Clear The Air Energy Blog Rotating Header Image

Hong Kong

Urban Jungle – This Week: Recycling

Oct 31st, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

Dr Eric Lai – SCMP | Updated on Oct 31, 2008

Paper exporters are reported to be cutting their intake of recycled paper and drastically reducing the price they pay to collectors. This has spelled trouble for those in the various tiers of the paper recycling sector. From the scavengers to the companies that collect from the scavengers and elsewhere, to the large factories that reprocess the paper, all have been affected by the downturn in the world economy.

Things are also not rosy in plastics recycling, with a fall in demand leading to a drop in the price paid for recovered plastic. And companies that collect unwanted electronic items for reuse and recycling have been closing down due to plummeting prices for metals such as steel and copper. The bleak economic outlook has forced many companies to suspend their recycling operations. Without government subsides many of these recycling companies simply cannot afford to stay in business.

The General Association of Recycling Business plans to stage a slow-drive protest on Monday specifically targeted at the paper-recycling exporters. It is inevitable that in the short- to medium-term, as the world struggles with the financial crisis, many businesses will be badly affected. Exporters of paper probably have no choice but to cut prices, but I think the government should learn from this fiasco and should have an established vision for the growth of green industries such as recycling. These industries only have a small share of the market and therefore are first to be affected by free-market forces.

Some 90 per cent of paper pulp comes from virgin wood sources, with only 16 per cent of this from trees specifically grown for paper production. It is estimated that if the world recycled 50 per cent of its waste paper, we would save an area of forest the size of Greece each year.

Supporters of paper recycling say using one tonne of recycled paper rather than new paper would save up to 4,000 kWh of electricity, which is roughly what an average Hong Kong household would use in a year. Opponents of the industry highlight that, energywise, recycling paper is far from perfect – that the process of recycling paper uses more energy than processing virgin-wood pulp. Most wood-processing plants are located far from urban areas and many use hydroelectric generating plants, saving on long-term costs, whereas recycled-paper plants are usually near urban areas and use the local energy grid, which most likely burn fossil fuels.

The area where recycling paper evens the ecological score is municipal landfills. About 35 per cent of the space in municipal dumps is occupied by waste-paper products. Recycling one tonne of paper saves about three cubic metres of landfill. And much of this waste paper is incinerated to save space and minimise the production, by the natural decomposition process, of methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. So not only does recycling paper save on scarce land but it saves on greenhouse gases. Overall, paper recycling decreases air pollution by 75 per cent and water pollution by 35 per cent compared with paper made from virgin pulp, a big win for the environment.

It is interesting to note that at a recent conference of the Waste & Resources Action Programme, an organisation in Britain aimed at recycling and reducing waste, it was said: “It is going to be the lower-quality end of the spectrum that will be squeezed out in an economic downturn, and the commercial drivers may prove stronger than the legislative ones.”

Highlighting the volatility of the recycling industry, it has been shown that prices for recovered recyclable material are determined by the prices of the virgin material. Companies attempt to buy recovered material to replace virgin material when virgin prices are high. In the case of plastics, it is crude-oil prices which determine how much companies buy.

Recovery of materials being ultimately tied to the cost of raw materials is not how a truly efficient market should operate.

The outlook for the recycling industry is determined by four factors: raw material prices; the global economic impact on demand; the Chinese economy and the growth of its various industries that use recycled products; and regulation. I don’t have much hope that a free-market economy will be driven by anything as sound as ecological considerations: it’s all about profit. The recycling industry is so small and fragile but so important that I think the government needs to continue to spend resources in the area to stimulate its growth. The free market lacks long-term vision for the environment and it is during such times that the government, with a far-sighted vision, can use its authority to rein in the free market when it is self-destructive.

Celebrity vet Eric Lai shares his views on society through the eyes of animals. Give him your feedback at urbanjungle@scmp.com

Brand-name Shops Accused Of Light Pollution

Oct 31st, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

SCMP | Updated on Oct 31, 2008

A green group has accused five brand-name shops of excessive use of lighting on their outlets’ exterior walls and in advertising that has caused electric-light pollution in Central. The five shops are Louis Vuitton in The Landmark, H&M in Queen’s Road Central, the flagship shop of Coach in Central, Miu Miu in The Landmark and Dunhill in the Prince’s Building. The group Friends of the Earth patrolled Central at midnight on Wednesday and found the outlets all “glowing”, the group’s environmental affairs manager Hahn Chu Hon-keung said. “We do not object to reasonable commercial lighting but we are against wasteful lighting and light nuisances,” he said. “We oppose the shops’ overemphasis on profit-making at the expense of the environment.”

Should There Be Laws To Control Light Pollution?

Oct 31st, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

SCMP | Updated on Oct 31, 2008

It seems that people are becoming more aware of the effects of climate change.

We appreciate the threat posed by greenhouse gas emissions.

Yet although people have this awareness, many do little in the form of practical action to curb the effects of global warming.

We must address environmental issues, because the problems we create are damaging Hong Kong’s reputation.

For example, regulations must be introduced to control the problems caused by light pollution. You see brightly lit advertising signboards. They remain switched on throughout the night, which is unnecessary.

We must have laws that ban this waste of energy.

Mandy Chan Man-hang, Lai Chi Kok

Companies Look For Short Payback Period When Investing In Green Projects

Oct 27th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

Eric Ng – SCMP | Updated on Oct 27, 2008

Energy conservation and pollution reduction are industries that have been around for decades, but their fastest growth could well lie ahead given the mainland’s status as the world’s factory and rising pressure for it to get its act together on sustainable development.

Manufacturers can either install the necessary equipment on their own or outsource the job to so-called energy services companies (Escos). Escos typically examine a firm’s energy consumption efficiency and provide solutions to achieve desired targets. They usually share the financial reward from the energy-saving effort with their customers at a pre-agreed formula over multiple years.

Eric Jiang Haibo, South China sales manager of US-based industry major Honeywell, says the company generally does not require its clients to modify their production processes, and its solutions can achieve 15 per cent to 30 per cent of energy savings. “On the mainland, clients tend to be interested if an energy-saving project can pay itself back in two to four years,” he said. “Those with payback periods of more than five years tend to have a hard time moving factory owners into action.”

Honeywell entered the mainland market in 2005. Mr Jiang said its first project was for a brewery in Shenzhen, which contracted Honeywell to save 5.4 million yuan (HK$6.13 million) a year, or 17 per cent of its energy bill.

He said a major obstacle in pushing energy conservation was management’s preoccupation with production or other issues. “I had a customer who kept delaying signing a contract with us as his firm underwent production adjustments, although he knew the payback period was less than two years.”

Focus Energy, a Hong Kong start-up established in 2006, is also pitching projects to help firms save money by revamping their air-conditioning, boiler and water systems.

Managing director Simon Cheung said a new policy in Guangdong requiring all factories to cut sewage discharge by at least half from between 2006 and 2010 and Beijing’s recent rule requiring all cement plants to install waste-heat recovery systems had proved to be a boon.

He said a chrome-plating plant consuming 700 cubic metres of water a day could save some 29 million yuan over 10 years by investing 7 million yuan in a three-year period.

A typical cement plant with daily output of 2,500 tonnes could achieve breakeven in 2.4 years after investing 60 million yuan in equipment that would allow it to capture heat from the production process to generate 25 million yuan worth of electricity, he said.

Green Group To Call For Prada Boycott Over Bright Signboards

Oct 20th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

From Monsters and Critics.com By DPA – Oct 20, 2008

Hong Kong – A green group will call for a consumer boycott against Prada if the luxury fashion chain fails to dim its illuminated sign boards, a media report said Monday.

Friends of the Earth said the sign board at Prada’s flagship store in the central business district was needlessly illuminated from dusk until dawn, the South China Morning Post reported.

The group’s activists in other cities found that Prada’s Beijing store was lit up until at least 4am, while stores in Singapore and Taipei showed more restraint but the signs were still illuminated until 2:30 am.

Hahn Chu, Friends of the Earth’s environmental affairs manager, said Prada showed ‘no taste at all in this unrestrained quest for brightness. The consequences are a waste of energy and an unnecessary emission of greenhouse gases. If Prada does not stop the light pollution, we will appeal to consumers to boycott it.’

Chu added that a letter has been sent to Prada asking the company to turn off the signs at a reasonable time.

He said: ‘We have also written to two Beijing-based green groups to ask them to follow up the issue there.’

A Prada spokeswoman said the company was considering its options for the Hong Kong shop. ‘The exterior lighting is part of our architecture design and we are reviewing options to reduce the lights,’ she said.

The Challenge Of Ensuring Hong Kong’s Energy Supply

Oct 10th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

Andrew Brandler, Oct 10, 2008 – SCMP

Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen’s recent energy deal with Beijing, securing gas and nuclear power supplies for Hong Kong for the next 20 years, is a landmark in the development of the city’s energy policy.

We at CLP Power had been consistently advised for many years that Hong Kong would need to look after its own energy needs as Beijing wrestled with the very real challenge of securing reliable power for the fast-growing mainland cities and provinces. So this deal represents a new, critical development in Hong Kong’s energy policy. This was immediately followed by the Hong Kong government’s statement that the liquefied natural gas terminal project that CLP Power had proposed would not be approved.

CLP Power welcomes Beijing’s support for long-term energy supply. The task ahead is to turn good news into good results and complete the deal on behalf of the Hong Kong people – to secure sufficient gas at the best possible price, and in time for us to replace our declining supplies from the Yacheng gas field in the South China Sea.

It is a measure of Beijing’s good faith in this deal that we have immediately been able to begin detailed discussions with counterparts at the National Development and Reform Commission. But even with this fast start, we are going to face an acute time challenge to make adequate quantities of gas available by 2013.

Hong Kong needs new gas supplies in place then if our Black Point Power Station is to continue providing a significant portion of our power supply, reduce our reliance on coal and enable us to meet lower environmental emissions targets.

As the Yacheng supplies deplete, the deal opens the way to draw gas from three sources: from new gas fields planned to be developed in the South China Sea; from the second east-west gas pipeline bringing gas from Turkmenistan; and, from an LNG terminal to be located on the mainland.

None of these three sources is in place today. However, let us be very clear: Hong Kong’s needs are so substantial that we will need not one or two of these sources to be brought on stream, but all three.

Black Point will be using about 3.4 billion cubic metres of natural gas a year by 2013. In the following decade, as demand for electricity steadily rises and as Hong Kong progressively tightens caps on emissions from local sources, consumption will potentially rise to as high as 6 billion cubic metres by around 2023.

To meet this need, we have been advised that 2 billion cubic metres was planned to come from several new, but smaller, gas fields in the South China Sea to replace Yacheng. If the second west-east gas pipeline can be extended to Hong Kong, we would be able to draw 1 billion cubic metres from this source. With the planned volumes of gas from these two sources, a significant amount of gas will almost certainly need to be sourced from the new LNG terminal in the Pearl River Delta.

Our government’s decision to reject our proposal to build an LNG terminal on South Soko Island means we lose a four-year head start, and face a challenging timetable, as an appropriate mainland site needs to be found and approved, which will involve a rigorous Environmental Impact Assessment.

If we are to meet our targets to ensure power supply reliability over the coming decade, I can’t overemphasise the critical importance of government support and, where necessary, leadership, all the way to completion.

The Memorandum of Understanding is a starting point for meaningful cross-border collaboration in the power sector.

Its implementation and a successful outcome for Hong Kong will depend on the effective collaboration by mainland enterprises with CLP Power, encouraged, enabled and stewarded by our government and the mainland authorities. CLP Power will play its full part.

Andrew Brandler is CEO of CLP Holdings (SEHK: 0002) Limited

Government Gave Power Plant Right To Pollute More

Oct 8th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

SCMP – Friday October 8 2004

China Light and Power omits certain details in the letter from Daisy Chan (‘CLP has made significant cuts in emissions’, October 6).

Compare the CLP-ExxonMobil coal power plant at Castle Peak to Hong Kong Electric’s most recent Lamma Island coal plant (built in 1997). You will see that CLP has been given the right by Secretary for Labour and Economic Development Stephen Ip Shu-kwan to generate twice the amount of one pollutant (particulates), three times another (nitrogen oxides) and 10 times a third (sulphur dioxide) as the Hong Kong Electric plant.

Moreover, the actual emissions from the Castle Peak plant are kept secret by the government at the request of CLP. At any time since 1997, CLP could have spent a fraction of its profits to clean up this plant, but it has instead waited for seven years – and now it has sent a letter to Mr Ip asking that it be allowed to earn 15 per cent profit on its investment to clean up the sulphur dioxide. This is unconscionable. The Star Ferry only asks seven per cent profit for its shareholders.

And the real question is why Mr Ip has allowed CLP to force us to suffer for seven years when the technology has existed for more than 10 years to reduce the sulphur dioxide by more than 90 per cent.

The public is not allowed to see or have an opinion on CLP’s letter. We believe that we are entitled to know what profits Mr Ip thinks are acceptable to CLP and that he will be hard-pressed to justify more than a seven per cent return for the shareholders of CLP-ExxonMobil, the single biggest polluter in Hong Kong.

CHRISTIAN MASSET, Clear The Air

Clear the Air – Meeting With John Tsang Chun-Wah

Sep 22nd, 2008
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

Consultation on the 2008/09 Policy Address to be delivered by Donald Tsang, Chief Executive.

  • Energy :

The recent agreement signed between the HK Govt and the mainland for the supply of gas to the SAR is a welcome step towards cleaning up electricity generation within Hong Kong. (Power generation by gas is 60% efficient and by coal only 38% since gas burns at approx 500degrees hotter than coal).

However Turkmenistan gas won’t be flowing into Hong Kong CLP power station before 2013 at least. Hong Kong Electric (HKE) already has its own LNG gas supply from Da Peng 93 kms pipeline but only has 335 Mwh capacity of gas generation.

China Light & Power (CLP) generated 23% of its output in 2007 by burning 2.5 billion m3of gas. HKE generated 17% of its output in 2007 by gas.

Until such time as Hong Kong gets a guaranteed stable source of gas supply, CLP and HKE will have to burn more coal to match current production rates. In addition CLP needs to increase its sales to Southern China to help offset the burning of high polluting sulphur fuel by factories currently using their own generators due to a lack of grid supply.

We are aware steps are just now being taken by the two power companies to meet the 2010 targets and reduce emissions due to coal burning through the installation of FGD equipment and NOx burners – however recent research conducted by Clear The Air with what has been already implemented in the US revealed that NOx burners definitely increase the amount PM 2.5 released into the atmosphere since the Electrostatic precipitators in the stacks cannot catch the PM2.5.

It is precisely these PM 2.5 particles that contribute to our bad air quality, reduce the visibility and increase the burden of our healthcare to combat asthma and all kinds of respiratory diseases affecting all including the children. At the scale of the US, and based on published scientific studies alone, the American EPA estimates that the most likely benefits of meeting the revised 24-hour PM 2.5 standards will range from US$17 billion to US$35 billion.

How can we now immediately and drastically reduce PM 2.5 levels and clean our filthy air ?
It is by the use of agglomerators – the technology exists it is proven largely in Australia , USA and Poland; CLP would have to install 2 agglomerators per boilers that means 16 in total (15 more to install).

Today, only one is installed. At an average cost of HKD 10M for purchase and installation this means a total bill of HKD 150M, (or 10 days of CLP’s current summer cost for its supply of coal).

Let’s keep in mind that the PM 2.5 are the ultra fine particles that refract the light and cause our “haze” and stay in the lungs for the long term – they are the most harmful ones – the NOx burners cause the soot particles to superheat, crack and break into superfine particles and escape –

What agglomerators do, they charge them with an electrostatic device which causes them to cling to larger soot particles which the precipitators then catch. The agglomerator technology can collect more than 75 % of those superfine particles currently emitted from the stacks of CLP and HKE, They are easily retrofitted to meet with the 2010 emissions caps proposed by the HK Government.

Mr Tsang, the agglomerators are THE answer to the air pollution we will be facing until LNG comes significantly into play.

Meanwhile Hong Kong needs to mandate to use of low sulphur bunker fuel in maritime use here and to consider mandating aircraft run their engines for 2 minutes at half throttle prior to take off to remove the unburnt JetA fuel blasted in the Tung Chung air.

Imports Of Nuclear Power Opposed By Green Groups

Sep 15th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

Cheung Chi-fai, SCMP – Sep 15, 2008

Environmental activists have opposed further imports of nuclear-generated electricity from across the border under a new energy agreement with the mainland, though a power supplier has hinted it might expand imports.

The activists maintain that nuclear energy is an unsustainable and unsafe option for meeting rising energy demand, though it is increasingly being revisited as an alternative to ease global warming without compromising energy security.

The remarks came after Hong Kong and the central government sealed a deal last month to extend natural gas supplies to the city and ensure a continuous import of nuclear power – at a level no less than the current flow – from the Daya Bay nuclear station.

Hong Kong has been consuming nuclear power since 1994 under a purchase agreement between CLP Power (SEHK: 0002) and Guangdong Nuclear Power Joint Venture Company, in which CLP had a 25 per cent stake through Hong Kong Nuclear Power Investment.

The agreement allows CLP to import up to 70 per cent of Daya Bay’s output.

In each of the past five years, CLP has imported between 4,700 and 5,100 gigawatt-hours at a price of about 50 cents per kilowatt.

Nuclear power and natural gas each account for about 20 per cent of Hong Kong’s total electricity supply, and 60 per cent comes from coal.

While Hong Kong imports nuclear power from Guangdong, CLP exports electricity to the province. In last year’s annual report, CLP said it wanted both to extend and expand the nuclear-import arrangement.

Edward Chan Yue-fai, a Greenpeace campaign manager, said Hong Kong would be taking the wrong approach towards clean energy by importing more nuclear power.

“We have strong reservations about expanding imports, as nuclear energy is neither safe nor sustainable,” Mr Chan said, citing nuclear plant incidents in Japan that jeopardised the safety of plant staff and nearby residents.

“It is too bad that the energy deal with the mainland did not include any renewable energy imports, like wind power. It is renewable energy we should expand, not nuclear.”

Hahn Chu Hon-keung, environmental affairs manager of Friends of the Earth, said the group was inclined not to support further imports, citing concerns about the disposal of nuclear waste and further efforts to conserve energy.

“We can’t just resolve one problem by creating another,” he said. “Instead of expanding our energy supply, we should consider managing our energy demand through conservation and efficiency.”

Besides, Mr Chu said, further imports might also be undesirable since the mainland still had a shortage of power.

A CLP spokeswoman said it was too early to tell if the company was going to increase imports of nuclear power. “We will further discuss arrangements on generation with the government and continue to explore opportunities to participate in nuclear energy in China.”

The company noted that the Daya Bay station operated in line with international safety standards, with no major incidents reported since commercial operations began in 1994.

CLP Eyes Mainland For LNG Terminal

Sep 12th, 2008
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

The Financial Times By Tom Mitchell in Hong Kong – September 12 2008 02:51

China Light and Power, Hong Kong’s largest energy company, has signalled its willingness to invest in a new liquid natural gas-receiving terminal on the Chinese mainland, possibly with ExxonMobil.

CLP and ExxonMobil, which jointly operate three power plants in the self-governing territory, had planned to build a $1bn terminal on an ecologically sensitive island, angering local environmentalists.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
 CLP upbeat on UK deal in spite of Beijing move – Sep-01
Lex: Oil and the city – Jun-22
China Biodiesel plant to start production – Jun-05

Last month, however, the Chinese and Hong Kong governments signed a memorandum of understanding allowing state-owned energy companies to sell gas to CLP from offshore oil fields and via an overland pipeline.

The MoU also called for the construction of an LNG receiving terminal in Guangdong province, averting the need for CLP’s planned receiving terminal in Hong Kong.

“Having a role in that [Guangdong] LNG terminal would be very important for us,” said Richard Lancaster, CLP commercial director, on Thursday, adding that the company had axed plans for a Hong Kong terminal.

The Guangdong project would be led by a Chinese state oil company and possibly also involve ExxonMobil. The US oil major confirmed that it would participate in a feasibility study for the proposed Guangdong terminal.

Both CLP and ExxonMobil have substantial investments in China but participation in the LNG terminal would be their first such venture on the mainland.

Mr Lancaster also reiterated CLP’s intention to finalise a provisional LNG supply agreement reached earlier this year with BG Group of the UK, which would be delivered to the terminal in Guangdong. In June, BG Group agreed to supply CLP and ExxonMobil with 1.3bn cubic metres of gas a year from 2013 to 2033.

CLP estimates that its gas requirement will reach 3.4bn cu m per year by 2013 and 6bn cu m by 2023.

According to Mr Lancaster, China National Offshore Oil Corp has indicated that it could supply another 2bn cu m per annum from gas fields in the South China Sea.

Under the terms of last month’s Sino-Hong Kong energy MoU, PetroChina will also examine the feasibility of supplying Hong Kong from its second west-east pipeline, which transports gas overland from fields in China’s northwest and central Asia.

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →