Clear The Air Energy Blog Rotating Header Image

Organizations

Green Group Takes Dim View Of Prada’s Bright Signboards

Cheung Chi-fai – SCMP | Updated on Oct 20, 2008

Consumers will be urged to boycott upmarket fashion chain Prada if it refuses to dim its illuminated signboard in Central, a green group has warned.

The warning came as Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen last week said the government would study the need for legislation to control light pollution.

Friends of the Earth said the board at Prada’s flagship store at Alexandra House was unnecessarily lit from dusk until dawn.

While many of its neighbours kept their signboard lights on until early morning, Prada’s exterior lighting was the most extravagant, a survey by the group found.

Assisted by overseas activists, the group also found Prada’s Beijing store was lit up until at least 4am, while its counterparts in Singapore and Taipei showed more restraint by switching their much less extravagant lighting off no later than 2.30am.

A letter has been sent to Prada in Hong Kong asking it to rectify the situation, said Hahn Chu Hon-keung, Friends of the Earth’s environmental affairs manager.

“The brand shops show no taste at all in this unrestrained quest for brightness. The consequences are a waste of energy and an unnecessary emission of greenhouse gases,” he said. “If Prada does not stop the light pollution, we will appeal to consumers to boycott it.

“We have also written to two Beijing-based green groups to ask them to follow up the issue there.”

A spokeswoman for Prada in Hong Kong said it was looking at the issue to see if a solution could be found. “The exterior lighting is part of our architecture design and we are reviewing options to reduce the lights,” she said, without saying why the lights could not be switched off earlier.

In a poll by the group, Prada’s exterior lighting was voted the second-most-ridiculous in the city, beaten only by the advertising boards on Windsor House, Causeway Bay.

Incandescent Light Bulbs May Be Banned

Cheung Chi-fai – SCMP – Updated on Oct 16, 2008

Funding carbon audits in buildings and a possible ban on incandescent light bulbs were among measures heralded by the chief executive to combat climate change and develop a low-carbon economy.

“We will enhance energy efficiency, use clean fuels, rely less on fossil fuel, and promote a low-carbon economy – an economy based on low energy consumption and low pollution,” Donald Tsang Yam-kuen said.

Up to HK$450 million will be reserved under the Environment and Conservation Fund to partially subsidise building owners to conduct energy and carbon audits for their public space and carry out related improvement works. The subsidy details would be later worked out by the fund.

The government will also consider following overseas practice in banning incandescent light bulbs and study the feasibility of controlling outdoor light pollution by law. The mandatory energy labelling scheme for electrical appliances will also be extended to cover washing machines and dehumidifiers.

District cooling will be adopted for the Kai Tak development that will cost HK$1.4 billion to build but bring about an annual energy saving of 85 million kilowatt-hours and a reduction of 60,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.

Friends of the Earth environmental affairs manager Hahn Chu Hon-keung welcomed the measures but questioned where they would lead. “The lack of a timetable and energy saving targets means the government is not yet committed,” he said.

Greenpeace campaign manager Edward Chan Yue-fai said the government should ban incandescent bulbs immediately.

Meanwhile, WWF Hong Kong welcomed an earlier announced move to ban commercial fishing in marine parks. The green group’s director of conservation, Andy Cornish, described the ban as a “historic event” for marine conservation. But the group said more substantial gains could be achieved by designating the Soko Islands as marine parks.

Raising The Bar

Updated on Oct 09, 2008 – SCMP

In return for receiving assistance, Hong Kong has a responsibility to return the favour. As the most economically advanced city in China, it should be a high environmental achiever. In exchange for receiving some of the natural gas the mainland desperately needs, under a new memorandum, Hong Kong should commit itself to an aggressive low-carbon programme to help meet national goals.

So far, the Tsang administration has only focused on the benefits we accrue – lower tariffs and cleaner air. Hong Kong should appreciate that, despite all Beijing’s efforts to secure energy supplies, there will still be a shortage of cleaner fuels to power development.

Since the late 1990s, China has been building a network of natural-gas arteries. Today, there are around 24,000km of pipelines; by 2010, this figure should increase to 36,000km. From now, until 2020, we will see the rapid development of China’s natural-gas industry.

Yet, the mainland will continue to have inadequate supplies. The shortfall will have to be met through imports via land pipelines from Central Asia, as well as liquefied natural gas imports from elsewhere.

Hong Kong needs to view Beijing’s willingness to give us some of its natural gas in the context of the country’s overall energy profile. Energy is a finite global commodity, and its supply and demand affect us all. Policymakers in Hong Kong need to do their best not just to secure supplies but also to conserve energy and use it efficiently.

For example, Hong Kong undoubtedly has the capacity to substantially improve the energy efficiency of buildings. It can also use demand-side tools to get the electricity companies to find innovative ways to work with customers, so that reducing consumption and improving efficiency are rewarded financially. The utilities should be allowed to earn more from energy savings, and customers can also benefit by paying less. Currently, the schemes of control have weak demand-side incentives.

The government had said it has an open-market energy policy and is paving the way for the possible opening up of the electricity market. And it will look into enhanced interconnection between the two power companies’ grids. The administration sees this as a way to promote competition in the future, as well as possibly opening up the electricity market to others.

What might this mean? Will the government consider a compulsory purchase to buy the grids, in the public interest? There may well be good reason for the power grid to be a public asset, like the airwaves. Anyone who generates power could then use the grid.

Does the government see a future in distributed power – that is, on-site, decentralised power generation that can reduce transmission loss and increase supply security? Imagine buildings generating their own power using renewable technologies, and only tapping into the grid occasionally.

A low-carbon economy will probably involve all these efforts, and more. It is time for Hong Kong to show real appreciation for Beijing’s generosity.

As the nation’s most developed city, Hong Kong should be best placed to align its regulatory, management, financial and technological capacities to define how a city can grow but emit a lot less carbon and other pollutants.

With traditional financial services in a bad state, it is also a good time to test new ideas. For example, now that projects in Hong Kong can earn carbon credits, under the Kyoto Protocol’s clean development mechanism, what advantage can be gained from that?

So, it will be disappointing if the chief executive gives us another “business as usual” policy address next week that ignores environmental needs and the consequences of climate change.

Christine Loh Kung-wai is chief executive of the think-tank Civic Exchange. cloh@civic-exchange.org

Causeway Bay Mall Voted City’s Worst Light-pollution Landmark

Joyce Ng – Updated on Oct 06, 2008 – SCMP

A shopping mall at a busy corner in Causeway Bay has been named the most polluting city landmark in a campaign seeking to enhance public awareness of light pollution.

An online poll, organised by the green group Friends of the Earth, recorded 347 of 639 voters picking Windsor House on Great George Street as a “ridiculous” light spot.

More than 60 spotlights were illuminating billboards with 10,000 lux of light, the group found. The intensity was 20 times as high as required for an office environment.

Voters said the spotlights were scorching and hurt the eyes, and chased away customers instead of attracting them.

The green group will hold a protest in front of the building at 7pm on Friday. It calls for participants to wear sunglasses, bring an umbrella and put on sunscreen.

“We are not opposing advertising, but half of the lights should be enough to serve the purpose and it saves energy,” said Hahn Chu Hon-keung, the group’s environmental affairs manager.

Windsor House representatives were unavailable for comment.

Among the other 11 spots nominated by voters as polluting sources, the Prada store in Central and a sign for a non-existent Tse Sui Luen Jewellery Shop in Jordan rank second and third on the list, getting 98 and 41 votes. The jewellery-shop sign, an illegal structure, was still present even though the government has issued a removal notice.

Some of the sites were still lit after midnight when there were no shoppers. Residents have to hang a cloth over their windows to block the light.

Official figures show complaints about light pollution rising. The Environmental Protection Department has received 27 complaints in the first six months of this year, compared with 40 in all of last year.

There are no environmental regulations controlling light pollution, but outdoor advertising lights are regulated for safety reasons.

Some countries have rules to adjust the direction of light to avoid disturbing residents, Mr Chu said.

“I’ve seen a jewellery shop reducing its light sign’s flash frequency after residents complained. This shows the situation is adjustable.”

China Can Forge Ahead In Developing Renewable Energy

Green power

Michael Richardson – Updated on Oct 03, 2008 – SCMP

The latest tally of greenhouse gas emissions blamed for warming the world shows that China has emerged as the top polluter, ahead of the United States, by an increasingly big margin. Released last week, the scientific findings of the Global Carbon Project show that, last year, more than half the world ‘s emissions came from the high-growth economies of developing countries, led by China and India, and that this share is rising because emissions from developed economies are growing less fast.

The project’s Australia-based executive director, Pep Canadell, said that China alone accounted for 60 per cent of the emissions growth last year. This was due to its heavy reliance on coal for generating electricity and oil for transport fuel. Yet the world’s most populous nation is also a global leader in harnessing renewable energy, particularly hydro, wind, solar and biomass power.

As recession and the credit crisis in the west crimp lending and investment in relatively expensive alternative energy, can China seize the initiative and keep funding its drive to become less dependent on fossil fuels? This assumes, of course, that China’s banking system will remain immune from the contagion afflicting the US and Europe. If normal lending continues and business can take advantage of incentives put in place by the government, China could forge ahead of competitors in developing renewable power. This would strengthen its energy security and international efforts to prevent disastrous climate change.

China invested more than US$10 billion in new renewable energy capacity last year, second only to Germany, according to the Worldwatch Institute in Washington. Most of the money was for small hydropower projects, solar hot water and wind power. Meanwhile, annual investment in large hydropower schemes continues at a somewhat lower level. A renewable energy law, effective from the start of 2006, requires power grid operators in China to buy electricity from registered producers of renewable energy. It also offers tax incentives and subsidies to promote investment in the sector.

China gets 8 per cent of its energy and 17 per cent of its electricity from renewables – shares that will rise to 15 per cent and 21 per cent, respectively, by 2020, if the government’s target is met. The European Union, which wants to be the world’s pace-setter in combating climate change, is aiming for a somewhat more ambitious target of getting 20 per cent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

China is not alone in the developing world in seeking a more sustainable energy future. As a group, developing countries have more than 40 per cent of the world’s renewable power capacity, over 70 per cent of solar hot-water capacity and 45 per cent of biofuels production.

In China, wind power is the fastest-expanding technology for generating electricity. With many onshore turbines working, the first offshore wind farm started in November.

China is also a manufacturing powerhouse for solar photovoltaic energy, third only to Japan and Germany. It is the world’s largest market for solar hot water, with nearly two-thirds of global capacity. More than 10 per cent of Chinese households rely on the sun to heat their water. When Chinese firms turn to exporting, the lower costs of their units – some seven times less than in Europe – could reshape global supply and demand.

However, Steve Sawyer, secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council, says Beijing’s efforts to rein in rash lending and curb inflation are hurting financing for wind power projects in China and may prevent it from emerging as the world’s fastest-growing wind energy market.

A report last year from consultants Frost & Sullivan cautioned that China’s wind and biomass industries were not nearly as developed as their western counterparts. As a result, they had “less experience in installing, maintaining and servicing renewable facilities”, wrote analyst Linda Yan. A key restraint on growth of China’s renewable energy markets was a lack of homegrown technology and dependence on imported equipment, she added.

Even if Beijing meets its renewable energy target for 2020, it will rely heavily on fossil fuels. That is a problem not only for China but also for the world – it is expected to overtake the US soon after 2010 as the world’s top energy-consuming nation.

Michael Richardson is an energy and security analyst at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. mriht@pacific.net.sg

Doubts Cloud Gas Deal

Sara Yin – Updated on Sep 28, 2008 – SCMP

The pink dolphins are safe, at least. The memorandum of understanding between Beijing and Hong Kong for gas supplies tied local energy needs and planning to those of the mainland. And although that meant the end of plans for a US$10 billion gas terminal on South Soko Island – which pleased environmentalists – it remains to be seen whether the deal is good for Hong Kong’s long-term interests.

Last month, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen announced an agreement that he had signed with the National Energy Administration, Beijing’s new energy body. It put a significant amount of Hong Kong’s gas needs into the hands of the mainland’s state-owned oil companies.

Under the memorandum, the central government ensures a supply from several sources: offshore natural-gas reserves, piped gas, and possibly an LNG (liquefied natural gas) terminal built on the mainland.

“Hong Kong will see a net increase of at least 1 billion cubic metres of natural-gas supply for clean power generation,” an Environment Bureau spokeswoman said. “This certainly provides for a higher stability and reliability of gas supply in the long run.”

The agreement halted the HK$10 billion plan – more than two years in the making – for local company CLP Power to build the terminal to supply LNG, a costlier but greener fuel, off Lantau Island.

Mr Tsang described the new deal as “extremely good news” for consumers and the environment. Instead of paying for an expensive LNG terminal on South Soko Island, he said, taxpayers would only have to pay for gas pipelines to the mainland.

Local green groups such as Friends of the Earth and WWF applauded the decision to abandon construction in an area populated by pink dolphins and finless tortoises. But many are concerned over what the government’s intervention means for the public.

“This memo is what I would call a potential game-changer,” said Civic Exchange chief executive Christine Loh Kung-wai. “It represents a major departure of Chinese energy policy for Hong Kong.”

Historically, Hong Kong’s two private power companies, CLP Power and Hongkong Electric, have negotiated the securing of raw materials on their own. Thanks to a scheme of control set in the early 1990s, the two utilities have been among the most profitable in the world. The government has tried to undermine this in the past by flirting with new market players. It had been considering a proposal from China Power, a mainland energy giant run by Li Xiaolin, the daughter of China’s former premier, Li Peng.

As well, a new scheme of control that reduces CLP Power’s profit margins begins next month.

“The government always seemed very supportive and positive about the terminal,” said a CLP Power employee. “We were all surprised” by the memorandum. Officially, CLP Power denies being blindsided and remains supportive.

Said Ms Loh: “The government did not let on that it was actively negotiating with the mainland … if [the government] has a new energy policy, it should make an announcement.”

While the memorandum of understanding might have come as a surprise to the public, CLP Power’s new terminal was not a done deal.

The Environment Bureau spokeswoman pointed to a Legislative Council paper dated June 30, available on Legco’s website, saying that due diligence on CLP Power’s plan was still continuing.

As early as 2003, CLP Power, which supplies 25 per cent of the city’s electricity, reported that its gas supply – Hainan Island’s Yacheng fields – would dry up by 2013. This prompted the company to propose building Hong Kong’s first LNG terminal to receive a sufficient amount from suppliers around the world. The facility would import more than 4 billion cubic metres of natural gas a year at a predetermined cost, and take at least four years to build.

After an exhaustive third-party study to assess the environmental impact of CLP Power’s proposed sites, the Environmental Protection Department chose South Soko Island and granted its approval early last year. Environmental Secretary Edward Yau Tang-wah asked CLP Power to launch a public website detailing its planning efforts, and to find a way to reverse its environmental impact around the site; CLP complied.

The only approval needed then was the Executive Council’s, and even as late as July, Mr Yau seemed to think it was a foregone conclusion. With Hong Kong’s gas supply expected to run out in less than five years, he said the statutory planning process for the Soko Island terminal would start soon “although no final decision had been made”. CLP Power even had a contract with its first supplier, the British gas company BG Group.

In a statement in late June, CLP Power said: “The terminal is expected to start up no later than 2013, subject to final approval by the Hong Kong SAR government.”

Although some observers are applauding the opportunity for the city to be drawn into the mainland’s energy framework, others argue that the National Energy Administration’s policies may clash with Hong Kong’s interests. The mainland energy industry is heavily regulated, and a new, long-awaited law to commercialise the industry is yet to be enacted.

This month, a government source told the oil-industry magazine Platts: “The public consultation of the draft new energy law finished early this year, in late February, but the draft law is still held in the National Energy Administration, which was recently [created] to strengthen the government’s management of the energy sector.”

Industry observers are also wondering how the government’s deal will save consumers more money than CLP Power’s project.

“We don’t know anything about the price of the gas. At least with CLP, they would have entered a long-term contract with a known price … now it’s not clear what price the government has agreed to,” said Bill Barron, an environmental economist at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

“The situation reminds me of the Disneyland thing, where we didn’t know how bad the deal was until years later.”

Baptist University’s director of energy studies, Larry Chow Chuen-ho, said the Soko Island terminal would have insulated Hong Kong from supply disruptions from the mainland.

Like Professor Barron, Professor Chow is concerned about the lack of discussion about price. At least with the Soko Island terminal, he said, “we can have complete control on how much to buy and how much to pay”.

Furthermore, the amount of gas supplied can only be estimated at this point. The memorandum does not define a specific volume of gas imported each year, only a non-legally binding assurance to keep Hong Kong’s level of gas supply “over and above the current level”.

Professor Chow said he trusted Beijing to provide a sufficient supply of gas, but Professor Barron was more sceptical. “Even if everything goes well – like the new wells at Yacheng actually produce gas – the supply won’t add up to the reliable supplies the Soko Island LNG terminal would have provided. We’ll be burning more coal and creating even higher levels of pollution.”

And although the memorandum renews existing contracts with the China National Offshore Oil Corporation and China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding for another 20 years, these two companies will have to tap new wells in Yacheng. And no one seems to know when these wells will run out (if any gas is found in the first place), according to Professor Barron.

In fact, based on the memorandum, both governments will devote resources to study the feasibility of building an LNG terminal in Guangdong.

But according to the Hong Kong government, fixing price and supply was not the point of the memorandum. It was only meant to provide “new opportunities for collaboration between energy enterprises on both sides, and is by no means a supply contract binding any companies”, said an Environmental Protection Department spokeswoman. “Detailed arrangements for supplying natural gas and electricity to Hong Kong, such as pricing and quantity, will be worked out on commercial principles … on both sides.”

Professor Barron found this point “disingenuous”. With only one country to supply Hong Kong’s gas, he wondered, “How can a power company negotiate price from a strong position? The government has seriously restricted the options faced by the buyer.”

After seeing its gas-terminal plan axed, CLP Power – publicly at least – supports the government’s deal with the mainland.

“CLP, under the guidance of the Hong Kong government, is now working directly with the National Development and Reform Commission and other mainland parties on the implementation of the memorandum,” a company spokeswoman said.

Power Struggle – Human and Environmental Cost For Chinese Booming Economy

Simon Parry – Updated on Sep 28, 2008 – SCMP

On average, 10 mainland coal miners die each day and while the government recognises the dangers posed by privately run mines, it needs to keep a booming economy supplied with fuel. Simon Parry reports on the human cost of doing so

The grubby, ramshackle clinic for injured miners is hidden away like a guilty secret at the end of a dirt track in a village near Datong, Shanxi province, China’s coal capital. Outside, Zhu Jiaching hobbles along on crutches and speaks through broken teeth about the day last September when luck was on his side.

“I was working underground when the scaffolding collapsed on me. My legs were broken and my teeth were smashed when I fell face down into the coal.” He points to his black and swollen upper lip. “I still have pieces of coal lodged in here.”

Zhu was carried unconscious out of the mine. He was one of the lucky ones. Last year, 4,000 mainland miners were killed in underground accidents. “A fortnight after my accident, there was another scaffolding collapse in the same stretch of mine,” the 39-year-old father of two says with a grimace. “Four miners were killed. All were from my home province.”

With no salary and only hospital meals to live off, Zhu is waiting to be well enough to return to his wife and children hundreds of miles away. “The mine manager came to see me a few weeks after my accident and offered me 10,000 yuan [HK$11,390] compensation if I took the money and went straight home,” he says.

“I refused. At the time I couldn’t even walk.

“The manager left and hasn’t been back. He won’t discuss the matter and I’ve been living in the hospital ever since. I want him to pay for the treatment to repair my broken teeth and give me proper compensation – then I’ll go home for good.”

In nearby Ganzhong village, Wan Mingyong, 35, smokes and chats with friends as he waits to begin his eight-hour underground shift. Luck was on his side too when, in another privately run coal mine in May last year, a wall of coal exploded in his face. Wan’s face and neck are still peppered with tiny lumps of coal.

“There was a roar and a bright flash and then I was blinded. Pieces of coal shot into my face like bullets and I was covered in blood. My first thought was `Am I blind?’ I spent a month in hospital but I was very lucky. I could have been killed,” he says.

“I was given 5,000 yuan compensation by the coal mine’s bosses. I wasn’t happy with it but what could I do? I had to look after my family so I got out of hospital as quickly as I could and went back to work at the coal face.”

Wan is well aware of how lucky his escape was. “My brother-in-law was crushed when scaffolding collapsed on him in the same mine in 2004. He should have lived but was left to die in hospital on the orders of the coal-mine owner so that he wouldn’t have to pay more compensation,” he says. “We believe they may have even given him a lethal injection.

“At that time, if a miner died, his employer had to pay the family 50,000 yuan compensation. If a worker was crippled, the amount would be three times as high because he had to be paid disability benefit. So it was much cheaper to make sure that my brother-in-law didn’t survive and that’s what they did.”

The stories of Zhu and Wan are typical. The men are part of an army of workers labouring in privately run mines in Shanxi and Inner Mongolia, in northern China, helping dig up the coal that accounts for nearly 70 per cent of the energy needs for the world’s fastest-growing economy.

China has overtaken the US as the world’s biggest producer of greenhouse gases, according to a University of California study released earlier this year, and 75 per cent of its carbon-dioxide emissions come from the coal-fired power stations that are being opened at a rate of almost one a week.

Greenpeace will this autumn release what is expected to be a highly critical report on China’s overdependence on coal, warning that it is heading towards an environmental disaster unless it increases the price of coal – heavily subsidised to support the booming economy – to restrict its use.

“The price of coal should reflect the full cost of using coal,” argues Beijing-based Greenpeace coal campaigner Liu Shuang. “These power stations are causing serious air pollution. They are not only causing problems for human health but they’re polluting the water and land as well.

“Action must be taken soon. The government did everything it could to stop pollutants during the Olympics but this is a problem that is visible in Chinese cities every day. The Chinese government is taking the coal issue seriously, but it has not done enough.”

It is an industry that exacts a devastating price not only in environmental terms but in human terms. China has 5 million miners and the annual death toll, mostly in smaller, privately run mines, accounts for 80 per cent of all mining deaths worldwide. An average of 10 miners die every day on the mainland. Last Sunday, 37 miners were killed in a gas explosion at a private mine near Dengfeng city, Henan province. The same day, at least 19 miners died after a fire in a coal mine in Hegang city, Heilongjiang province.

Alarmed at the accident rates, the mainland in 2006 announced a series of measures to improve safety, increasing inspections, improving compensation for injury or death and ordering thousands of smaller mines producing less than 90,000 tonnes of coal a year to close. The idea is to concentrate production in state-run mines, which employ tens of thousands of miners and where both safety standards and the quality of the coal are easier to control. The policy has had a degree of success, with death rates in the industry falling substantially from a peak of almost 7,000 in 2002 to 4,700 in 2006 and less than 4,000 last year.

But this year, in the brown and barren hills of northern China, where the country’s biggest coal reserves lie, the huge trucks that move between the privately run mines are once again rumbling back and forth as dozens of mines reopen.

“Since the beginning of this year, when coal shortages became acute, mines everywhere have started opening again,” a retired mining supervisor in Datong says. “The government knows what is happening but provided they allow inspectors to visit every now and again to check on safety standards, they are turning a blind eye to it.”

The reason is overwhelming demand. The mainland needs every last lump of coal to satisfy the demands of its industrial revolution, its booming urban electricity consumption and the additional strain on resources that the Olympic Games in Beijing has had. On top of that, China has just had its harshest, coldest winter in half a century, causing fuel shortages so severe President Hu Jintao travelled to Datong to personally appeal to its 200,000 government mine workers to dig harder to help their snowbound compatriots.

“The president’s visit made us very happy,” says Li Mingxin, 58, a retired miner working as watchman at the Datong’s Xin Zhaoyiu coal mine – known as Government Coal Mine No 5 – where more than 10,000 miners are employed. “We felt very proud. The president of our country had come and asked us for more coal to help save the country, so we all made a special effort.

“Everyone gave up their Lunar New Year holidays. We increased production dramatically and all the coal went to the south for electricity production. We were very happy to be called upon to help at the time of our country’s great need.”

Sitting beneath a portrait of Chairman Mao in his watchman’s hut, Li – who spent 41 years working as a miner – frowns as he speaks of the dangers facing workers at the smaller, privately run mines. “Here, we have very few accidents because the attention to safety these days is much greater than in the past.”

“But the private mines are so small and they use mules and oxen to pull the coal carts from underground. There is also the risk of gas explosions because management is poor, ventilation isn’t good and the machinery to test the density of the gas is not good enough,” he says.

In Datong, the vast majority of workers in the 18 government-run mines are locals and in many cases, jobs are passed on from generation to generation, with the sons of miners being given priority for jobs.

Salaries are about 3,000 yuan a month, much higher than the national average, with a pension of 2,100 yuan for retired, long-serving miners such as Li. “Many men of my age have no salary at all while I receive a 2,100 yuan pension and another 500 yuan a month for working as a watchman,” he says. “We are paid like civil servants but we deserve it because of the duty we did for our country.”

Private mines – usually owned by county or village governments but leased to private companies – are staffed by migrant workers from poor provinces who move from mine to mine to find better salaries and conditions. They can earn up to twice the monthly salaries of their counterparts in state-run mines, taking home up to 6,000 yuan, but the high salaries come at a terrible price: accidents in privately run coal mines account for about 70 per cent of China’s mining deaths.

One miner who works as an explosives specialist in a private mine outside Datong rues the day he turned down the chance to work in a state-run mine because he wanted to maintain a higher salary.

“I didn’t realise at the time that if you work in a government mine for 10 years, you get a pension for the rest of your life,” says Yang Hua, 39.

“As migrant workers in privately run mines, we take greater risks and move from mine to mine. I will have to carry on working until I am 60 to support my family. It’s very different for the mine owners. They drive luxury cars and can make 10 million yuan in just one month. Because of the coal shortage, they have never been able to make so much money.”

Stung by the government criticism of their safely standards, private mines now operate amid tight security, behind high walls and fences, with teams of security guards patrolling the premises to keep unwanted observers away. “No one is allowed in without the owner’s written permission,” a security guard at one private mine says.

In the present sensitive climate, even government-run mines are reluctant to let outsiders visit. Even though guided underground tours are advertised on fading billboards outside the showpiece Government Mine No 9, an official at the visitor’s office eyes us suspiciously and says: “Sorry. We can’t take you in. Our visitor insurance has expired.”

When we assure him that our own insurance will cover the visit, he flicks distractedly through a pile of papers before looking up and announcing: “The tour is very time-consuming and expensive and there are only the two of you. I’m afraid we can’t afford to take you inside.”

Reflecting on the accident that crippled him just three months after he began work at a privately run mine outside Datong, Zhu says: “It happened because of neglect. The managers knew there were cracks in the scaffolding but they still made us carry on working beneath it.”

As a relatively new employee, Zhu was earning only 100 yuan a day to work underground, laying explosives to blast into virgin coal faces, and would work 26 or 27 days a month to earn money to send home to his family in western Sichuan province.

“I used to be a farmer but I have a daughter aged 17 and a son aged 14 and I couldn’t earn enough to pay for them to go to school, so I decided to come to the coal mine to work,” he said.

“Now my family is in an even worse situation because of what has happened to me. My wife has had to borrow money to pay for the education of our two children and we also have my parents to support. It is very hard for them. I will go back to farming when I recover – I can never go back to working in a mine.”

His wait for a fair payout could be a long one if the experience of other injured miners is anything to go by. “I’ve been in this clinic for five years since I broke my legs in an accident and I still haven’t received a proper settlement,” says He Yao, 65, from Inner Mongolia. “I’ll never work again now and I have three children to support – so I’m not going home to my family until I’ve got the compensation I deserve.”

For Wan, the trauma of his accident last year and his relative’s death in 2004 have left deep and permanent scars. “My brother-in-law was only 30 when he died and he had a seven year-old son. The family hired a lawyer and proved in the court case that he should have survived. In the end, they got compensation of 180,000 yuan for his death – more than three times what they were originally offered,” he says.

“We have higher safety standards too. The Olympic Games made inspectors stricter and they are doing more to guarantee the safety of workers. If they check a mine and it isn’t safe, they close it down. The government policy is good because the government is more concerned about the situation of mine workers.”

However, despite the new level of official concern, coal mining in China is like a game of Russian roulette. “I do this work because the salary is better than working in a factory but I risk my life earning the extra money,” says Wan, speaking at the end of his shift in the communal miners’ home outside Datong where he lives with his wife and 12-year-old son.

“Every day when I go to work, my family worries about me, especially after the accident last May. It is only when I come back home at night that they can relax, knowing that another day’s work is behind me and that I am safe from harm.

“I keep doing this because I need to pay for my son’s education. I became a miner because I didn’t have a choice. I want my son to go to university and find a good job. I don’t want him to suffer the same hardships as me.”

Red Door News

A Cleaner, Cheaper Energy Future For Hong Kong

Edward Yau – SCMP – Updated on Sep 23, 2008

Building on our long history of energy co-operation with the mainland, the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed between the National Energy Administration (NEA) and the Hong Kong government last month provides a firm backing for an agreement that will help ease the pressure for tariff increases.

The agreement will underpin our city’s economic development in the next 20 years, and ensure that our energy comes from clean sources that are close to home, an arrangement that will keep electricity prices at a relatively low level.

Under the MOU, Hong Kong will see a net increase of at least 1 billion cubic metres of natural gas supply for clean power generation. By sealing the document with Hong Kong, the NEA – which is responsible for regulation and oversight of oil supply and distribution – has undertaken, first, to support the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Co Ltd to renew its supply agreement with Hong Kong for a further 20 years at the current level.

Second, the central government also supports supplying natural gas to Hong Kong, including China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s renewal of its supply agreement with us for another 20 years, also at the current level.

In addition to renewing the two existing sources of supply, it has been agreed in principle to study the feasibility of supplying natural gas to Hong Kong via a new conduit, the Second West-East Natural Gas Pipeline, with an estimated annual supply of more than 1 billion cubic metres.

In a related commitment, the NEA also agreed in principle that Hong Kong and mainland companies could jointly build a liquefied natural gas terminal on the mainland for supplying natural gas to Hong Kong. As the proposed LNG terminal on the mainland can also receive LNG from worldwide sources, Hong Kong will enjoy a greater flexibility in gas sources.

The MOU not only replenishes the current gas supply to CLP Power, it also opens up new sources through alternative pipelines. Importantly, the MOU provides new opportunities for collaboration between energy enterprises on both sides, and is by no means a supply contract binding any firms. It opens the door for energy enterprises on both sides to pursue opportunities on a commercial basis in line with market principles.

For the 2 million CLP Power customers, a more practical concern is whether the agreement helps reduce their power bills. Before the agreement, CLP Power proposed to build an LNG terminal in Hong Kong in anticipation of the Yacheng gas supply running out. Recognising the need for more natural gas to replenish the current gas supply from Yacheng, the government has adopted a dual track approach to process the application.

While proceeding with the initial statutory planning and land processes, it has conducted a due-diligence exercise to verify the need for an LNG terminal on the environmentally sensitive South Soko Island. With an estimated cost of HK$10 billion, the project would inevitably boost CLP Power’s net fixed assets, thus entailing a return to be borne by its customers in electricity tariffs.

As a result of the MOU, CLP Power decided on September 12 to abandon its LNG terminal plan. The imminent result of this decision is the removal of an initial capital outlay of HK$10 billion and the need for cost recovery from the tariff. The building of new pipelines to transfer the gas under the MOU will incur additional capital investment, but the amount will be less than the LNG terminal proposal.

Electricity generation is a major source of pollution in Hong Kong. Natural gas is one the cleaner and more efficient forms of fossil fuel. Replacing coal with natural gas in power generation will help improve air quality.

On top of its environmental benefits, the use of natural gas will also diversify the fuel mix in power generation, thereby improving the reliability of the electricity supply.

Edward Yau Tang-wah is secretary for the environment

Clear The Air Meeting with John Tsang Chun-Wah

Meeting with John Tsang Chun-Wah

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 m3 of 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.

Clear the Air – Meeting With John Tsang Chun-Wah

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.