Save Sabah!

Save Sabah's Natural Heritage and Future Generations!

Archive for the ‘Educate’ Category

Other plants don’t discharge into sea

Posted by Save Sandakan On January - 27 - 2011

I refer DE 9th Jan 2011 Forum letter entitled ’Anti-coal group not majority’ (page 21), written by Mr. David Lee.

Point for point, Lee says that “anti-coal does not represent the silent majority about the project proposal (site 300 MW coal-fired plant at Sinakut, Darvel Bay). They would sooner have the electricity supplied to their homes uninterrupted rather than join the debate.”

In fact, his ‘silent majority’ claim  actually highlights the reality of a lurking danger : an uninformed majority.

For instance, the majority of  fatal accidents happen because the victims obviously  don’t know what’s coming! Similarly, most people don’t know how our  independent power  producers operate their coal plants and perhaps Mr Lee should study it himself.

But it stuns everyone the moment they see Google pictures how these plants discharge huge amount of waste water straight to the sea and night pictures of dark fly ash shooting into the air, 10 out of 10 objected.They change their mind quickly when they realize coal plants use our seas as their ‘garbage’ dump.

Deep in their hearts, the majority object heavy pollution, when  you let them know .

On his claim that the majority want “uninterrupted supply” of electricity to homes and industries, who told Mr Lee NGOs have advocated anything to the contrary?

Does Mr Lee know anyone in Sabah who campaigns against uninterrupted power supply?The good news is East Coast and Lahad Datu folks say “uninterrupted” power supply is already a reality there of late.

Why all of a sudden this can be done, when some tried their best to argue they need a coal plant to do it and  put all the blame about the decades of constant blackouts on anti-pollution groups for causing the woes?

It confirms the time-honoured saying: If there is a will, there is a way, even without coal, thanks to Green Energy Minister, Peter Chin, who vowed to resign by the end of 2010, if he could not fix the perennial blackouts.

Well, he fixed it and celebrated his success, we heard!

By urging the State and Federal Governments to study traditional coal user countries like  Japan, Britain ,  Europe, Australia, Taiwan and China, Lee went on to urge the Federal and State Governments to “make the right decision.”

The right decision is to reject such a heavy air and sea polluter in what every marine scientists and fishermen have always known is the richest coral ecosystem in the world which is already earning RM250 million per year from diving alone, not including fisheries, seaweeds and fish farming.  Sabah Tourism and Tourism Malaysia have already said they wanted to expand the diving industry to all the scores of islands in and around the Dent Peninsular because Sipadan can’t cope any more with the rising crowd.

It can’t be a right decision endorsing an industry that pours toxic wastes into this system and eventually envelope the skies of Semporna with a daily shroud of nitrogen dioxide haze (low level ozone), destroying both air and water quality, as is the case reported  in Manjun, Klang, KL and Johor.

It will only brand such a renowned  marine destination negatively and put a road block to its growth.

Ironically, Mr Lee, a foreigner to Australia, praised the Great Barrier Reef as a “paradise for tourists” but in the next breath,  sank to a spiral of totally negative remarks about  “foreign environmentalists who come to Sabah one or two days and make fantastic prises about Sabah’s environmental paradise, exotic species, pristine forests, lost world, world heritage quality.”

What is this?

Jacking Australia but cynical  about foreigners’ good word on his  own State.

But we know Mr Lee wants to say : see, “Queensland burns tens of millions of tons of coal to produce 8,000MW of electricity for decades, from a dozen huge coal-fired plants . If our Sabah environmental activists’ claims of environmental disasters are correct, the corals in the Great Barrier Reef would be wiped out by the pollutants by now,” we quote him.

Well, Mr Lee mentions “pollutants”.

It will be interesting if Mr Lee can prove to the people of Sabah the dozen huge coal plants in Queensland he mentioned, make direct discharges of waste water into the Great Barrier Reef!

As far as we know, coal plants in Australia don’t discharge pollutants straight into the sea.

For example, the Bayswater and Eraring –Australia’s two largest power stations, employ a ‘closed system’ to use, recycle and reuse the same body of cooling water to avoid contaminating the natural water systems – rivers or seas.  

To do this,  Baywater and Rearing erect natural draft towers 132m high to drop and cool hot water from the boilers ,  store the water in man-made lakes, then draw and run the same water through their condenser pipes to cool the super-hot turbines.

This self contained cooling system doesn’t give coal plants the liberty to pollute nearby natural  water systems , ensures zero discharge and protect particularly rich marine ecosystems from thermal or  toxic runoffs !

As paradoxical as it may sound, anti coal don’t condemn coal.

Why condemn a mineral which acts like a sponge that absorbs all the deadly heavy metals like arsenic, mercury, lead, etc , keep them safely buried underground in order to keep our environment from harms way?  

But once we burn it for power, it’s clearly in Sabah’s interest to question  HOW they plan  to do it!

The bone of contention centres on potentially monstrous waste discharge into our best sea.Even Mr Lee should object if he knows that is going to happen.

So, what stirs the NGOs’ preventive objection  is  potential spectre of  a terrific discharge of hot waste water into the sea around Dent Peninsular and Semporna for a possible century.

Mr Lee doesn’t seem to worry about the consequence.

But a lot of people do.

Among them are very educated, leading doctors, CEOs who have developed and managed tens of thousands of hectares of oil palm estates, including former Speaker of the State legislative Assembly who is known to read a lot and therefore know a lot about coal burning.

They can easily face Mr Lee for a debate if he wants. 

When they proposed to build it is Seguntur, Sandakan, people who live nearby rose to the forefront object include  a family of asthmatics who are on medication and were afraid constant exposure to fly ash discharge could trigger fatal attacks.

Does Mr Lee know the valid range of life or death concerns of our local people before branding them as stooges of powerful foreign environmentalists.  

Also, the director of a major hospital can’t be a stooge of  foreign environmentalists, an she?

So, Mr Lee, don’t push coal plants in Sabah and invoke Australia as if our independent power producers adheres to the same strict mitigation processes as the Australians do!

Ours head straight to the beach, exploit and draw easy seawater, disinfect  it chemically, run it through the cooling system and dump it back to the sea.       

Is this the “right decision” Mr Lee presses the governments to make?

If so, we would say the so called “environmentalists” Lee  invariably label  negatively , are the real patriots because they show care , they want to protect Sabah’s natural resources from the excesses of industries but don’t object to industries.

Even so, no body, including the best Australian coal power stations, know how to capture C02, the chief culprit in global warming.  

C02 emissions remains a dangerous pollutant.

Mr Lee’s hope of keeping C02 underground is not practical.

A major earth quake and it all escapes!

Paradoxically, Mr Lee paid such glowing tribute to Australia’s huge coal industry without citing a word about the extreme  floods that struck Australia from the plains of Rockhampton to highland Toowomba last week!    

Instead, he made a one-track minded statement like “countries like UK, China, Europe had been burning coal for a 1,000 years. If coal were so bad as some claimed, the damages would have been written all over the faces of the people of these countries.”

Yet , the whole world saw how extreme drought, bush fires  and  extreme floods covered the face of Australia over the last two years, similarly Pakistan, China , Sri Lanka and also the extreme snows in North America and Europe just two weeks ago.

Strangely, Mr Lee doesn’t think these weather extremes have anything to do with burning coal over the last several hundred years and a steady rise in global temperature and continues to champion the high virtues of coal. 

He can ignore all what climate scientists and economists who have admonished the world to do something about decarbonising, because small changes in averages (average world temperature) cause big changes in the frequency of extreme events but strangely, Mr Lee’s blind spots to all these are total, except his singular interest in minerals and mining and so if he dominates the microphone, all these extreme events may swallow us.

We think  Mr Lee wrongfully accuse ‘Green Turf’ (Green Surf, Mr Lee) which he says campaigns for  “ absolutely no mining in Sabah” and challenge  NGOs to mine , refine and turn such rich minerals like iron ore, coal, copper, manganese, nickel and turn them into turbines , plants, mills et to produce the green energy  they are advocating.

MR Lee is very  wrong to think no body can do better than conventional thinkers like him. 

There is a huge range of talents, knowledge, insight, understanding and passion which are simply not tapped!

His idea of business as usual, do what the Indonesians  do, mine coal, make the billions, projects need go on and there is “no  escape at the expense of the environment” tell Sabahans to look Indonesia! 

The traditional ‘balanced development’ idea is already outdated because a lot of smart thinkers discovered sacrificing cherished permanent stuff for things materialistic and transient is simply foolhardy and short-sighted.

Instead, they advocate  the ‘win-win’ concept which involves good strategic planning that produce all round benefits without sacrificing vital ecosystem services but at the same time, reaping the full  benefits of Man-made development and projects.   

So we object when people say, if you want electricity , you must be prepared to sacrifice your richest sea. 

Mr Lee even questioned the  NGOs : ‘where is our conscience?’

He should ask himself that question instead.

If he says sacrifice Semporna’s productive ecosystems we must, because  people in KK want continued power supply to their house, he’s not thinking of  the thousands of stakeholders there who rely on its reef health and water quality for seafood, diving, seaweed farming, that’s no conscience.

The smarter thing to do is to try to break the trade-off , or at least reduce and minimise it but don’t encourage the government and project proponents by saying they are free to override or sacrifice ir-replaceable millennia old reef system, just for electricity which can be produced in dozens of ways and places!  

As for claims that environmentalists object to even 100m sand mining in rivers, the people who really raise objection to the press  are riverine land owners who see their land eaten away by erosion water quality destroyed because of heavy riverbed dredging.

Furthermore, rivers are dynamic currents. Dredge in one place, mud and sediments are carried hundreds of miles downstream, degrading every living habitat on its way.

In addition, sand miners more from once site to another. Dig 100m one time, if they move 20 times, it adds up to 2000m or the whole river. But of course, with Mr Lee’ singular focus on mining, he sees no reason to regulate these guys.

If he doesn’t believe, go the Papar River to have a look.

And don’t worry about environmentalists’ objections to sand mining, all of Sabah’s rivers are already heavily polluted with mud flows. If they object , it’s a reaction to seeing the destruction already done and an attempt to salvage some grace for Sabah. 

As for environmentalists objecting to every road through kampongs, don’t worry too, roads had already cut many mangrove forests asunder and mangrove forests have been removed wholesale for development when they could have left them alone and develop in more appropriate  grounds. All that win-win benefit can be achieved, minus the conventional attitude that belittles the environment and the vital importance of their ecosystem services to Sabahans.

As for environmentalists wielding great political power, the fact is they are powerless to approve or rescind projects , only struggle to persuade decision makers to please help, often with their own time and money, unlike some who continue to receive handsome pensions from tax payers’ money long after retirement, and basically for doing nothing for the public interest.

Mr Lee then said how the Chinese are getting smart like the Japanese and western countries by shifting their “heavy industries” to foreign lands. 

Actually what they have done is keep the clean, high value, strategic industries at home and shift the really dirty, toxic  primary processes outside, like the aluminium smelter Mr Lee mentioned..

A very good example is the Mamut Copper mine which peaked in the hey days of Mr Lee’s career , where the Japanese processed the raw materials here and shipped the copper home.

Extracting copper and gold with the most toxic chemicals like cyanide and discharging the deadly wastes into the Lohan and Mamut Rivers, killed all fish in both rivers and of course.   

Sabah Parks erected ‘toxic river’ warning sign at Poring.Belian fish, Tor lambroides, all died .

If they didn’t vanish, Sabah Parks might be able to make a lot of money from ‘fish massage now, like some villagers near Sabah Tea are enjoying now. 

MR Lee insinuated some ‘high government officials are already infected and are dancing to their (environmentalists) tunes.”  

Some high government officials indeed have seen  the massive lake of highly acidic water in Mamut Copper mine which still leaks out to the rivers.

We read in the local newspapers how a Japanese professor proposed to take out the acidity for a reported sum of some RM150 millions with effective mircrobes.

But how much did the State earn from Mamut Copper Mine?

We heard around just RM200million.

But according to some  high government officials,  the professor never returned, because his verdict is ‘the problem is too big’ to tackle! 

So Mr Lee should not portray these high government officials as though they are dumb, don’t know anything  and manipulated by environmentalists.

They know more than what Mr Lee think.

On their lap is a threat, costly unsolvable  legacy left  behind by miners and their advocates  who have long washed their hands. 

Save Sabah

 

Daily Express Forum Sunday 23rd Jan 2011 .

Popularity: 7% [?]

No Coal-Fired Power Plants Built in Past Two

Posted by Save Sandakan On January - 9 - 2011

 

Years Published January 4, 2011 Washington Post

RELATED ARTICLES – Environmental Groups Bash ‘Clean Coal’ in New Campaign

The Washington Post has announced that in 2010, not a single new coal-fired power plant was constructed in the United States. This marks the second year in a row in which this has occurred. Coal remains the most abundantly used source of electricity, accounting for half of all power generation. However, a number of factors, such as the economy, lower natural gas prices, and environmentalist opposition, have effectively halted the growth of the coal industry.

Coal is being dumped in favor of natural gas, which due to extensive exploration and production, has a significantly lower price than in the past. Much of the new gas production is in shale rock, which have recently been unlocked due to new technologies. Reserves of shale gas are believed to be vast in North America and elsewhere, rivaling the oil reserves of the Middle East.

America’s largest electricity generator, American Electric Power (AEP), plans to turn to natural gas for any additional electrical capacity. The price of natural gas straight from the wellhead stood at about $4.25 per thousand cubic feet in 2010, well below its historic average price. According to a report from Deutsche Bank, if gas prices stay below $6, more plants will be converting from coal to gas.

“Coal is a dead man walkin’,” says Kevin Parker, global head of asset management and a member of the executive committee at Deutsche Bank. “Banks won’t finance them. Insurance companies won’t insure them. The EPA is coming after them…And the economics to make it clean don’t work.”

But coal is not completely dead yet. Last year, the coal industry managed to kill the climate legislation (cap and trade) in the US Senate, showing it still has a lot of influence in politics and public opinion. Plus, even as it declines, it remains the number one source of electricity in America.

However, the coal industry is under a heavy assault from the Environmental Protection Agency. Starting this year, new EPA regulations take effect to lower greenhouse gas emissions of power plants emitting over 75,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. Such a rule would force industry to install state-of-the-art emissions controls on new construction in order to obtain the necessary air permits. For a dirty fossil fuel like coal, the added cost of new controls can make it economically prohibitive, accelerating the conversion to natural gas.

Fights among lawmakers and in the courts can be expected as the new regulations begin to take effect. Many Republicans plan to block or hamstring the EPA’s efforts. Nevertheless, overall demand for coal power is decreasing in the United States. From 2000 to 2008, 19 new coal-fired plants were constructed. In 2010, plans to build 38 new plants were abandoned, and an additional 48 plants were mothballed. For the sake of the environment, let’s hope this trend continues.

Link to Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/31/AR2010123104110.html

Popularity: 7% [?]

TNB gets second bite at coal-fired plant

Posted by Save Sandakan On November - 27 - 2010

National power company Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) has indicated that it will continue with its plan to build the controversial 300MW coal-fired power plant in Lahad Datu, Sabah.
Despite its initial detailed environment impact assessment (DEIA) report being rejected by the Department of Environment (DoE) on Aug 18, the company has the option of appealing the decision.
azlan“A revised DEIA report will be resubmitted for review and approval,” the company said in a short entry in its 2010 annual report.
The coal-fired plant, to be built on Felda Sahabat land some 100km from Lahad Datu town, is the third incarnation of the project after it was rejected twice on environmental grounds.
The first proposal in 2007 was for the facility to be built in Silam, also in Lahad Datu. Two years later, the site was changed to Seguntor, Sandakan.
On both counts, the project saw fierce opposition from the public and environmental NGOs.
Second bid allowed
State tourism, culture and environment minister Masidi Manjun had said in August that both the state and federal governments had pledged not to press ahead with the project if the DEIA is rejected.
He however pointed out that TNB could still pursue the matter as “existing policy and procedures give (the) option” to the developer to carry out another DEIA report, in a bid to secure approval from the DoE.
The RM1.7 billion plant has come under heavy criticism over the past year, with NGO coalition Green SURF going as far as to accuse TNB of producing a DEIA designed to “mislead” the public into believing the facility is eco-friendly.
The proposed project was awarded to a consortium of TNB Remaco, Eden-Nova and a Sabah state-owned company. A special purpose vehicle company, Lahad Datu Energy Sdn Bhd, was formed to implement the project.

Joseph Sipalan
Nov 25, 10
1:40pm

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/149132

Popularity: 15% [?]

The Devastating Effects of Coal Ash Pollution in China

Posted by Save Sandakan On September - 19 - 2010

 

Friday, September 17, 2010

Images of devastating effect of Coal Ash pollution in China, the same effect that might happen in here in Sabah, if we let them build the coal plant in Kg. Sinakut.

1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2010/sep/16/pollution-coal-ash-china#/?picture=366690638&index=0

2)  http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/china/en/press/reports/coal-ash-report-english-2010.pdf

 

Harmful substances Health impacts :

Antimony          Eye irritation, heart damage, lung problems
Arsenic             Cancer, skin lesions, hand warts
Barium              Gastrointestinal problems, muscle weakness, heart damage
Beryllium           Lung cancer, pneumonia, respiratory problems
Boron               Reproductive problems, gastrointestinal problems
Cadmium          Lung disease, kidney disease, cancer
Chromium        Cancer, ulcers and other stomach problems
Cobalt              Lung, heart, liver and kidney problems; dermatitis
Copper            Respiratory and nervous system damage, liver disease
Lead               Nervous system damage, brain damage, development and behavioural problems
Manganese     Nervous system damage, muscle problems, neurological problems
Mercury           Cognitive deficiency, stunted growth, behavioural problems
Molybdenum    Mineral imbalance, anemia, developmental problems
Nickel               Cancer, lung problems, allergic reactions
Selenium         Birth defects, impaired bone growth in children
Vanadium        Birth defects; lung, throat and eye problems
Zinc                 Gastrointestinal and reproductive problems
Chlorides         High blood pressure
Fluorides         Dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis
Nitrates           Reacts in stomach to form carcinogenic substances
Sulphates        Stimulates the gastrointestinal tract

Table 1 The health impacts of key harmful substances present in coal ash .

Popularity: 23% [?]

Pro-coal group adds new twist to coal controversy

Posted by Save Sandakan On September - 8 - 2010

 

Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:45

By Queville To
KOTA KINABALU: The controversial proposal to build Sabah’s first coal-fired power plant has taken a new twist with the arrival of a new pro-coal pressure group, the People’s Assembly Action Committee (PAAC).
The newly formed pro-coal lobby has incurred the wrath of anti coal-fired power plant coalition, Green SURF (Sabah Unite to Re-Power the Future), for claiming that the people in the east coast of Sabah support the project.
Green SURF’s Wong Tack, who is also Sabah Environmental Protection Association (Sepa) president, challenged PAAC chairman A Nagaraju to give full details of his claim.
He said Nagaraju should also reveal who exactly are the people that he was referring to and as to who was backing his campaign.
“The people have been saying no to this project since it was proposed in Silam, Lahad Datu and then was forced to shift location to Sandakan due to health and environmental concerns and then driven out of that district also.
“We formed Green SURF last year when Sinakut (in Lahad Datu) was proposed as the third site. We have seen support for the coalition grow from day to day, and even individuals have come in to help us.
“We would like to ask Nagaraju who are the majority of people in Sabah’s east coast who want this project,” Wong said in a statement today.
He also noted that PAAC had just emerged from nowhere, following the rejection of the Detailed Environment Impact Assessment (DEIA) by the Federal Department of Environment.
Wong was responding to a recent media report in which Nagaraju claimed that his group represented those on the east coast of the state who wanted economic development.

Rejected three times

He also questioned PAAC’s tactics to attract people to a pro-coal rally organised by them in Lahad Datu on Aug 21, pointing out that freebies like caps and t-shirts were given out to lure the public.
The Federal Department of Environment (DOE) rejected in mid-August the Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (DEIA) that was submitted by Lahad Datu Energy for the 300 megawatt plant on the shores of the Sulu Sulawesi Marine Eco-region (SSME).
Wong noted that Green SURF had received close to 500 copies of letters from the public, addressed to the DOE questioning the DEIA and calling on the government to scrap the project.
He said that even a poll conducted among members of the Lahad Datu Chinese Chamber of Commerce showed that 86.2 per cent objected to the proposed plant.
The project has now been rejected three times and that any appeal for it to proceed is an insult to the people and the democratic process, he said.
State Tourism, Culture and Environment Minister Masidi Manjun subscribed to this, he said, when he was quoted as saying he hoped any decision by the project proponent to re-submit a DEIA was “dictated by conscience and public opinion.”
“This whole issue has angered the people of Sabah. We wonder why this Action Committee is so eager to see the continuation of this project when we should be focusing our attention on finding alternatives to solve the power shortage problem,” he said.

Against Copenhagen agreement

Though the plan to build the plant has come up against strong and unrelenting grassroots opposition, the federal government has largely turned a deaf ear to their pleas, arguing that the energy plant is necessary to power Sabah and stop blackouts.
Critics have reportedly said that the coal plant will damage fish stocks with chlorine and thermal discharges, upend the lives of locals dependent on fishing, and devastate eco-tourism in the region.
In addition, the coal plant goes directly against Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s agreement at Copenhagen to reduce the country’s carbon emission intensity by 40 percent by 2020.
Despite these concerns, the plant has continued to move ahead possibly due to nepotism, corruption, and kick-backs, according to sources who requested anonymity.
They claim nearly a quarter of the cost of the coal plant or RM400 million has been paid to the contracted company, China National Electric Equipment Company (CNEEC) to build the power plant.
The thinking at the time was that the project would be approved as coal is listed in the country’s five-fuel policy.
When first proposed it was estimated at RM1.1 billion, then RM1.3 billion for the second site, and now RM1.7 billion, a RM400 million jump from one site to the next.
No one knows if the total cost includes the cost of building a transmission line, or the route this transmission line will follow. It also not known which coal mines in Kalimantan will supply the plant or how long they plan to export coal from Indonesia.

TNB’s role


Much of the speculation on the relentless pressure to build the plant centres around national power utility, Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) and its chairman Leo Moggie, a former federal minister.
TNB has always been pushing for the coal plant and an advertisement was even published in several Sabah newspapers arguing for such a plant.
In addition to this allegation, sources said that the deal for the coal plant is not transparent and may be linked to politically connected individuals.
They said certain well-connected citizens control the import of coal from Kalimantan and and according to published plans, the coal plant will be powered by mines in Indonesian Borneo.
Environmentalists fear that if the plant goes ahead, it will spur coal mining in Sabah’s own backyard, destroying the state’s last pristine eco-systems.
The Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL) at the University of California Berkeley, which was hired by Green SURF to conduct an energy audit for Sabah found that power from either biomass or hydropower could provide the same power at a competitive price with coal.
Apart from SEPA, the other members of Green SURF are Land Empowerment Animals People (LEAP), WWF-Malaysia, Malaysian Nature Society (Sabah branch) and Partners of Community Organisations (Pacos).

http://freemalaysiatoday.com/fmt-english/politics/sabah-and-sarawak/9755-pro-coal-group-adds-new-twist-to-coal-controversy

Popularity: 15% [?]

Timer

VIDEO

TAG CLOUD

Sponsors