Sadness @ Pulau Jong
from Colourful Clouds
Shark Fin Success
Meritus Mandarin Hotel withdraws sharks fin mooncakes from FiNS Blog with a link to a new facebook group with info on hotels serving sharks fins.
St John's Island
from Singapore Nature and wild shores of singapore with rare mangroves and coastal plants and the big picture on landslides there
Blue-throated Bee-eater: 4. Flight sequence
from Bird Ecology Study Group
Saigon GP Daily 12 Jul 09;
The Mekong Delta City of Can Tho is to regulate sand dredging and selling, in a bid to stop exploitation where riverbanks may collapse, as well making licensed owners clearly display traffic signs and their specific areas of dredging, the city's administration has announced.
Following the Cambodian government’s ban on sand exports, hundreds of local barges have been working at full-blast on the Can Tho stretch of the Hau River (a main branch of the Mekong) to dredge sand, causing irregular water flows and inflict major environmental damage.
In addition, at least another 300 boats have been used to carry sand to foreign boats from Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia or domestic construction firms.
Since early 2009, the Vietnamese government has allowed boats carrying sand from Cambodia to anchor at the Hau, which flows through Can Tho City in the Mekong Delta.
The river stretch has become a major trading post for sand with boats collecting the Cambodian sand after docking at the Can Tho and Cai Cui ports in the city.
Authorities have already given 25 licenses to 16 businesses to exploit more than 25.2 million cubic meters of sand. However, everyday hundreds of unlicensed sand dredgers and transporters, both domestic and foreign, work on this section.
In June 2009, when inspecting the Hau, Thot Not District Police and authorities made 54 reports, such as operators not having a captain’s license, overloaded ships, illegal sand dredging in nautical jets and 14 reports of exploiting sand in inappropriate areas.
Dang Huu Phuoc, head of the Office of Mineral Resource, Water and Hydrometeorology, admitted that the office cannot know the real output of sand exploitation in each area, as dredgers do not inform authorities of how much sand they take.
Estimates of dredged sand exported to foreign countries vary from 25,000 to 50,000 tons.
According to Phan Van Ho, deputy head of the Can Tho City People's Committee Secretariat, another “sensitive” issue to draw much public interest is evidence of illegal dredging disappears after unannounced inspections.
Such uncontrolled actions cause riverbanks to collapse, pollution, and sand shortage, but provide large profits to individuals without benefit to the State.
In 2008, Can Tho’s tax department collected just VND500 million (US$28,100) from sand dredging operators.
Consequently, Mr. Ho suggested that Can Tho authorities should regulate the situation as soon as possible by checking and projecting sand mines in the area, holding an auction of dredging licenses to earn more money for the city’s budget, and rejecting inexperienced and incapable dredgers.
By Nhat Chanh - Translated by Uyen Phuong
But lucrative returns - at $12 a kg - are luring some poachers to set traps for the animals
Lisabel Ting, Straits Times 12 Jul 09;
Trapping wild boars may be illegal here, but eating them is a different matter.
Between January and June this year, Singaporeans consumed some 430kg of the meat, all imported from the United States.
Italian eatery Borgo has been serving it since 2006 as a pasta dish. Its pappardella with wild boar sauce, which costs $22, is popular with diners.
But most still prefer to order the more familiar meats, said manager M. Ganesh.
'It tastes gamier than local pork, and more 'wild',' said Mr Ganesh. 'It can also take several hours to prepare the meat, as wild boar meat is tougher than local pork.'
Mr Stephane Colleoni, general manager of another Italian eatery, Oso Ristorante, said he sells more than 40 portions of its whole wheat stracci with braised wild boar in red wine - at $23 - a week.
Wild boar meat cannot be found in wet markets, only in restaurants.
In recent months, there has been a spate of wild boar traps uncovered in some forested areas of Singapore.
Last month, a sub-contractor fell into a camouflaged 3m-deep pit while looking for herbs and durians in Lim Chu Kang. The impact shattered a bone in his left foot.
A few weeks later, a dog was rescued by animal welfare group Action for Singapore Dogs (ASD) in the same area with its hind paw severed.
It is believed that the canine was caught in a trap with metal-toothed jaws that snap shut once pressure is applied to the trigger plate.
Boar traps found by Mr Ben Lee on Pulau Ubin range from kennel-sized ones to those big enough to hold 15 boars. -- PHOTOS: BEN LEE
Cage traps more than 2m high have also been found on Pulau Ubin, although these have since been removed by the authorities.
Although wild boars are not a threatened species, anyone found killing or keeping them can be charged under the Wild Animals and Birds Act, and fined up to $1,000 per animal.
No one has been prosecuted for poaching wild boars so far.
'These trappers are mostly middle-aged men and not highly educated,' said Mr Ben Lee, founder and head of Nature Trekker Singapore, an outdoor adventure and nature appreciation group.
Mr Lee regularly spends his weekends hiking through the forested areas of the main Singapore island and Pulau Ubin, searching for and removing illegal traps.
He has encountered groups of poachers more than once, although he has never directly confronted them.
He said that poachers catch the wild boars to eat or to sell on the black market.
'A wild boar can weigh more than 100kg, and at $12 a kilo, one wild boar can fetch quite a lot of money,' he said.
He said that there are shops on the mainland which still sell wild boar meat, but declined to reveal specific locations as these stores most likely obtained the meat from illegal sources.
Large traps are required to catch the wild boars as a fully grown male can weigh more than 100kg, and may possess a pair of 20cm-long upward-curving tusks.
The Singapore Land Authority regularly patrols vacant state land for illegal traps. It said anyone found to be carrying out illegal activities on state land will be referred to the police.
Wild boar is not the only exotic meat available here. Figures from the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority showed that from January to June this year, Singapore imported 1,850kg of emu meat, 1,220kg of wild guinea fowl meat and 510kg of kangaroo meat.
While that may seem like almost an entire safari, those figures look ordinary in comparison to the amount of chicken imported for the same period - a hefty 51,500 tonnes or 51,500,000kg.
Do the new city malls festooned with bright lights make for a vibrant area, or one that's just too glaring?
Frankie Chee, Straits Times 12 Jul 09;
Here is a riddle for you: What flash a kaleidoscope of colours including yellow and blue, yet make some people see red all over?
Answer: The facades of the latest new malls and office buildings that light up the inner-city in a blazing display at night, drenching nearby buildings with their changing colours.
But while the displays dazzle some, they make others dizzy. Residents in nearby apartment buildings, and passers-by, say that the colours are glaring and distracting.
Tripping the light fantastic are the newly opened Orchard Central mall, the Wilkie Edge office, retail and apartment building in Selegie Road, and the Illuma mall at Bugis Junction.
The first two buildings have large panels of light-emitting diodes (LED) with colours that change, while Illuma has a facade made up of diamond-shaped lights.
And when the upcoming Ion Orchard mall's LED lights were turned on for test runs two weeks ago, it resulted in a blinding light-show at Orchard Road's busiest junction.
The bright lights, big city theme comes courtesy of the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA) Night Lighting Masterplan announced in 2006, which sought to light up the city, targeting the Civic District, Central Business District and Marina Bay areas.
But consultant Matt Conway, 30, whose Sunshine Plaza apartment in Bencoolen Street faces Wilkie Edge, finds its shining lights and display screen a glaring problem. He gripes: 'It shines into my apartment and it's like having a huge plasma screen TV on in your house the whole day.'
Some passers-by, too, are not bedazzled.
Teacher Nur Hayati Ahmad, 29, was concerned about the amount of energy consumed by Illuma's lights: 'I find it a waste of electricity, especially with the recent campaigns encouraging people to take care of the environment.'
Referring to the recently launched Tampines 1 mall which is drawing crowds with boutiques such as popular Japanese apparel brand Uniqlo, she says: 'Maybe we can find better ways to promote malls. Just look at Tampines 1, it draws people from even the western part of Singapore.'
The URA's guidelines dictate a maximum power usage of five watts per sq m for the lights on a building's facade. According to the urban planning agency, that is equivalent to the normal lighting for a home.
But even so, with 975 LED panels on the 129 sq m screen of Wilkie Edge and a total length of 7,300m of LED lights for Orchard Central's facade, a lot of energy is used to power the lights.
URA's group director for urban planning and design, Ms Fun Siew Leng, says: 'The question to ask is what kind of city we want. One that we can have a good time in after work, or one that's dark? There are things we want to do, but also, we have to think about how to do them with less energy.'
The URA's guidelines on night lighting are segregated into districts. Bright LED panels and display screens are allowed in the Orchard Road and Bugis areas, but the lighting in the Civic District and the Central Business District have to be more restrained.
The authority does not impose further restrictions on light design for buildings within the allowed areas.
Ms Fun adds: 'There will be buzz in the city. If you live there, you'll have to accept it because it's a mixed-use area. It's not like living in a residential area.'
However, those who see the dark side of the bright idea can take heart from the reactions of malls when asked about their lights.
A spokesman for Ion Orchard explained that the programming of the LED lights on its facade will be unveiled at a later stage and what was seen during its recent test is 'certainly not an indication of what to expect when the mall opens'.
And Ms Susan Leng, director for retail management of Far East Organization, which owns Orchard Central, said: 'We are asking for feedback on our shopping experience and will make adjustments where appropriate'.
And there are those, such as Mr Lai Soon Huat, 52, the manager of Sing Ho Hainanese Chicken Rice stall which sits opposite Wilkie Edge, who like it bright.
He says: 'It doesn't affect us. If it has more people going over there, hopefully some of its business will spill over here.'
Over at Illuma, a spokesman says: 'The current flashing text on Illuma's facade is just temporary. The real capacity of the facade shall be demonstrated during its first public demonstration soon.'
Orchard lights add to ambience
Sunday Times 19 Jul 09;
The lights on the newly created malls, Ion Orchard and Orchard Central, along Orchard Road liven up the place and add to the branding of Orchard Road as A Great Street.
Without such lights to add to the ambience, Orchard Road would be like just any other shopping street in Singapore. Lighting plays a part in creating the atmosphere of a street, as can be seen in other great shopping locations in the world like the Champs Elysees in Paris.
Surely the lights cannot please everyone, but they can help make Orchard Road an iconic shopping location, boost tourism and create a livelier shopping experience for Singaporeans who travel to the city on weekends. It all boils down to making it more worthwhile to go to Orchard Road.
The lights make shopping along Orchard Road not just a shopping experience, but an experience in itself.
Would we not rather see myriad colours surrounding us when we travel to town than lights that we can see elsewhere all over Singapore?
Joan Chang (Ms)
Some eateries are upset over blogger's list of places that don't serve free water
Lee Xin En, Straits Times 12 Jul 09;
A blogger, upset that a restaurant would not serve her tap water which she needed to take her medication with, is urging diners to boycott such outlets.
Miss Veron Ang - urged on by some netizens - went further and posted on her blog a list of 62 restaurants that she claimed do not serve free water.
It provoked angry reactions from several of the eateries which said they do serve water without charge.
One warned that the list Miss Ang, 24, a Web developer, created was 'libellous'.
Miss Ang said that in May, she dined at a restaurant in the west that refused to serve her water although she needed it for her medication.
After she 'Twittered' the incident, her friends urged her to create a list of similar eating places. She compiled an initial list from her own experience, as well as going to reviews on a food website, and asking friends on Facebook and Twitter.
After her list was posted on blog aggregating site Tomorrow.sg, other contributions started flowing in.
Her initial list, first posted last month, grew to 62 restaurants. It has been circulated by many Twitter users and websites.
The restaurants that do serve free water, but yet ended up on the list, are not amused. The Tapas Tree is one.
The marketing and sales manager for The Tapas Tree Group, Ms Lyn Yip, said: 'We find this list to be libellous, and will not hesitate to engage our lawyer if we are not removed from the list and the situation is not rectified immediately.
'We live in a time when the influence of Web opinion cannot be ignored, so bloggers have to approach their entries with responsibility, especially when composing defamatory lists.'
The list was still available at Miss Ang's blog when The Sunday Times checked yesterday at 4pm.
When contacted, 10 of the listed restaurants that admitted to a 'no free water' policy defended their position.
The managing director of Italian restaurant La Forketta, Ms Gracie Vitale, said: 'Our patrons are serious diners and come for our food, not to taste water. It's the customer with a budget who insists on tap water.'
She added that, outside Singapore, 'nobody really asks for tap water'.
Mr Jeffrey Jumahat, manager of Cafe Le Caire which does not serve free water, also shrugged off the list's boycott exhortation.
'To be frank, I don't think customers will just boycott because of water. There's no urgent need to take action at this point of time,' he said.
Mr Jack Chin, co-founder of Mad Jack's, said his chain of four restaurants does not serve free water because manpower is needed to refill and wash the glasses. He added: 'People who complain are not educated about business costs because nothing is free.'
Bakerzin, which started serving free water in April last year, said it incurred costs of $25,000 to install special water filters at its 10 sit-down dining outlets.
Taking the list seriously is Alps Cafe owner Danny Ang, who is rethinking his policy of 'free water only if you ask for it'.
His cafe had stopped serving water at dinner only late last year, but he does serve free tap water to customers who want it.
He said: 'I'm worried about the list. If customers really want it, I might consider raising the price of the food to give everyone free water.'
Several patrons contacted dismissed the reasons cited for not giving free tap water.
Sales manager Renee Koh, 32, said: 'Serving plain water for free should really be part of the service experience and I find it hard to think that the costs are that high, given that the water served is just chilled tap water.'
Mr Aun Koh, director of media and lifestyle consultancy Ate Media which published Asia's first restaurant guide The Miele Guide, said: 'In Singapore, there is no excuse other than snobbish vanity to drink bottled water and no reason other than an attempt to increase revenues for restaurateurs to refuse to offer tap water to their patrons.'
Restaurant patrons outside Singapore do ask for tap water - and get it
Straits Times Forum 14 Jul 09;
I READ Sunday's excellent report, 'All stirred up over drinking water in restaurants', on serving water in various restaurants and the ongoing debate. I have written before about this subject.
In a nutshell, the only reason not to serve water in restaurants is to make a profit from sales of bottled water.
I had the same experience as Ms Veron Ang at a Thai restaurant in Clarke Quay where I hosted eight people to lunch. I had to take a pill for a cold symptom and asked for a glass of water. No dice. I was told, 'We don't practise serving water by the glass', meaning I had to buy a bottle of water. We left without ordering and went to a more 'realistic' restaurant.
The woman from La Forketta restaurant is wrong when she says that 'nobody outside Singapore asks for tap water'. Perhaps she has not been outside Singapore. Everywhere I travel in the region and in North America, Australia and New Zealand, the first thing the wait staff does is put either a glass or carafe of water on the table. Free. No questions.
Perhaps the only solution if one cannot get a glass of water and likes the restaurant is either to take your own bottle of water and ask if this is okay before ordering, or to take an empty plastic glass and take tap water from the washroom. Singapore water is pure and safe.
Cassell R. Meyers
Bottled water not a green option
Straits Times 19 Jul 09;
I am writing in response to last Sunday's article, 'All stirred up over drinking water in restaurants'.
I applaud Miss Veron Ang for compiling a list of restaurants that do not serve free water.
Where possible, I choose to drink tap water in restaurants as I do not find a significant difference in taste between tap and mineral water - at least, not enough to make me pay for mineral water.
Yes, cost plays a role in my decision. However, I should not be made to feel inferior by snobbish restaurateurs looking to increase their revenues.
Another reason I prefer tap water is that I cannot justify the carbon footprint for that one bottle of mineral water. Once you take into account the manufacturing of the bottle, the bottling process, packaging and transportation, drinking mineral water is not an environmentally friendly option.
While I would not boycott a restaurant that does not serve free water (assuming it offers good food quality, ambience and service), I would boycott a restaurant that adopts a condescending and arrogant attitude.
I hope that they will reconsider their approach, not just on the issue of free water, but on their entire service policy.
Chan Yiu Lin (Ms)
It's about service and good dining
Straits Times 19 Jul 09;
Here is an account of my experience of being served drinking water in restaurants.
A month ago, when I dined at Crystal Jade Kitchen (Plaza Singapura), I was not served any water until I asked, and I was later charged for it.
A few days later, I visited the Crystal Jade Kitchen (Holland Village) branch. This time, I did not ask for water. However, the waitress, seeing that I was perspiring, served me water of her own accord and refilled my cup many times. I did not ask whether I had to pay for it because I was so impressed with her service, I would not have minded paying.
Later, upon receiving the bill, I realised that she did not charge me for the water.
To me, receiving free water is secondary to a good dining experience. Restaurant owners should not belittle or insult customers who might want to save money by not paying for bottled water, but who still want to eat at their restaurants. All customers should be treated with respect.
Chua Shuyi (Ms)
More home buyers now recognise the benefits of an eco-friendly home and are willing to pay a premium
Jessica Cheam, Straits Times 12 Jul 09;
When the Government launched Singapore's first green building rating system - the Green Mark - five years ago, sustainability and climate change were unfamiliar terms to the public.
Today, on the back of growing awareness of environmental issues, property developers are recognising the rising demand for eco-friendly spaces and are constructing 'greener' buildings.
The Green Mark scheme took some time to get off the ground, with only 17 buildings securing the stamp of approval in the first year it was established.
But now, the number of green offices, factories and homes has hit 300 and counting - and the authorities are aiming higher.
The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development has set ambitious targets such as the greening of 80 per cent of all buildings in Singapore by 2030.
Although green home is a term that trips easily off the tongue, what gives a home its green credentials?
The Building and Construction Authority's (BCA's) website www.greenmark.sg offers this definition:
The term green home refers to a home that is built-in with technologies and sustainable practices that improve the energy efficiency, water efficiency and indoor environment quality.
BCA says that the building process is another important consideration: A green construction practice would consider resource management, durability and general environmental appropriateness of a structure.
A green home is typically designed with better ventilation systems, built with low-toxic materials and recycled components and designed to have a long and efficient life-cycle.
International surveys have found that home buyers are willing to pay a premium for green homes - firstly, because they save money on lower energy bills, and secondly, because of the intangible benefits such as a healthier, cleaner environment and higher indoor air quality.
So how does one go about getting a green home?
An easy way to go about it would be to buy into homes that have been certified Green Mark.
Property developers such as City Developments and CapitaLand have built some residential projects that have achieved such a rating.
These projects typically use some form of renewable energy such as solar power, have energy-efficient fittings and utilise innovative solutions such as recycling rainwater.
New HDB flats are also now mandated to achieve the basic Green Mark rating, and some projects such as TreeLodge@ Punggol have higher environmental standards and performance.
But even if your current home is not Green Mark certified, there are many things you can do to raise your green quotient.
Tips on the BCA's website include:
# Home orientation. Having a well-positioned home improves comfort and also reduces energy bills. Avoid homes with a full height glazing facing west. Heat gained from solar radiation by east/west facades is much higher than that gained from north/south facades.
# Natural ventilation. Having good natural ventilation is the least expensive way to cool a home. The layout of one's home should be designed to take advantage of Singapore's prevailing north-south wind conditions, achieving adequate cross-ventilation within the home.
# Sun-shading. Having proper sun-shading improves comfort. Sun-shading should be provided for facades facing east and west to shield the home from direct sunlight, minimising solar heat gain. Balconies, planters and bay windows may act as sun-shades.
# Energy. Having electrical appliances, such as air-conditioners and refrigerators, bearing the 'Energy Label' can help to save electricity. For example, you can expect $960 in annual savings if your air-conditioner has four ticks instead of a conventional one.
Choose energy-saving lamps that convert energy into usable light and emit less heat.
# Water-efficient fittings. Having water fittings, such as flushing cisterns, showers and taps, bearing the 'Water Efficiency Label' can help to cut costs and save water.
# Maximise daylight. Having ceilings and walls with highly reflective white surfaces helps to diffuse daylight into the space within the home.
Authoritative new study sets out a grim vision of shortages and violence – but amid all the gloom, there is some hope too
Jonathan Owen, The Indepdendent 12 Jul 09;
An effort on the scale of the Apollo mission that sent men to the Moon is needed if humanity is to have a fighting chance of surviving the ravages of climate change. The stakes are high, as, without sustainable growth, "billions of people will be condemned to poverty and much of civilisation will collapse".
This is the stark warning from the biggest single report to look at the future of the planet – obtained by The Independent on Sunday ahead of its official publication next month. Backed by a diverse range of leading organisations such as Unesco, the World Bank, the US army and the Rockefeller Foundation, the 2009 State of the Future report runs to 6,700 pages and draws on contributions from 2,700 experts around the globe. Its findings are described by Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the UN, as providing "invaluable insights into the future for the United Nations, its member states, and civil society".
The impact of the global recession is a key theme, with researchers warning that global clean energy, food availability, poverty and the growth of democracy around the world are at "risk of getting worse due to the recession". The report adds: "Too many greedy and deceitful decisions led to a world recession and demonstrated the international interdependence of economics and ethics."
Although the future has been looking better for most of the world over the past 20 years, the global recession has lowered the State of the Future Index for the next 10 years. Half the world could face violence and unrest due to severe unemployment combined with scarce water, food and energy supplies and the cumulative effects of climate change.
And the authors of the report, produced by the Millennium Project – a think-tank formerly part of the World Federation of the United Nations Associations – set out a number of emerging environmental security issues. "The scope and scale of the future effects of climate change – ranging from changes in weather patterns to loss of livelihoods and disappearing states – has unprecedented implications for political and social stability."
But the authors suggest the threats could also provide the potential for a positive future for all. "The good news is that the global financial crisis and climate change planning may be helping humanity to move from its often selfish, self-centred adolescence to a more globally responsible adulthood... Many perceive the current economic disaster as an opportunity to invest in the next generation of greener technologies, to rethink economic and development assumptions, and to put the world on course for a better future."
Scientific and technological progress continues to accelerate. IBM promises a computer at 20,000 trillion calculations per second by 2011, which is estimated to be the speed of the human brain. And nanomedicine may one day rebuild damaged cells atom by atom, using nanobots the size of blood cells. But technological progress carries its own risks. "Globalisation and advanced technology allow fewer people to do more damage and in less time, so that possibly one day a single individual may be able to make and deploy a weapon of mass destruction."
The report also praises the web, which it singles out as "the most powerful force for globalisation, democratisation, economic growth, and education in history". Technological advances are cited as "giving birth to an interdependent humanity that can create and implement global strategies to improve the prospects for humanity".
The immediate problems are rising food and energy prices, shortages of water and increasing migrations "due to political, environmental and economic conditions", which could plunge half the world into social instability and violence. And organised crime is flourishing, with a global income estimated at $3 trillion – twice the military budgets of all countries in the world combined.
The effects of climate change are worsening – by 2025 there could be three billion people without adequate water as the population rises still further. And massive urbanisation, increased encroachment on animal territory, and concentrated livestock production could trigger new pandemics.
Although government and business leaders are responding more seriously to the global environmental situation, it continues to get worse, according to the report. It calls on governments to work to 10-year plans to tackle growing threats to human survival, targeting particularly the US and China, which need to apply the sort of effort and resources that put men on the Moon.
"This is not only important for the environment; it is also a strategy to increase the likelihood of international peace. Without some agreement, it will be difficult to get the kind of global coherence needed to address climate change seriously."
While the world has the resources to address its challenges, coherence and direction have been lacking. Recent meetings of the US and China, as well as of Nato and Russia, and the birth of the G20 plus the continued work of the G8 promise to improve global strategic collaboration, but "it remains to be seen if this spirit of co-operation can continue and if decisions will be made on the scale necessary to really address the global challenges discussed in this report".
Although the scale of the effects of climate change are unprecedented, the causes are generally known, and the consequences can largely be forecast. The report says, "coordination for effective and adequate action is yet incipient, and environmental problems worsen faster than response or preventive policies are being adopted".
Jerome Glenn, director of the Millennium Project and one of the report's authors, said: "There are answers to our global challenges, but decisions are still not being made on the scale necessary to address them. Three great transitions would help both the world economy and its natural environment – to shift as much as possible from freshwater agriculture to saltwater agriculture; produce healthier meat without the need to grow animals; and replace gasoline cars with electric cars."
It's decision day on a chain of solar generators across the desert that could supply a quarter of Europe's power
Tony Paterson, The Independent 12 Jul 09;
The world's most ambitious green energy project is about to take shape. It is a plan for a chain of mammoth sun-powered energy plants in the deserts of North Africa to supply power to Europe's homes and factories by the end of the next decade.
In a few days' time a consortium of 20 German firms will meet in Munich to hammer out plans for funding the giant €400bn (£343bn) project, named Desertec. The scheme is being backed by Chancellor Angela Merkel's government and several German industry household names including Siemens, Deutsche Bank, and the energy companies RWE and E.ON. The Munich meeting will also involve Italian and Spanish energy concerns, as well as representatives from the Arab League and the Club of Rome think-tank.
Energy experts have calculated that Desertec could meet at least 15 per cent of Europe's needs, and be up and running by 2019. By 2050, they estimate the contribution could be between 20 and 25 per cent. Although no host countries have been named, Desertec envisages a string of solar-thermal plants across North Africa's desert. The plants would use mirrors to focus the sun's rays, which would be used to heat water to power steam turbines. The process is cheaper and more efficient than the usual form of solar power, which uses photovoltaic cells to convert the sun's rays into electricity.
The project also envisages setting up a new super grid of high-voltage transmission lines from the Mahgreb desert to Europe. Hans Müller-Steinhagen, of German Aerospace, has researched the project for the German government. He said that although the idea behind the scheme had been around for several years, investors had been deterred by the high costs of setting up the infrastructure.
Professor Müller-Steinhagen said that similar projects have been operating in the American West for years, but these had failed to gain the appropriate recognition. "Solar thermal power plants were built in California and Nevada, but people lost interest in them because fossil fuels became unbeatably cheap," he said.
Until now, projects of Desertec's scale have failed to get off the ground because of the huge problems involved in delivering electricity to consumers hundreds of miles away. The main stumbling block is that the further electricity is transported, the more is lost. However, Siemens claims that it has come up with a solution. Alfons Benziger, a spokesman for the engineering giant which has been involved in the construction of major hydro-power plants in India and China, said: "We have developed so-called high-voltage direct current energy transmission. This can transport energy over long distances without heavy losses. We use the process at the power plants in India and China."
Andree Böhling, an energy expert for Greenpeace Germany, has heaped praise on Desertec: "The initiative is one of the most intelligent answers to the world's environmental and industrial problems," he said. Munich Re, meanwhile, which insures major insurance companies across the globe, was persuaded to invest in the project after seeing a steady rise in the number of claims the company had to meet as a result of climate-change-induced damage.
Yet Germany's largest solar energy company, SolarWorld, argues that North Africa is too risky a location. "Building solar power plants in politically unstable countries opens you to the same kind of dependency as the situation with oil," said Frank Asbeck, the firm's managing director.
Other critics claim that by singling out comparatively poor North African countries as a location for a sophisticated European solar energy project amounts to a form of "solar imperialism". Lars Josefsson, the head of the Swedish energy giant Vattenfall, has also rejected the idea because of a potential risk of terrorist attacks. However Desertec supporters, including the German conservative politician Friedbert Pflüger, argue that a far greater threat is posed by the prospect of nuclear power plants being subjected to such attacks. He points out that a number of nuclear reactors are scheduled to be built in North Africa – Egypt alone plans to build five. Mr Pflüger claims that the risk of politically motivated Russian-style energy stoppages by host countries could be avoided if the solar grid has enough supply channels.
But he warns that politics is likely to be the main stumbling block. "It's not Europe that will decide whether the desert can be used as an energy resource, but the countries of North Africa," he said last week. "So far these countries have either not been involved in the dialogue at all or only at a very limited level."
400-billion-euro plan to pump African solar power to Europe
Laure Fillon Yahoo News 13 Jul 09;
MUNICH, Germany (AFP) – Twelve European companies launched a 400-billion-euro (560-billion-dollar) initiative Monday to plant huge solar farms in Africa and the Middle East to produce energy for Europe.
The consortium says the massive proposal could provide up to 15 percent of Europe's electricity needs by 2050.
Engineering giants ABB and Siemens, energy groups E.ON and RWE and financial institutions Deutsche Bank and Munich Re are among the companies which signed a protocol in Munich.
"Today we have taken a step forward" towards the project's realisation, said Nikolaus von Bomhard, head of the reinsurance giant Munich Re, which hosted the signing.
The Desertec Industrial Initiative (DII) would build solar-power generators from Morocco to Saudi Arabia and pump electricity to Europe via undesea cables.
It would also provide a "substantial portion of the power needs of the producer countries," the Desertec foundation said in a statement, and transform sea water into drinking and irrigation water for local populations.
Munich Re board member Torsten Jeworrek said the European companies involved had pledged to work "as equals in a sincere and fair" manner with producer countries.
For Jordan's Prince Hassan ibn Talal: "The partnerships that will be formed across the regions as a result of the Desertec project will open a new chapter in relations between the people of the European Union, West Asia and North Africa."
Many details still have to be worked out however, including where to install the plants, when the power would come on and how much it would cost, potential profits, political stability in some areas and of course, financing.
Renewable energy analyst Sebastaian Zank at West LB bank, which is not involved in the project, said it might succeed but only "in the very, very long term.
"As long as there are no transmission networks between these two continents this is more or less a nice future fantasy," Zank told AFP.
Under the protocol, a Desertec study office to be established by October will have three years to elaborate plans to create the network of solar farms and transmission networks and find the funds.
Representatives of the Arab League and the Egyptian energy ministry also attended the protocol's signing.
Other companies invoved are the Spanish firm ABENGOA Solar and the Algerian conglomerate Cevital along with several German banks and engineering companies.
The Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper said in June that electricity could begin flowing to Europe within 10 years.
West LB analyst Zank said some plants were already being developed in North Africa and "one can say that solar thermal energy will already be produced next year, but not with the intention of exporting this electricity to Europe."
Undersea networks could be built quickly, he added, but "at the moment the costs are so high it is not economically viable."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso have hailed the initiative however, though others have voiced criticism.
German Social Democratic deputy Hermann Scheer told AFP it was not necessary to go to North Africa to collect the sun's rays, and added: "We could invest the 400 billion euros here" in the recession-hit eurozone.
He also preferred a network of decentralised operators that produced renewable energy from many sources rather than having one key project in the hands of major corporations.
Others doubt producer countries would fully benefit from a plan designed with Europe in mind, leading the business daily Handelsblatt to warn of potential "eco-colonialism."
BBC News 11 Jul 09;
Households that contribute electricity to the National Grid are to receive payments under a new government scheme.
Towns and villages will be encouraged to generate their own power with wind, water and solar energies, and then be paid for how much they produce.
Called clean energy cash-back, schemes already operate in 19 European countries including Germany.
But critics warn that small-scale production is expensive and projects may require government subsidy.
'Feed-in tariffs'
At present, anyone in the UK who feeds electricity into the National Grid can get a reduction on their fuel bills through smart meters.
But ministers hope that the promise of cash in people's pockets will encourage them to seek new ways of generating their own power.
In Germany, whole towns have grouped together to buy wind turbines, build biomass plants and erect solar panels on all private houses.
They are then paid a guaranteed fixed price for every kilowatt of energy they produce - a higher sum than for electricity made from fossil fuels in traditional power stations.
Three wind turbines can make £15,000 a year for a single village.
Since so-called "feed-in tariffs" were introduced in Germany, some 400,000 homes, particularly in the sunnier south of the country, have installed solar panels.
But the government has had to subsidise such projects in order to keep them viable.
At present, only about 2% of Britain's energy comes from renewable sources, but the government has pledged to increase that to 15% within the next 12 years.
Plan to simplify selling energy back to National Grid
Householders who generate their own energy will find it easier to sell excess supplies back to the National Grid under government "green" plans to be announced on Wednesday.
Patrick Hennessy, The Telegraph 11 Jul 09;
Details were revealed amid claims that ministers' low-carbon strategy will put around £230 a year on the typical family's energy bill.
The government's "renewable energy strategy", to be announced on Wednesday by Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, will propose spending more than £100 billion on renewable sources by 2020 – including 7,000 wind turbines.
It is already legally bound to cut CO2 emissions by 34 per cent by 2020 and by 80 per cent by 2050. To achieve this it must increase the proportion generated from renewable sources from the current level of 2 per cent to 15 per cent in 2020.
The strategy is said to estimate that bills will have to rise by 20 per cent – which would put £230 a year on the current average household levy of £1,150 a year for electricity and gas.
However, ministers will also attempt to encourage people to manufacture their own energy through generators by simplifying the current cumbersome process of households selling excess electricity back to the grid.
At the moment, householders need to buy an export meter for around £75 and then register to sell supplies to the grid.
They must then negotiate a rate with their electricity supplier – almost always for much less money per unit than the supplier charges households.
A government source said: "At the moment the system is far too bureaucratic and can put the householder at a disadvantage. We aim to change that."
Posts
visitors since Nov 07