By PAUL J. WEBER - Associated Press Writer
MELISSA, Texas --An orange flag marks where Gary Lisle planned to put up a 33-foot windmill behind his house. But that's about as far as his green idea got in this Dallas suburb.
Denied a building permit in March, Lisle joined the growing ranks of frustrated homeowners across the U.S. whose hopes of harvesting wind energy in their backyards have been dashed.
Some communities have outlawed residential turbines. Others entangle applicants in so much red tape that they simply give up.
"The fact is, we're dealing with ignorance," said Lisle, whose turbine would resemble a big pinwheel with three small blades spinning atop a flagpole.
Standoffs between cities and green-minded homeowners are becoming more common as interest grows in residential turbines. Backyard windmills are already an $18 million-a-year industry in the U.S., and manufacturers think that could triple if wind got the same local acceptance and federal incentives as solar energy systems, which typically involve nothing more intrusive than panels on the roof.
Zoning boards and neighborhood associations have heard complaints that the windmills would be unsightly, that the blades could break loose and fly into someone's yard, that a twister could knock a pole down or send it flying like a missile, or that the spinning blades would make too much noise. (Unlike big industrial wind turbines, the backyard varieties are barely audible.)
"Planning and zoning are the single biggest obstacle to wind energy in the United States," said Roy Butler, owner of Four Winds Renewable Energy in western New York, who often consults with local governments faced with turbine permit requests.
Local officials insist they are not environmentally close-minded; they are just following the rules and taking into account their constituents' concerns.
In Melissa, a community of 5,000 people squarely in sight of suburban strip malls and encroaching cookie-cutter subdivisions, Mayor David Dorman said he embraces green thinking. And in neighboring McKinney, Wal-Mart built its nationally lauded "green" store that includes a 120-foot turbine spinning above the entrance.
But Dorman said the city code does not provide for residential turbines, an omission not uncommon outside energy-progressive places like California.
Dorman also said it might be unfair to allow some people to have a technology that is not available to others who do not have the money or the yard space. So rather than grant variances to individual homeowners for windmills, he would like to see eco-minded neighborhoods designed from the ground up.
"If a developer came in tomorrow and said we have an idea for a green subdivision, I'd be all for it," Dorman said.
Residential windmills start as low as about $12,000, and industry officials say one can cut household bills anywhere from 10 percent to 50 percent, depending on the wind and the height of the tower.
Southern California's well-to-do Bear Valley Springs community also forbids windmills, even though most of its 9,000 residents probably have the large yards and the money needed to join the estimated 2,000 residential turbine owners nationwide.
Michael Bennett, general manager of the Bear Valley Springs homeowner association, said the community's environmental board just recently began drafting rules that would enable the community to catch up to the rest of the state.
"The No. 1 concern has been visual blight," Bennett said, "and No. 2, the noise level."
Rhode Island Renewable Energy owner Dave Anderson said promoting turbines in some wind-fertile areas can be almost futile, since neighbors there "want to be green, and they think it's a great idea and, you know, we've got to do something about the Middle East. But 'Just don't do it in my backyard.'"
"There's a lot of people who don't want to go through the hassle of fighting town hall," Anderson said. "They say, 'We're not going to fight that fight.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
ADB And The Case Of Phulbari Coal Project
By Anu Muhammad
19 May, 2007
Countercurrents.org
On March 9 2007 Washington Post reported, 'The Bush administration has objected to a proposed open-pit coal mine in Canada near the Montana border, citing the potential for irreversible environmental damage to Glacier National Park, pristine trout streams and the largest natural lake in the West. ....About 25 miles north of the border, the Cline Mining Corporation of Canada wants to lop off the top of a mountain and over the next 20 years haul away 40 million tons of coal -- in a drainage that forms the headwaters of the North Fork of the Flathead River.....The North Fork of the Flathead, which the federal government says would quickly be contaminated with heavy metals and other mining pollutants, forms the western boundary of Glacier Park. It then flows south into Flathead Lake, often described as the largest pristine lake in the nation and a major recreation site.'
While the US administration obstructed Canadian open pit mining in a mountain area because of 'potential for irreversible environmental damage to Park and natural lake about 25 miles north of the border', US backed institutions and agencies are pushing Bangladesh Government to go ahead with open pit mining in a densely populated and agricultural land area against experts opinion and strong public opinion.
ADB push for Phulbari Project
At a press conference on March 27, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) country director in Bangladesh, Hua Du, expressed the ADB's eagerness for the quick decisions in favour of big Indian corporate giant Tata's proposals related with gas and coal, and the British based company Asia Energy's (AEC) Phulbari Coal Project (PCP). Both are for open pit mining.
'Business is business', she said categorically (Holiday, April 1, 2007).
It is important to note that about 70,000 people were gathered in Phulbari on 26 August 2006 to protest against the proposed open pit mining project. Law enforcers opened fire on them as they were returning home from the protest rally. Three persons were killed and hundreds wounded. Twenty of the wounded people were rendered permanent suffering, one is still in hospital with permanent disability. The action of the law enforcers, however, could not kill off the protest. More people took to the streets in a mass uprising. After days of relentless protest, participated by Bangalee, Adivasi (indigenous), women, men, senior and children, the government relented and entered into an agreement with the protestors represented by National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas Mineral resources, Port and Power.
That historic social contract clearly stated, among others,
1. 'Phulbari coal project will be scrapped and Asia energy will leave the country.'
2. 'No open pit mining will be allowed anywhere in the country'.
3. 'Steps will be taken for development and utilization of coal only after proper consultation with the people keeping national interest intact'.
Meanwhile, a committee of experts, formed by the government, submitted its report in which it observed that the Phulbari project should be cancelled in environmental, economic and legal grounds. However, as Hua Du's statement suggests, nothing can change the bank's mindset.
Why is the bank so enthusiastic to back Asia Energy on the one hand and remain indifferent to experts' opinion about, and the local peoples clear NO to, the project on the other? Why is profit for a company preferable to agencies like ADB even if it costs peoples lives, livelihood and environmental disaster although their written commitments say otherwise?
ADB for Projects of Mass Destruction
In order to ensure energy security for a country like Bangladesh and to find the best possible path to explore natural resources we need to keep in mind that oil, gas and coal are non-renewable resources, cannot be reproduced; that these resources are limited, while domestic demand is growing; that global uncertainty and conflicts on oil, gas and coal mark insecurity for the weak countries; and that energy price is rising and has become unpredictable.
To ensure best possible utilization of energy resources in present and future, every steps concerning exploration, production and utilization of these resources should be transparent. The contracts patronized by the ADB or the World Bank or the IMF have always been secretive. To ensure energy security, the sector should be organized with an objective to fulfill energy demand (present and future) of people and the productive sectors; the peoples ownership and authority over their own resources must be ensured; and development of national institutions and capability must get the highest priority.
However, main features of government policies derived from the ADB and the World Bank support to date are:
There has never been any attempt so far to have comprehensive energy policy and related steps that is consistent with national interest and energy security of the people.
Non-renewable resources have always been considered as something tradable.
Privatization and commercialization of gas, coal and oil has been on the top priority.
Global agencies systematically worked to grab the resources in favour of global corporate. Foreign - aided development projects were utilized to formulate policies in this regard. The energy sector study project of 1982, the energy regulatory commission in 1993, the gas sector master plan and the coal policy in 2006 are some of the examples where World bank, Asian Development Bank were involved.
Dismantling of national agencies, undermining national capabilities, ignoring national needs in short and long term have been common. In fact, global capital is in confrontation with people all over the world, among others, on three issues:
whether people and the country should own and have authority over their own lives and natural resources or global corporates should be allowed to take over; whether natural resources should be used or preserved for the maximum utilization for the development of the country or to be extracted in a big way to maximize profit of foreign big companies; and whether resources will remain common property or turned into private property of corporates.
People in general and Phulbari in particular and many experts opine in favour of utilizing resources as common property, for badly needed development; not to be plundered or wasted or make disaster.
Phulbari Coal Project: Why people and experts oppose? The Phulbari coalfield was the latest discovery among the big four coalfields found in Bangladesh since independence. In 1994 the then government signed agreement with the BHP of Australia. In 1998, BHP transferred its right to one year old British- Australian company Asia Energy.
Asia Energy was preparing itself for open-pit mining. It said in its documents, 'Mining by the open cut method is new to Bangladesh, but it is a proven and highly productive and safe method in similar geological and hydrological conditions in other parts of the world such as Australia, India, Indonesia and Germany.' It goes without saying that projecting such a sweeping comparative statement as expert opinion is ill motivated. Leaving aside other criteria, the population and water aspect in Phulbari is entirely different from the reality in other countries like Australia or Germany even India or Indonesia.
The AEC further stated in defense of open-pit mining: 'Adoption of this method will permit the fullest extraction of coal resources, and will augment duration of the mining period and thus enhance socio-economic opportunity, income prospects and gains for the Bangladesh economy.' It was not made clear who would bear the cost and who would be the beneficiaries of this 'fullest extraction'! We know the beneficiaries are company and allies while losers are the people and the country.
Key points of the Project are:
The latest figure for the extractable quantity of coal in Phulbari is 572 million tonnes. Besides coal, the mine contains high-grade silica (sand), ceramic clay, Madhupur clay and gravels and rocks of high quality.
· The coalfield will extend over 135 square kilometres. Again, the area, which can be affected directly or indirectly during the mining operation including de-watering, will be nearly 656 square kilometres.
· This area is very fertile, paddy output is high, and nearly all the land yields three crops per year!
· The business activities in the non-agricultural sector are also expanding fast.
· The density of population is very high, 4245 per square kilometres.
The company says, as the mine advances during the first 5 to 10 years, between 15,000 and 20,000 people will have to be resettled, and over the 30-year life of the mine, the total number of people resettled could be 50,000. According to the local sources, the affected number of people may go beyond 2,00,000!
· Because of the coal-mining operations, the production activities of the entire area in agriculture, livestock, fisheries and forestry will be totally destroyed and will remain unproductive for an indefinite period! The products here include aman, aus, IRRI and Boro varieties of rice, wheat, mustard, potato, corn, banana, sugarcane, jute, chilli, garlic, onion, vegetables of all varieties, and numerous fruit-bearing and timber trees.
· There are also rivers and canals, beels, and fish farms numbering over a thousand, and farms that rear ducks, hens and cattle, etc. Besides, there are many shops, and business and commercial houses. Economic activities in the entire area will come to an end.
· Desertification will ruin lives and livelihoods in greater area beyond mine site.
· Water contamination in the mining area may affect total water system of the country because of its network.
· Asia Energy stated that 'during the operation of the mine, 2,100 short-term and 1,100 long-term positions would be available for employment'. It has been deafeningly silent about the fact that livelihood of over 2,00,000 people will be destroyed by its operation.
· If we consider only coal in the mine, Asia Energy could make profit Taka 1,500 billion (more than US$ 200 billion) in thirty years.
· On the other hand, Bangladesh could receive, by way of 6 per cent royalty and taxes, $7 billion in 30 years. In this context, it should be noted that currently the export earning of Bangladesh has exceeded US$ 10 billion per year. Bangladeshis working abroad send foreign exchange remittances worth around US$ 5 billion per year.
Experts on soil sciences, water and geology further stated that, Asia Energy's mining process could dry up underground water aquifers over an area of roughly 324 square kilometres, with an ecological effect that is difficult to quantify in money terms.
· The company will install over 80 'dewatering tube-wells' in the mining area to pump water out of the mine in order to access the coal, which lies below it. Although Asia Energy proposes 'aquifer injection' systems to prevent a water level drawdown, the local ecology may be irreversible.
· Asia Energy has also proposed that the earth that will be dug up for the mine will be converted into a hill that is 14 square kilometres in area and 385 feet high, also featuring a lake that will cover 6 square kilometres. This huge land area will become irrecoverable for agriculture, causing further loss of livelihood, locally. (New Age, August 31, 2006)
Considering the adverse effect on production and economic activities, Bangladesh will suffer huge deficit for the project in addition to loss of coal resources and environment. Peoples suffering will be immense.
Problems, Flaws and Irregularities with the project:
There are many problems with the project, each of these goes against national and international legal, environmental and human rights preconditions. Expert committee pointed out some flaws and irregularities too. We may sum up different legal and other procedural problems with the project and deceptive activities by the company as follows:
1. The contract signed with the Asia energy shows royalty to be paid to the government of Bangladesh as 6 per cent of the production, although the original contract with BHP had been 20 per cent.
2. The coalfield was transferred from BHP to Asia Energy in 1998, but no gazette notification was served at the time.
3. Submission of development plan as the Phulbari project needed a deposit of 3 percent bank guarantee but no deposit was made.
4. According to Mines and minerals Rules 1968 (amended in 1987 and 1989), clause 41, only 400 hectares is allowed for open pit, but the Asia Energy project is for nearly 6000 hectares. The land allocated for the mine was more than 10 times than the existing law permits.
5. According to clause 43 of the above rules, leases can be made only for 10 years and extension can be made upon review but in Asia Energy's case, it is for 35 years.
6. According to international law, practices and convention, any development project requires consent of local people where the project is to be implemented. Asia Energy has made lies and false campaign on this claiming that people have consent on the project.
7. The company did not publish its plan and document to the people of the area and did not go for circulation. Only thing they circulated is a propaganda sheet hiding consequences but glorifying the project.
8. UN convention categorically stated that if any project area has indigenous inhabitants than it is mandatory to have full consent from them. The Phulbari project was in progress completely against the opinion of the indigenous people.
9. After obvious failure to convince people on the project Asia Energy was engaged in bribing people with cash and kind to become informer against agitating people, they also tried to terrorize people by hiring and organizing mastans and goons.
10. Long before getting the final work order Asia Energy started mobilizing capital from London AIM stock market. ` Some 48 million shares were floated in 2004, rocketing up to a price of 900 pence a share by March 2005, for a total market capitalization of over $800 million, six months before the Department of Environment of the Government of Bangladesh granted Environmental Clearance for mining on 11 September 2005. Asia Energy envisioned a $1.1bn (£578m) investment and was negotiating for backing from the Asian Development Bank and the US Ex-Im Bank.' (Analytical monthly review, October 15, 2006).
People or Corporate profit
Therefore, the Phulbari project is economically irrational, environmentally disastrous to a scale unprecedented in the country. It is also legally flawed, corrupt and deceptive. It is nothing but another project of mass destruction.
We must recall that in 1964 USAID funded a hydroelectric project in Chattagram, south east of Bangladesh, that evicted nearly one hundred thousand indigenous people. Most of them are still not resettled, not being compensated. Although that project generated some electricity, but permanent conflict created by the project still exacts a high toll on Bangladesh. Power generation is also now facing crisis. Meanwhile whole peaceful and beautiful landscape turned into an area of conflict, gave birth to insurgency, resulted militarization, caused regular casualties and drainage of public money. Distrust, violence, blood bath continues. USAID was successful project wise, generations in the country have been paying for their sin.
If we compare this with Phulbari coal project in gain loss, in environmental, peoples displacement and agricultural destruction, in desertification of huge area and as well as contamination of water system in the country, we find the later as much more disastrous in many ways. Nevertheless, the ADB is showing its determination to go with the project. If this can make a success Tata will come with another open pit for Barapukuria, the adjacent area.
People in Phulbari area showed their determination to protect their lives, resources and national interest. If anybody now goes ahead with the project, in effect, asks for genocide in different forms. Now Bangladesh government needs to clear its position, whether it has any concern for people, resource and environment of the country or it is reduced to servicing agency of global corporate bodies. People of the countries that dominate the ADB (Japan and the US) have to take a decision whether they want to see their money being utilized to invite genocide, mass destruction, environmental disaster just to satisfy vulgar greed of a company.
(The article is an abridged version of a paper presented at a symposium organized by Peoples Forum on ADB, Kyoto, Japan, May 5, 2007)
19 May, 2007
Countercurrents.org
On March 9 2007 Washington Post reported, 'The Bush administration has objected to a proposed open-pit coal mine in Canada near the Montana border, citing the potential for irreversible environmental damage to Glacier National Park, pristine trout streams and the largest natural lake in the West. ....About 25 miles north of the border, the Cline Mining Corporation of Canada wants to lop off the top of a mountain and over the next 20 years haul away 40 million tons of coal -- in a drainage that forms the headwaters of the North Fork of the Flathead River.....The North Fork of the Flathead, which the federal government says would quickly be contaminated with heavy metals and other mining pollutants, forms the western boundary of Glacier Park. It then flows south into Flathead Lake, often described as the largest pristine lake in the nation and a major recreation site.'
While the US administration obstructed Canadian open pit mining in a mountain area because of 'potential for irreversible environmental damage to Park and natural lake about 25 miles north of the border', US backed institutions and agencies are pushing Bangladesh Government to go ahead with open pit mining in a densely populated and agricultural land area against experts opinion and strong public opinion.
ADB push for Phulbari Project
At a press conference on March 27, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) country director in Bangladesh, Hua Du, expressed the ADB's eagerness for the quick decisions in favour of big Indian corporate giant Tata's proposals related with gas and coal, and the British based company Asia Energy's (AEC) Phulbari Coal Project (PCP). Both are for open pit mining.
'Business is business', she said categorically (Holiday, April 1, 2007).
It is important to note that about 70,000 people were gathered in Phulbari on 26 August 2006 to protest against the proposed open pit mining project. Law enforcers opened fire on them as they were returning home from the protest rally. Three persons were killed and hundreds wounded. Twenty of the wounded people were rendered permanent suffering, one is still in hospital with permanent disability. The action of the law enforcers, however, could not kill off the protest. More people took to the streets in a mass uprising. After days of relentless protest, participated by Bangalee, Adivasi (indigenous), women, men, senior and children, the government relented and entered into an agreement with the protestors represented by National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas Mineral resources, Port and Power.
That historic social contract clearly stated, among others,
1. 'Phulbari coal project will be scrapped and Asia energy will leave the country.'
2. 'No open pit mining will be allowed anywhere in the country'.
3. 'Steps will be taken for development and utilization of coal only after proper consultation with the people keeping national interest intact'.
Meanwhile, a committee of experts, formed by the government, submitted its report in which it observed that the Phulbari project should be cancelled in environmental, economic and legal grounds. However, as Hua Du's statement suggests, nothing can change the bank's mindset.
Why is the bank so enthusiastic to back Asia Energy on the one hand and remain indifferent to experts' opinion about, and the local peoples clear NO to, the project on the other? Why is profit for a company preferable to agencies like ADB even if it costs peoples lives, livelihood and environmental disaster although their written commitments say otherwise?
ADB for Projects of Mass Destruction
In order to ensure energy security for a country like Bangladesh and to find the best possible path to explore natural resources we need to keep in mind that oil, gas and coal are non-renewable resources, cannot be reproduced; that these resources are limited, while domestic demand is growing; that global uncertainty and conflicts on oil, gas and coal mark insecurity for the weak countries; and that energy price is rising and has become unpredictable.
To ensure best possible utilization of energy resources in present and future, every steps concerning exploration, production and utilization of these resources should be transparent. The contracts patronized by the ADB or the World Bank or the IMF have always been secretive. To ensure energy security, the sector should be organized with an objective to fulfill energy demand (present and future) of people and the productive sectors; the peoples ownership and authority over their own resources must be ensured; and development of national institutions and capability must get the highest priority.
However, main features of government policies derived from the ADB and the World Bank support to date are:
There has never been any attempt so far to have comprehensive energy policy and related steps that is consistent with national interest and energy security of the people.
Non-renewable resources have always been considered as something tradable.
Privatization and commercialization of gas, coal and oil has been on the top priority.
Global agencies systematically worked to grab the resources in favour of global corporate. Foreign - aided development projects were utilized to formulate policies in this regard. The energy sector study project of 1982, the energy regulatory commission in 1993, the gas sector master plan and the coal policy in 2006 are some of the examples where World bank, Asian Development Bank were involved.
Dismantling of national agencies, undermining national capabilities, ignoring national needs in short and long term have been common. In fact, global capital is in confrontation with people all over the world, among others, on three issues:
whether people and the country should own and have authority over their own lives and natural resources or global corporates should be allowed to take over; whether natural resources should be used or preserved for the maximum utilization for the development of the country or to be extracted in a big way to maximize profit of foreign big companies; and whether resources will remain common property or turned into private property of corporates.
People in general and Phulbari in particular and many experts opine in favour of utilizing resources as common property, for badly needed development; not to be plundered or wasted or make disaster.
Phulbari Coal Project: Why people and experts oppose? The Phulbari coalfield was the latest discovery among the big four coalfields found in Bangladesh since independence. In 1994 the then government signed agreement with the BHP of Australia. In 1998, BHP transferred its right to one year old British- Australian company Asia Energy.
Asia Energy was preparing itself for open-pit mining. It said in its documents, 'Mining by the open cut method is new to Bangladesh, but it is a proven and highly productive and safe method in similar geological and hydrological conditions in other parts of the world such as Australia, India, Indonesia and Germany.' It goes without saying that projecting such a sweeping comparative statement as expert opinion is ill motivated. Leaving aside other criteria, the population and water aspect in Phulbari is entirely different from the reality in other countries like Australia or Germany even India or Indonesia.
The AEC further stated in defense of open-pit mining: 'Adoption of this method will permit the fullest extraction of coal resources, and will augment duration of the mining period and thus enhance socio-economic opportunity, income prospects and gains for the Bangladesh economy.' It was not made clear who would bear the cost and who would be the beneficiaries of this 'fullest extraction'! We know the beneficiaries are company and allies while losers are the people and the country.
Key points of the Project are:
The latest figure for the extractable quantity of coal in Phulbari is 572 million tonnes. Besides coal, the mine contains high-grade silica (sand), ceramic clay, Madhupur clay and gravels and rocks of high quality.
· The coalfield will extend over 135 square kilometres. Again, the area, which can be affected directly or indirectly during the mining operation including de-watering, will be nearly 656 square kilometres.
· This area is very fertile, paddy output is high, and nearly all the land yields three crops per year!
· The business activities in the non-agricultural sector are also expanding fast.
· The density of population is very high, 4245 per square kilometres.
The company says, as the mine advances during the first 5 to 10 years, between 15,000 and 20,000 people will have to be resettled, and over the 30-year life of the mine, the total number of people resettled could be 50,000. According to the local sources, the affected number of people may go beyond 2,00,000!
· Because of the coal-mining operations, the production activities of the entire area in agriculture, livestock, fisheries and forestry will be totally destroyed and will remain unproductive for an indefinite period! The products here include aman, aus, IRRI and Boro varieties of rice, wheat, mustard, potato, corn, banana, sugarcane, jute, chilli, garlic, onion, vegetables of all varieties, and numerous fruit-bearing and timber trees.
· There are also rivers and canals, beels, and fish farms numbering over a thousand, and farms that rear ducks, hens and cattle, etc. Besides, there are many shops, and business and commercial houses. Economic activities in the entire area will come to an end.
· Desertification will ruin lives and livelihoods in greater area beyond mine site.
· Water contamination in the mining area may affect total water system of the country because of its network.
· Asia Energy stated that 'during the operation of the mine, 2,100 short-term and 1,100 long-term positions would be available for employment'. It has been deafeningly silent about the fact that livelihood of over 2,00,000 people will be destroyed by its operation.
· If we consider only coal in the mine, Asia Energy could make profit Taka 1,500 billion (more than US$ 200 billion) in thirty years.
· On the other hand, Bangladesh could receive, by way of 6 per cent royalty and taxes, $7 billion in 30 years. In this context, it should be noted that currently the export earning of Bangladesh has exceeded US$ 10 billion per year. Bangladeshis working abroad send foreign exchange remittances worth around US$ 5 billion per year.
Experts on soil sciences, water and geology further stated that, Asia Energy's mining process could dry up underground water aquifers over an area of roughly 324 square kilometres, with an ecological effect that is difficult to quantify in money terms.
· The company will install over 80 'dewatering tube-wells' in the mining area to pump water out of the mine in order to access the coal, which lies below it. Although Asia Energy proposes 'aquifer injection' systems to prevent a water level drawdown, the local ecology may be irreversible.
· Asia Energy has also proposed that the earth that will be dug up for the mine will be converted into a hill that is 14 square kilometres in area and 385 feet high, also featuring a lake that will cover 6 square kilometres. This huge land area will become irrecoverable for agriculture, causing further loss of livelihood, locally. (New Age, August 31, 2006)
Considering the adverse effect on production and economic activities, Bangladesh will suffer huge deficit for the project in addition to loss of coal resources and environment. Peoples suffering will be immense.
Problems, Flaws and Irregularities with the project:
There are many problems with the project, each of these goes against national and international legal, environmental and human rights preconditions. Expert committee pointed out some flaws and irregularities too. We may sum up different legal and other procedural problems with the project and deceptive activities by the company as follows:
1. The contract signed with the Asia energy shows royalty to be paid to the government of Bangladesh as 6 per cent of the production, although the original contract with BHP had been 20 per cent.
2. The coalfield was transferred from BHP to Asia Energy in 1998, but no gazette notification was served at the time.
3. Submission of development plan as the Phulbari project needed a deposit of 3 percent bank guarantee but no deposit was made.
4. According to Mines and minerals Rules 1968 (amended in 1987 and 1989), clause 41, only 400 hectares is allowed for open pit, but the Asia Energy project is for nearly 6000 hectares. The land allocated for the mine was more than 10 times than the existing law permits.
5. According to clause 43 of the above rules, leases can be made only for 10 years and extension can be made upon review but in Asia Energy's case, it is for 35 years.
6. According to international law, practices and convention, any development project requires consent of local people where the project is to be implemented. Asia Energy has made lies and false campaign on this claiming that people have consent on the project.
7. The company did not publish its plan and document to the people of the area and did not go for circulation. Only thing they circulated is a propaganda sheet hiding consequences but glorifying the project.
8. UN convention categorically stated that if any project area has indigenous inhabitants than it is mandatory to have full consent from them. The Phulbari project was in progress completely against the opinion of the indigenous people.
9. After obvious failure to convince people on the project Asia Energy was engaged in bribing people with cash and kind to become informer against agitating people, they also tried to terrorize people by hiring and organizing mastans and goons.
10. Long before getting the final work order Asia Energy started mobilizing capital from London AIM stock market. ` Some 48 million shares were floated in 2004, rocketing up to a price of 900 pence a share by March 2005, for a total market capitalization of over $800 million, six months before the Department of Environment of the Government of Bangladesh granted Environmental Clearance for mining on 11 September 2005. Asia Energy envisioned a $1.1bn (£578m) investment and was negotiating for backing from the Asian Development Bank and the US Ex-Im Bank.' (Analytical monthly review, October 15, 2006).
People or Corporate profit
Therefore, the Phulbari project is economically irrational, environmentally disastrous to a scale unprecedented in the country. It is also legally flawed, corrupt and deceptive. It is nothing but another project of mass destruction.
We must recall that in 1964 USAID funded a hydroelectric project in Chattagram, south east of Bangladesh, that evicted nearly one hundred thousand indigenous people. Most of them are still not resettled, not being compensated. Although that project generated some electricity, but permanent conflict created by the project still exacts a high toll on Bangladesh. Power generation is also now facing crisis. Meanwhile whole peaceful and beautiful landscape turned into an area of conflict, gave birth to insurgency, resulted militarization, caused regular casualties and drainage of public money. Distrust, violence, blood bath continues. USAID was successful project wise, generations in the country have been paying for their sin.
If we compare this with Phulbari coal project in gain loss, in environmental, peoples displacement and agricultural destruction, in desertification of huge area and as well as contamination of water system in the country, we find the later as much more disastrous in many ways. Nevertheless, the ADB is showing its determination to go with the project. If this can make a success Tata will come with another open pit for Barapukuria, the adjacent area.
People in Phulbari area showed their determination to protect their lives, resources and national interest. If anybody now goes ahead with the project, in effect, asks for genocide in different forms. Now Bangladesh government needs to clear its position, whether it has any concern for people, resource and environment of the country or it is reduced to servicing agency of global corporate bodies. People of the countries that dominate the ADB (Japan and the US) have to take a decision whether they want to see their money being utilized to invite genocide, mass destruction, environmental disaster just to satisfy vulgar greed of a company.
(The article is an abridged version of a paper presented at a symposium organized by Peoples Forum on ADB, Kyoto, Japan, May 5, 2007)
Thursday, May 24, 2007
To Drink or To Drive
by Paul R. Hollrah
May 01, 2007 01:44 PM EST
With each passing day, the push to substitute renewable energy sources for non-renewable sources, e.g. fossil fuels, begins more and more to resemble the global warming hysteria that recently won Al Gore an Academy Award. But before we all jump onto the most celebrated of renewable energy bandwagons, ethanol fuels, there are some basic things about ethanol that everyone should know.
So what is ethanol? Otherwise known as ethyl alcohol, or grain alcohol, ethanol is a slightly toxic, colorless, flammable liquid produced by fermentation. It is found in alcoholic beverages and is commonly referred to as alcohol.
Fermented beverages are usually classified by the foodstuff from which they are made. Beer is made from cereal grains and other starchy materials, while wines and ciders are made from fruit juices. Most beers contain from 3-5% ethanol; wines contain from 8-12% ethanol; while other fortified alcoholic beverages contain up to 25% ethanol, by volume.Distilled beverages, containing ethanol percentages up to 100% (pure grain alcohol) are made by distilling fermented beverages.
Categories of distilled beverages include whiskeys, distilled from fermented cereal grains; brandies, distilled from fermented fruit juices; and rum, distilled from fermented molasses or sugarcane. Vodka, made from fermented grain or potatoes, tequila, and other spirits, rarely have a taste associated with the starting material.
Moonshine, the most storied homemade ethanol, is made by fermenting a sugar source, usually corn, to produce ethanol and then separating the alcohol from the fermented mixture (the mash) through distillation: cooking the mash to produce ethanol vapors and then converting the vapors to liquid by cooling, as in a copper coil.
The downside to homemade ethanol is that methanol, and other highly toxic alcohols, can occur naturally in distilled spirits, resulting in the potential for death or blindness when consumed.
Home distillation of ethanol for commercial resale is still illegal in the United States, although the fermentation of beer and wine was legalized in 1978. Nevertheless, home distillation of ethanol is growing in popularity, with instructions, materials, and support available on the Internet.
However, the largest single use of ethanol is as a motor fuel or fuel additive. As the Wikipedia Encyclopedia notes, “As early as prohibition, there have been stories of moonshiners using their product as a powerful fuel in their automobiles… The sport of stock car racing got its start when moonshiners would modify their automobiles to outrun federal government revenue agents.”
Today, the world’s largest ethanol production industry is in Brazil, where a major automotive innovation has been the flex fuel engine… capable of running on pure ethanol, all gasoline, or any combination of both, depending on relative price fluctuations in gasoline and ethanol.
Brazil’s success in ethanol conversion was only possible because of the country’s efficient sugar cane industry. Sugar cane not only has a greater concentration of natural sugar (about 30% more than corn) but is also easier to process.
In the United States, the primary ethanol feedstock is corn. Approximately 2.8 gallons of ethanol can be produced from a bushel of corn. However, ethanol produced by grain fermentation and distillation always contains a small amount of water: at least 4.4%. This amount of water cannot be removed by further distillation; and while the product may be eminently suitable for human consumption, the presence of the water makes the ethanol unusable as engine fuel unless purified (dried) by other processes.
Critics say that the principal problem with the use of ethanol as an automotive fuel is that the energy-returned-on-energy-invested (EROEI) for ethanol made from corn is approximately 1: 1. In other words, it takes roughly as much energy (for planting and harvesting, natural gas based fertilizers, transportation, and processing) to create a gallon of ethanol as a gallon of ethanol produces when used as a motor fuel.
Ethanol advocates reject that notion outright, suggesting that the EROEI models fail to include the energy reducing byproducts of ethanol production, such as utilizing corn stalks as fuel in the distillation process. In addition, they suggest that waste mash from the distillation process can be used as a supplement in cattle feed and that the waste material subsequently produced by the cattle can then be used as a replacement for natural gas-based fertilizers.
According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 107 grain biorefineries in the U.S. have a production capacity of 5.1 billion gallons of ethanol per year, while an additional 56 plants, now under construction, can add 3.8 billion gallons of new capacity in the next 18 months. This is compared to U.S. gasoline demand currently at 150 billion gallons per year.
Clearly, ethanol as a motor fuel has a lot of hurdles to clear before it can ever be seen as a major factor in the motor fuel market. For example, the United States does not have enough cropland to grow the corn necessary to supply the motor fuel market. And, in a food-starved world, do we really want to dedicate that much arable land to the production of ethanol?
And finally, if we produce automobiles to run on pure ethanol, as opposed to gasoline-ethanol blends, what’s to stop our kids from drinking our tanks dry as opposed to driving them dry? Locking gas caps, anyone?
May 01, 2007 01:44 PM EST
With each passing day, the push to substitute renewable energy sources for non-renewable sources, e.g. fossil fuels, begins more and more to resemble the global warming hysteria that recently won Al Gore an Academy Award. But before we all jump onto the most celebrated of renewable energy bandwagons, ethanol fuels, there are some basic things about ethanol that everyone should know.
So what is ethanol? Otherwise known as ethyl alcohol, or grain alcohol, ethanol is a slightly toxic, colorless, flammable liquid produced by fermentation. It is found in alcoholic beverages and is commonly referred to as alcohol.
Fermented beverages are usually classified by the foodstuff from which they are made. Beer is made from cereal grains and other starchy materials, while wines and ciders are made from fruit juices. Most beers contain from 3-5% ethanol; wines contain from 8-12% ethanol; while other fortified alcoholic beverages contain up to 25% ethanol, by volume.Distilled beverages, containing ethanol percentages up to 100% (pure grain alcohol) are made by distilling fermented beverages.
Categories of distilled beverages include whiskeys, distilled from fermented cereal grains; brandies, distilled from fermented fruit juices; and rum, distilled from fermented molasses or sugarcane. Vodka, made from fermented grain or potatoes, tequila, and other spirits, rarely have a taste associated with the starting material.
Moonshine, the most storied homemade ethanol, is made by fermenting a sugar source, usually corn, to produce ethanol and then separating the alcohol from the fermented mixture (the mash) through distillation: cooking the mash to produce ethanol vapors and then converting the vapors to liquid by cooling, as in a copper coil.
The downside to homemade ethanol is that methanol, and other highly toxic alcohols, can occur naturally in distilled spirits, resulting in the potential for death or blindness when consumed.
Home distillation of ethanol for commercial resale is still illegal in the United States, although the fermentation of beer and wine was legalized in 1978. Nevertheless, home distillation of ethanol is growing in popularity, with instructions, materials, and support available on the Internet.
However, the largest single use of ethanol is as a motor fuel or fuel additive. As the Wikipedia Encyclopedia notes, “As early as prohibition, there have been stories of moonshiners using their product as a powerful fuel in their automobiles… The sport of stock car racing got its start when moonshiners would modify their automobiles to outrun federal government revenue agents.”
Today, the world’s largest ethanol production industry is in Brazil, where a major automotive innovation has been the flex fuel engine… capable of running on pure ethanol, all gasoline, or any combination of both, depending on relative price fluctuations in gasoline and ethanol.
Brazil’s success in ethanol conversion was only possible because of the country’s efficient sugar cane industry. Sugar cane not only has a greater concentration of natural sugar (about 30% more than corn) but is also easier to process.
In the United States, the primary ethanol feedstock is corn. Approximately 2.8 gallons of ethanol can be produced from a bushel of corn. However, ethanol produced by grain fermentation and distillation always contains a small amount of water: at least 4.4%. This amount of water cannot be removed by further distillation; and while the product may be eminently suitable for human consumption, the presence of the water makes the ethanol unusable as engine fuel unless purified (dried) by other processes.
Critics say that the principal problem with the use of ethanol as an automotive fuel is that the energy-returned-on-energy-invested (EROEI) for ethanol made from corn is approximately 1: 1. In other words, it takes roughly as much energy (for planting and harvesting, natural gas based fertilizers, transportation, and processing) to create a gallon of ethanol as a gallon of ethanol produces when used as a motor fuel.
Ethanol advocates reject that notion outright, suggesting that the EROEI models fail to include the energy reducing byproducts of ethanol production, such as utilizing corn stalks as fuel in the distillation process. In addition, they suggest that waste mash from the distillation process can be used as a supplement in cattle feed and that the waste material subsequently produced by the cattle can then be used as a replacement for natural gas-based fertilizers.
According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 107 grain biorefineries in the U.S. have a production capacity of 5.1 billion gallons of ethanol per year, while an additional 56 plants, now under construction, can add 3.8 billion gallons of new capacity in the next 18 months. This is compared to U.S. gasoline demand currently at 150 billion gallons per year.
Clearly, ethanol as a motor fuel has a lot of hurdles to clear before it can ever be seen as a major factor in the motor fuel market. For example, the United States does not have enough cropland to grow the corn necessary to supply the motor fuel market. And, in a food-starved world, do we really want to dedicate that much arable land to the production of ethanol?
And finally, if we produce automobiles to run on pure ethanol, as opposed to gasoline-ethanol blends, what’s to stop our kids from drinking our tanks dry as opposed to driving them dry? Locking gas caps, anyone?
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Wind power key to EU goal of increasing use of renewable energy
The Associated Press
Published: May 7, 2007
MILAN, Italy: With hydropower running near its limits, wind energy is one of the keys to achieving the goal of generating 20 percent of the EU's power supply with renewable sources by 2010, European policy makers told Europe's premiere wind energy event on Monday.
But obstacles remain in many countries ranging from aesthetic and environmental concerns to the need for stable political frameworks, upgrades in the existing power infrastructure and intensified research and innovation, participants said.
The European Commission is working on an action plan to put into practice the political decision made in March by the 27 EU nations to increase the use of renewable energies to 20 percent by 2020 while confirming the goal of lowering greenhouse gases by 20 percent in the same period.
The document, expected to be completed by October or November, will include national objectives for each EU nation.
"The scientific evidence is clear. Climate change is happening. There is no doubt any longer, and the scientists agree and have stopped arguing. An integrated approach is needed," said Fabrizio Barbaso, deputy director general of the European Commission. "Human beings are responsible, and human beings need to find an appropriate response. Energy is an issue that concerns the very future of our planet."
Barbaso expects wind power, along with biomasss fuel sources, to be a critical component of the action plans, since hydropower, which represents two-thirds of renewable energy share, is running at its maximum level.
The European Wind Energy Association estimates that between 13 percent and 16 percent of EU electricity consumed by 2020 could be generated by wind, for a total of 180 gigawatts of windpower.
The association says that, in an average year, wind produces 3.3 percent of the total EU energy consumption, or approximately 100 terrawat hours of electricity. That would increase fivefold by 2020 if the goals are met.
"Wind energy will be the main contributor to effectively get 20 percent of the EU's total energy supply to come from renewables by 2020," wind association president Arthouros Zervos said.
But to reach that goal, Zervos said Europe would have to develop an offshore wind energy policy while continuing to work on expanding onshore wind farm production. While offshore projects can harness higher velocity winds that are more regular, they remain more expensive to develop than onshore projects, Zervos said.
The wind industry says that increasing reliance on wind power generation would create about 370,000 new jobs in Europe and make energy prices more predictable.
In Europe, Germany and Spain continue to be the biggest wind energy producers, but their combined market share has decreased from 80 percent in 2002 to 50 percent last year as other EU countries develop their potential, the EWEA said.
Published: May 7, 2007
MILAN, Italy: With hydropower running near its limits, wind energy is one of the keys to achieving the goal of generating 20 percent of the EU's power supply with renewable sources by 2010, European policy makers told Europe's premiere wind energy event on Monday.
But obstacles remain in many countries ranging from aesthetic and environmental concerns to the need for stable political frameworks, upgrades in the existing power infrastructure and intensified research and innovation, participants said.
The European Commission is working on an action plan to put into practice the political decision made in March by the 27 EU nations to increase the use of renewable energies to 20 percent by 2020 while confirming the goal of lowering greenhouse gases by 20 percent in the same period.
The document, expected to be completed by October or November, will include national objectives for each EU nation.
"The scientific evidence is clear. Climate change is happening. There is no doubt any longer, and the scientists agree and have stopped arguing. An integrated approach is needed," said Fabrizio Barbaso, deputy director general of the European Commission. "Human beings are responsible, and human beings need to find an appropriate response. Energy is an issue that concerns the very future of our planet."
Barbaso expects wind power, along with biomasss fuel sources, to be a critical component of the action plans, since hydropower, which represents two-thirds of renewable energy share, is running at its maximum level.
The European Wind Energy Association estimates that between 13 percent and 16 percent of EU electricity consumed by 2020 could be generated by wind, for a total of 180 gigawatts of windpower.
The association says that, in an average year, wind produces 3.3 percent of the total EU energy consumption, or approximately 100 terrawat hours of electricity. That would increase fivefold by 2020 if the goals are met.
"Wind energy will be the main contributor to effectively get 20 percent of the EU's total energy supply to come from renewables by 2020," wind association president Arthouros Zervos said.
But to reach that goal, Zervos said Europe would have to develop an offshore wind energy policy while continuing to work on expanding onshore wind farm production. While offshore projects can harness higher velocity winds that are more regular, they remain more expensive to develop than onshore projects, Zervos said.
The wind industry says that increasing reliance on wind power generation would create about 370,000 new jobs in Europe and make energy prices more predictable.
In Europe, Germany and Spain continue to be the biggest wind energy producers, but their combined market share has decreased from 80 percent in 2002 to 50 percent last year as other EU countries develop their potential, the EWEA said.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Hydrogen Cars Are Not Up to Speed, Yet
A flawed but valiant attempt to combat global warming and conserve natural fuel sources
BMW has recently announced pacesetting plans to introduce the Hydrogen 7 to a small pool of U.S. consumers later this year, ideally becoming the true (read: environmentally friendly) “Ultimate Driving Machine.” The vehicle will utilize an internal combustion engine capable of being powered on either gasoline—thus providing the common consumer demand of 300 miles—or on liquid hydrogen for about 125 miles.
So is hydrogen the solution for decreasing our dependency on oil, or will the first models merely end up as dead as General Motors’ electric vehicles?
With more time, money and engineering entrepreneurship, mass-produced hydrogen-powered cars may be possible. Yet do we want to wait for an alternative that may not be the best alternative, or should we seek what’s viable at the present moment? Currently, plug-in electric hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) are a better, cheaper and more readily available option than hydrogen-powered cars—despite how snazzy advertising and quick science may make the hydrogen cars appear.
At first glance, hydrogen seems like the perfect solution for our infamous car culture, which chugs gasoline faster than a pre-initiated frat boy downs a bounty of beer. According to the April issue of Scientific American, US Vehicles consume 383 gallons of gasoline a day; do the math and you have about 140 billion gallons annually. That’s about two-thirds of total national oil consumption, half of which is imported from overseas.
Hydrogen, unlike gasoline, can come from both renewable and non-renewable resources. BMW, in their brochure for the Hydrogen 7, highlights the car’s green selling point: the electricity used to split water molecules, which provides an alternative to fossil fuels, could come from renewable energy sources. However, the use of renewable energy sources for hydrogen-powered cars currently does not appear to be economically feasible, particularly as only two percent of energy production currently falls into the reusable category. A 2004 California Academy of Sciences study even foresaw that fossil fuels would be the source of hydrogen for “several decades.”
While hydrogen fuels generate less carbon dioxide than conventional internal combustion engines, its production, according to the March/April issue of MIT’s Technology Review, generates four times more pollution than a vehicle that runs on methane, diesel or gasoline.
With global warming making its presence noticeably felt and heard, it’s time for automakers—and consumers—to take stronger, more tangible action. As of 2003, transportation emissions account for one-third of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.
While hydrogen vehicles would require an entirely new network of pipelines and fuel stations, PHEVs are currently capable of reducing petroleum consumption and emissions. The half-gas, half-electric vehicle that allows its battery to be recharged overnight provides a better bet than hydrogen-powered cars—or, really, any cars.
The Department of Energy (DOE) made a smart move earlier this month in granting $14 million in research for plug-in hybrid batteries.
Currently, the DOE estimates that hybrids produce 22 percent fewer greenhouse gases than purely petroleum-powered cars; for PHEVs, the reduction stands at 36 percent.
PHEVs are also enormously economically friendly. At an average cost of $3 per gallon of gas, a non-hybrid car costs 8 to 20 cents per mile, according to the advocacy group CalCars. With a PHEV, taking into account the average U.S. electricity rate of 9 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), these costs drop to 2 to 4 cents per mile.
And, if all automotive alternatives fail, we can always ride bikes.
BMW has recently announced pacesetting plans to introduce the Hydrogen 7 to a small pool of U.S. consumers later this year, ideally becoming the true (read: environmentally friendly) “Ultimate Driving Machine.” The vehicle will utilize an internal combustion engine capable of being powered on either gasoline—thus providing the common consumer demand of 300 miles—or on liquid hydrogen for about 125 miles.
So is hydrogen the solution for decreasing our dependency on oil, or will the first models merely end up as dead as General Motors’ electric vehicles?
With more time, money and engineering entrepreneurship, mass-produced hydrogen-powered cars may be possible. Yet do we want to wait for an alternative that may not be the best alternative, or should we seek what’s viable at the present moment? Currently, plug-in electric hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) are a better, cheaper and more readily available option than hydrogen-powered cars—despite how snazzy advertising and quick science may make the hydrogen cars appear.
At first glance, hydrogen seems like the perfect solution for our infamous car culture, which chugs gasoline faster than a pre-initiated frat boy downs a bounty of beer. According to the April issue of Scientific American, US Vehicles consume 383 gallons of gasoline a day; do the math and you have about 140 billion gallons annually. That’s about two-thirds of total national oil consumption, half of which is imported from overseas.
Hydrogen, unlike gasoline, can come from both renewable and non-renewable resources. BMW, in their brochure for the Hydrogen 7, highlights the car’s green selling point: the electricity used to split water molecules, which provides an alternative to fossil fuels, could come from renewable energy sources. However, the use of renewable energy sources for hydrogen-powered cars currently does not appear to be economically feasible, particularly as only two percent of energy production currently falls into the reusable category. A 2004 California Academy of Sciences study even foresaw that fossil fuels would be the source of hydrogen for “several decades.”
While hydrogen fuels generate less carbon dioxide than conventional internal combustion engines, its production, according to the March/April issue of MIT’s Technology Review, generates four times more pollution than a vehicle that runs on methane, diesel or gasoline.
With global warming making its presence noticeably felt and heard, it’s time for automakers—and consumers—to take stronger, more tangible action. As of 2003, transportation emissions account for one-third of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.
While hydrogen vehicles would require an entirely new network of pipelines and fuel stations, PHEVs are currently capable of reducing petroleum consumption and emissions. The half-gas, half-electric vehicle that allows its battery to be recharged overnight provides a better bet than hydrogen-powered cars—or, really, any cars.
The Department of Energy (DOE) made a smart move earlier this month in granting $14 million in research for plug-in hybrid batteries.
Currently, the DOE estimates that hybrids produce 22 percent fewer greenhouse gases than purely petroleum-powered cars; for PHEVs, the reduction stands at 36 percent.
PHEVs are also enormously economically friendly. At an average cost of $3 per gallon of gas, a non-hybrid car costs 8 to 20 cents per mile, according to the advocacy group CalCars. With a PHEV, taking into account the average U.S. electricity rate of 9 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), these costs drop to 2 to 4 cents per mile.
And, if all automotive alternatives fail, we can always ride bikes.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Canada to Build 40MW Solar Power Plant
Posted by Zonk on Sunday April 29, @03:30AM
from the thinking-big dept.
IceDiver writes "According to an article in the Toronto Star, an Ontario company has been given approval to build a 40MW solar power plant near Sarnia in Southwestern Ontario. This is enough power for about 10,000 homes.
The plant will cover 365 hectares (1.4 sq. miles) and is to be operational by 2010. OptiSolar, the company building the plant, claims to have developed a way to mass produce the solar panels at a dramatically reduced cost, making the plant competitive with other forms of power generation. 'Compared to coal, nuclear power, even wind, solar's squeaky-clean image comes at a high price.
OptiSolar is selling the electricity to the province under its new standard offer program, which pays a premium for electricity that comes from small-scale renewable projects. In the case of wind, it's 11 cents per kilowatt-hour. Solar fetches 42 cents per kilowatt hour, nearly four times as much.'"
from the thinking-big dept.
IceDiver writes "According to an article in the Toronto Star, an Ontario company has been given approval to build a 40MW solar power plant near Sarnia in Southwestern Ontario. This is enough power for about 10,000 homes.
The plant will cover 365 hectares (1.4 sq. miles) and is to be operational by 2010. OptiSolar, the company building the plant, claims to have developed a way to mass produce the solar panels at a dramatically reduced cost, making the plant competitive with other forms of power generation. 'Compared to coal, nuclear power, even wind, solar's squeaky-clean image comes at a high price.
OptiSolar is selling the electricity to the province under its new standard offer program, which pays a premium for electricity that comes from small-scale renewable projects. In the case of wind, it's 11 cents per kilowatt-hour. Solar fetches 42 cents per kilowatt hour, nearly four times as much.'"
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Mill goes green to harness river’s renewable energy
ELIZABETH STUDEBAKER
Feature Writer
CLIFTON – What’s good for the environment is good for Clifton Mill. Using the water power that’s already there, a giant turbine is being restored to power a limited part of electricity used at the centuries-old Mill.Clifton Mill is responding to the Earth Day call for action on climate change.
Earth Day was created in 1970 to spark a revolution against environmental abuse. Anthony Satariano II, Mill owner, explains the business’ electrical needs are so huge, that use of the turbine is limited in scope. Clifton Mill is one of the few grist mills still in operation in the United States. During the Holidays, thousands of visitors enjoy the spectacle of millions of lights. The Millrace Restaurant and Gift Shop are year-around attractions. These areas that will be powered by the turbine.
The turbine housed in a huge, double-sided canister was first installed at the Mill by previous owners in the late 1960s. At the suggestion of Mike Winters, an electrician from the Clifton area, it’s being re-activated. Mike has designed and helped create and maintain some of the mechanical attractions seen in the Miniature Village during the holidays.
Anthony Satariano I desribed the turbines “like a water wheel inside a can.” Inside the giant red cylinder are huge metal water wheels at either end. The turbine is a Model D Samson that was made by the James Leffel Co. in Springfield. One side still powers the Mill and the other half will now spin the generator for the lights inside the Mill and restaurant. T
he turbine will use the same water power that has been running this Mill site since 1802, free clean green energy, that water flows 24/7.“For Clifton Mill, it’s back to the basic, old-fashioned techniques are in again,” it’s owners say.
Feature Writer
CLIFTON – What’s good for the environment is good for Clifton Mill. Using the water power that’s already there, a giant turbine is being restored to power a limited part of electricity used at the centuries-old Mill.Clifton Mill is responding to the Earth Day call for action on climate change.
Earth Day was created in 1970 to spark a revolution against environmental abuse. Anthony Satariano II, Mill owner, explains the business’ electrical needs are so huge, that use of the turbine is limited in scope. Clifton Mill is one of the few grist mills still in operation in the United States. During the Holidays, thousands of visitors enjoy the spectacle of millions of lights. The Millrace Restaurant and Gift Shop are year-around attractions. These areas that will be powered by the turbine.
The turbine housed in a huge, double-sided canister was first installed at the Mill by previous owners in the late 1960s. At the suggestion of Mike Winters, an electrician from the Clifton area, it’s being re-activated. Mike has designed and helped create and maintain some of the mechanical attractions seen in the Miniature Village during the holidays.
Anthony Satariano I desribed the turbines “like a water wheel inside a can.” Inside the giant red cylinder are huge metal water wheels at either end. The turbine is a Model D Samson that was made by the James Leffel Co. in Springfield. One side still powers the Mill and the other half will now spin the generator for the lights inside the Mill and restaurant. T
he turbine will use the same water power that has been running this Mill site since 1802, free clean green energy, that water flows 24/7.“For Clifton Mill, it’s back to the basic, old-fashioned techniques are in again,” it’s owners say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
