

As far as wood is concerned - its a fallacy to suggest that wood and only wood *has* to supply *all* the heat and electricity for everyone in the US.

Solar heat (passive or active) could be used throughout the Sunbelt to provide heat and hot water in the winter months.

If Southern homes were insulated to current Maine standards, they wouldn't need much wood or solar to keep themselves warm in winter (or cool in the summer).

Hydroelectricity (and wind power) provide electric residential heat in the Pacific Northwest - no wood required.

Corn and straw pellets are used today in the Farm Belt.

Finally, the US is heavily dependent on foreign uranium (62 million tons of yellowcake used each year, only 2 million tons produced from domestic mines).

Unlike renewables, the US nuclear power industry is highly unsustainable.

Does this answer your question???

www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf

Summarized Findings

The U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are both strongly committed to expanding the role of biomass as an energy source. In particular, they support biomass fuels and products as a way to reduce the need for oil and gas imports; as a way of supporting the growth of agriculture, forestry, and rural economies; and as a way to foster major new domestic industries in the form of biorefineries that manufacture a variety offuels, chemicals, and other products. The purpose of this analysis was to determine if the land resources of the United States are sufficient to support a large-scale biorefinery industry capable of displacing a significant fraction of our nation’s petroleum consumption. This study found that the combined forest and agriculture land resources have the potential
of sustainably supplying much more than one-third of the nation’s current petroleum consumption.

Forest lands, and in particular, timberlands, have the potential to sustainably produce close to 370 million dry tons of biomass annually. This estimate includes the residues generated in the manufacture of various forest products and the residues generated in the use of manufactured forest products. It also includes the harvest of wood for various residential and commercial space-heating applications. With the exception of urban wood residues, most of these sources of forest biomass are currently being utilized and there are significant efforts under way to use these resources much more efficiently. Two potentially large sources of forest biomass not currently being used are logging and other removal residues, and fuel treatment thinnings. These sources can sustainably contribute over 120 million dry tons annually. The logging and other removal residues can easily be recovered following commercial harvest and land clearing operations. Fuel treatment thinnings can also be recovered concomitantly with efforts to reduce forest fire hazards and otherwise improve the health of our nation’s forests.

Agricultural lands can provide nearly 1 billion dry tons of sustainably collectable biomass and continue to meet food, feed and export demands. This estimate includes 446 million dry tons of crop residues, 377 million dry tons of perennial crops, 87 million dry tons of grains used for biofuels, and 87 million dry tons of animal manures, process residues, and other residues generated in the consumption food products. The perennial crops are crops dedicated primarily for bioenergy and biobased products and will likely include a combination of grasses and woody crops. Providing this level of biomass will require increasing yields of corn, wheat, and other small grains by 50 percent; doubling residue-to-grain ratios for soybeans; developing much more efficient residue harvesting equipment; managing active cropland with no-till cultivation; growing perennial crops whose output is primarily dedicated for bioenergy purposes on 55 million acres of cropland, idle cropland, and cropland pasture; using animal manure in excess of what can be applied on-farm for soil improvement for bioenergy; and using a larger fraction of other secondary and tertiary residues for bioenergy.

In the context of the time required to scale up to a large-scale biorefinery industry, an annual biomass supply of more than 1.3 billion dry tons can be accomplished with relatively modest changes in land use and agricultural and forestry practices.

<end>

Also, as renewable power sources play a larger role in the nation's energy mix, the current central station baseload-intermediate-peaking plant grid model will transform into distributed system with a large number of smaller generators that will provide power demand.

There is no need for renewables to "replace" large central station plants.

In a sentence: I don't find that scenario convincing.

Crop yields are going down, and it has to do with changing precipitation patterns. Improved agricultural practices are going to be required just to break even. The idea that we're going to get more food and also the energy equivalent of 1/3 our current petroleum consumption seems like a pipe dream to me.

I also think the localized/distributed power generation model is oversold. You might reduce some transmission losses, and get some improvements in flexibility, but we would also lose some efficiency via reduced economies of scale. And the more sources that get plugged into the grid, the more complex it becomes to manage.

Furthermore, "power on demand" implies certain kinds of power, referring back to my original question, wind and solar power don't do "power on demand." Not unless you add some kind of truly massive grid storage. Flow-cell systems might scale that large with a plausibly affordable cost, but that's cost on top of energy sources that are already expensive.

All of this is still tangential to my original question. I'll try to rephrase that question. Take this tidbit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=100292&mesg_id=100292

"New Coal Plants Will Represent a 2.5 Trillion Dollar Investment." My question could be put this way: Why is that $2.5 trillion dollars slated to be spent on coal plants? As opposed to wind, solar and/or biomass infrastructure?

I'll tell you why it's not being spent on nuclear plants. Because it's taken as a "given" that nuclear power is somehow more dangerous and terrible than any other possible fate, even the fate of relentlessly burning coal until we finally achieve the sixth great mass-extinction, and who knows, maybe the worst yet.

Total production and yield per acre...

http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/marketing/grainoutlook/html/101904/101904.html

(check out tables 1-3)

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/haworth/jci/2005/00000014/F0020001/art00009

http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/marketing/grainoutlook/html/101703/101703.html

2006 was a record crop year for US soybeans...

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2007/01_12_2007.asp

And agricultural is only one source of biomass, forests and prairies are just as important.

And No - wind and solar and hydro and biomass and storage systems working in concert will produce power "on demand"...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=89003

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=88992

And finally, the reason no new nuclear plants have been ordered in the US since 1973 is that that they are expensive to build and operate (many nuclear plants were sold at fire sale prices in the 90's)...and they produce spent fuel that no one knows what to do with but everyone realizes will cost a lot of money to get rid of.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x100196

"SASKATOON, Sask.—Today, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its first projections of world grain supply and demand for the coming crop year: 2007/08. USDA predicts supplies will plunge to a 53-day equivalent—their lowest level in the 47-year period for which data exists.

“The USDA projects global grain supplies will drop to their lowest levels on record. Further, it is likely that, outside of wartime, global grain supplies have not been this low in a century, perhaps longer,” said NFU Director of Research Darrin Qualman.

Most important, 2007/08 will mark the seventh year out of the past eight in which global grain production has fallen short of demand. This consistent shortfall has cut supplies in half—down from a 115-day supply in 1999/00 to the current level of 53 days. “The world is consistently failing to produce as much grain as it uses,” said Qualman. He continued: “The current low supply levels are not the result of a transient weather event or an isolated production problem: low supplies are the result of a persistent drawdown trend.”"

No wonder farmers keep going bankrupt,
and are forced to sell their land to developers.

Did you miss this sentence?

"“The world is consistently failing to produce as much grain as it uses,” said Qualman."

In 7 of the past 8 years, we've used up MORE grain than we grew. You like predicting the future based on trends, so tell me where this trend is going.

this unused product is an inefficiency to be eliminated,
it is an underutilization of resources,
it will be reduced as much as possible.
There are only two ways to reduce the excess, either destroy it or reduce production.
The U.S. used to have large grain and cheese reserves,
we got rid of them a long time ago.
I posted an article yesterday "It's a grain reserve that's needed"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x100496
and there are absolutely no responses,
apparently nobody wants a grain reserve,
not even the doomers.

I'm not saying this a good thing - you asked for a prediction.

The fire place is very dangerous since like all fireplaces it puts out soot. In fact my entire neighborhood stinks with soot and other carcinogens on very cold winter days since lots of people here burn wood. Many people (myself included) find a nice warm fire romantic but the health risks of wood burning are well known and have been the subject of many reports like those from the world health organization.

We have lots of wood in this area and in my case its free.

I have never had to buy firewood since I have had several large downed trees. I use a small chain saw to cut my wood, but I split it by hand using an axe because it's good exercise and climate change free. Of course if I had to truck my wood, this would involve climate change destruction from the trucks.

I understand from your previous posts that you use wood from the family estates. Good for you. It is relatively easy for the landed classes to burn wood. In inner cities, of course - if you give a shit about inner cities - it's a very different story. I can only imagine Brooklyn being heated by a brazillion wood stoves. Probably people would be dropping dead in the streets, like in Mumbai or other biomass cities.

In the evenings here we have electric space heaters in our bedrooms. We find this attractive because we realize that the majority of our electricity comes from nuclear power. Thus this option in New Jersey is safer than wood.

:evilgrin:

It's not like I'm from the backwoods of Maine.

I explained that I do use electricity.

Our electricity rates here are considerably lower than those of Maine, because we have not become dependent on natural gas in some shit for brains scheme talking about wind and solar in 2050.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epmxlfile5_6_b.xls

From these statistics, we see that the lowest energy prices in New England are in Vermont, where more than 70% of the electricity comes from nuclear. The other 30% comes from inexpensive hydroelectricity more or less.

Vermont is a model state, even if there are antinukes trying to get them to burn natural gas and other filthy dangerous fossil fuels that indiscriminately dump dangerous fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere.

I absolutely recommend electric heat in New Jersey, since more than 50% of the electricity generated here is produced in a climate change gas free fashion, the majority of our power being generated by our nuclear reactors.

I am spectacularly uninterested, by the way, in your 15th century approach to heating your home and water. You don't know shit about what I do with my gas furnace, but as a rule, I certainly am not going to buy all new shit at your urging. Please don't confuse me with someone who has much respect for your ideas. In my view, you're merely a consumer.

I think the "buy all new shit" conceit is environmentally destructive and rather self absorbed. Building a brazillion Maine solar house McMansions would be enormously destructive to the environment, just for the trucking of the building materials to the sites out in the wilderness.

If you must know, I think the owners of the Maine Solar House McMansion are assholes on some level. The thing is a monstrosity, and should be on the promotional poster if The Tortilla Curtain is ever made into a movie.

http://www.solarhouse.com/

In fact, as I have shown before, the television crews trucking around to film the Maine Solar House - and they're interested because even after 50 years of big talk, solar energy is merely an aberration, a curiosity - have easily consumed more fuel and dumped more dangerous fossil fuel waste than the Maine solar house McMansion will produce in eternity.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html

Maine = 10.57 cents per kWh

New Jersey = 10.89 cents per kWh

Good luck heating your home with cheap nuclear electricity this winter.

Why is that?

duh...

:evilgrin:

But would you care to answer the question, or are you just not interested in walking the walk?

n/t

That's part of the problem. But you missed the point, as usual: You continue to blather on about solar, even though you, personally, don't use it (and no, the TV in your summer cabin doesn't count).

Too inconvenient? Too expensive? You still haven't told us.

BTW, I assume you keep your wood burner going all summer to keep a supply of hot water?

Edit: Just for the sake of accuracy, wood is only carbon-neutral if you move it and cut it by hand using stone tools. The instant you fire up a logging truck, chainsaw or steel mill for the axe, it's low-carbon.

Just being picky. :)

Does it count as "solar energy" then as well?

and unlike *renewable* wood which is available worldwide, uranium requires a multi-billion dollar infrastructure for use.

Homeowners can afford wood stoves and furnaces - utilities need massive multi-billion subsidies to use uranium.

In terms of mass, wood is a hundred times more abundant than uranium - 400 billion tons vs 4 billion. In terms of energy, Uranium is more abundant: 360,000 EJ, vs 5.8 EJ for wood.

Wood, BTW, is only renewable is you manage it properly. Easter Island ring a bell? the Amazon?

Ah well. I'm sure you'd rather cut every last tree down, rather than use nuclear power.

:evilgrin:

and it depends on where you are... coast? inland? And I don't think they will loose the Moose unless it becomes tropical... they hang around all summer long... I saw enough in vt ont the mass border. Who are these ecologists? Probably some ying yangs from CA that don't have a clue about the nature they're talking about.

but the Downeast and the northern part of the state is spruce/fir (sub)boreal forest.

The state's moose population isn't directly threatened by increased temperatures - it's indirectly threatened by the northern advance of white-tailed deer that serve as reservoirs of meningeal worm (AKA "moose brain worm").

More deer - less moose.

Menigeal worm was an important factor that led to the disappearance of woodland caribou from northern Maine. Deer "follow the axe". Logging and clearing of northern Maine's primary forest in the 19th century opened moose/caribou habitat to white-tailed deer which adversely affected moose and caribou populations.

The northern range of white-tailed deer is temperature dependent and winter survival is greatly reduced by extreme and prolonged low winter temperatures.

As the state's climate warms, deer populations will increase and push the moose into Canada...

:(

since I lived in New England. Sometimes I really want to come back. It seems like people have more sense about them sometimes... even the idiot "hicks" had more sense about them than 1/2 the so called educated people down here. Very defensive of their land and their rights.

Considering that Maine used to be part of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. (fwiw, my father's family landed in Massachusetts in 1630 and I have relatives in both states).

They were there from 1630 until the mid-1800's. They came out here as part of the Massachusetts Emigration Society to keep Kansas from becoming a slave state like Missouri. The one relative of mine from back east whose name you would be mostly likely to recognize is Judge Learned Hand.

north of it is the rugged rocky coastline.

And we really don't need more deer. Have enough jumping out in front of the cars in the evening as it is.

we don't have to check the high grass or behind a log before we jump around, y'know?