Energy boost
Wang Jun

THE Huitengxile Wind Power Plant in Inner Mongolia has just what the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games needs-power. At least 20 percent of the total electricity the games needs-or 50 mw-will be provided by these wind turbines hundreds of miles to the northwest of the capital. With the addition of a new 100-mw project, the plant will generate 259 million kwh of electricity in 2007. Compared to a thermal power plant with the same output, this wind power plant can reduce annual emissions of carbon dioxide by 200,000 tons, sulfur dioxide by 1,900 tons, soot by 826 tons and waste residue by 11,000 tons.
As of September 1, the wind power plant, together with all other power plants that generate electricity from renewable energies, will not need to worry about selling its electricity anymore. The State Electricity Regulatory Commission announced new rules on August 1 for the purchase of electricity generated by renewable sources.
According to the rules, power distributors must include electricity from renewable energies in their power grids, including hydropower, wind, biomass, geothermal and solar energy from September 1, 2007 onward.
Policies and prices
Power grid enterprises and electricity distributors will be held responsible for misconduct that cause losses to producers of renewable energies, according to the newly released rules. Misconduct includes the following: failure to construct necessary facilities to connect the alternative electricity to the power grids or failure to do so in time; refusal to sign electricity purchase and distribution agreements with the producers or purposefully setting obstacles to the agreements; failure to provide services related to the connection of electricity or failure to do so in time; or failure to give priority to electricity from renewable energies in electricity distribution.
The rules also require provincial-level power grid enterprises and electricity generators to report to local electricity regulators on issues related to the output, supply and payment for electricity from renewable energies.
Before the new rules were put into place, grid operators sometimes excluded electricity generated by renewable energies in order to maintain the overall stability of the grids. They found electricity from renewable energies other than thermal power to be unstable. Take biomass power for example. Since the frequency of electricity generation is decided by the biological ferment, electricity generated from biomass is not very steady.
The new rules set clear responsibilities for power grids when including electricity from renewable energies, stipulating that grid corporations should install equipment to insure that electricity from renewable energies would be included in a stable manner. Meanwhile, expenses for connecting grids will also be paid by grid corporations, which helps lift some of the financial difficulties faced by renewable energy-oriented electricity producers located in remote areas.
“That grid corporations should include all electricity from renewable energies is a requirement by the Law on Renewable Energies, and these rules further clarify the supervision details and responsibilities,” said Ren Dongming, Deputy Director of the Renewable Energies Research Center of the Energy Research Institute under the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). According to Ren, after electricity from renewable energies is included in power grids, relevant authorities will discuss the issue about whether a fixed share of electricity from renewable energies should be set among the total output of electricity.
Nevertheless, electricity companies expect more favorable policies. Lu Shaojie, Deputy General Manager of the National Bio Energy Co. Ltd., said that renewable energy companies still have a strong dependence on government policies, and besides the favorable electricity prices, the government should initiate more diversified supporting policies. Most of the companies generating electricity from renewable energies expect more subsidies, since their costs are higher than those of traditional power companies.
According to a report from China Economic Times, if the cost of thermal power is 1 unit, that of small-scale hydropower, biomass power and wind power is 1.2, 1.5 and 1.7 units respectively, while that of solar photovoltaic power may reach 11-18 units.
The high costs have blocked sales of electricity from renewable energies. Shanghai carried out an experimental project in 2005 where users could choose to purchase electricity from renewable energies on their own accord. However, of the total 64.49 million kwh of “green electricity” available for sale that year, only 23 percent was purchased due to the higher costs.
An official from the electricity department of the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region disclosed that the investment for 1 kwh of wind power is nearly 10,000 yuan, two or three times more than that of thermal power. Therefore when granting loans to wind power plants, financial institutions often demand stricter guarantees. At this point, the government has no guarantee mechanisms or special supporting funds for the utilization of renewable energies.
Planned development
China’s rapidly growing economy is pushing energy consumption to new highs as the increasingly affluent populous plugs in and turns on more appliances every day, adding to the high-voltage, factory-like hum that has long characterized the country’s modernization efforts. In its “alternative oil strategy,” which is part of the 11th Five-Year Plan (2006-10), the Chinese Government has called for a doubling in renewable energy generation to 15 percent of the country’s total needs by 2020.
The target is in line with the Renewable Energy Law requiring grid operators to purchase resources from renewable energy producers. The law, which came into effect in January 2006, also offers financial incentives to foster renewable energy development, including discounted lending and a range of tax breaks.
Of the main renewable energies, wind power is said to have the most potential. Professor Wang Weichang, an energy expert at Tsinghua University in Beijing, predicts that wind energy is on course to supplant hydropower as the country’s second-largest electricity source behind coal. Wang said China has the ability to generate up to 100 gigawatts, or 20 percent of the current national capacity, through wind energy. The Renewable Energy Law has also decreed that 20 percent of the country’s total energy consumption should come from renewable sources by 2020.
China has mapped out its renewable energy development plan for increasing the variety of energy sources and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The State Council, China’s cabinet, has reviewed and passed a renewable energy mid- to long-term development plan. According to the plan, China will accelerate the development of hydropower and solar, wind and biomass energies.
Estimates are that by 2010 China’s renewable energy will reach the equivalent of 270 million tons of coal. Total installed capacity of hydropower is expected to hit 180 million kw, wind power 5 million kw, biomass power 5.5 million kw, and solar power 300,000 kw. Fuel ethanol production will reach 2 million tons and bio-diesel output is projected to be 200,000 tons. Methane use is expected to total 19 billion cubic meters.
From 2010 to 2020, China will enhance the development of renewable energy, according to the plan. The installed capacity of hydropower will increase to 300 million kw, wind and biomass power 30 million kw respectively, and solar power 1.8 million kw. The use of fuel ethanol, bio-diesel and methane will reach 10 million tons, 2 million tons and 44.3 billion cubic meters respectively.
In 2005, China’s renewable energy utilization exceeded the equivalent of 166 million tons of coal, accounting for 7.5 percent of the country’s total energy consumption.
Although China has mapped out an ambitious plan to utilize renewable energy from water, sunshine and plant sources, it has some strict requirements. Premier Wen Jiabao stressed at a State Council meeting that the development of renewable energy should avoid occupying arable land, consuming of large amounts of grain or damaging the environment.
In fuel ethanol production, non-staple crops like sorghum, batata and cassava will become the new sources for fuel ethanol, supplanting the use of corn. In 2005, China produced 145 million tons of corn, 2.7 million tons or 2 percent of which was used as raw material for fuel ethanol production.
Xiong Bilin, Deputy Director of the NDRC Industry Department, said that the country would not approve new projects using food-based ethanol. The current four plants making ethanol from corn have been urged to switch to new sources.
Among the four ethanol-producing plants using corn as raw material, Tianguan Group based in central China’s Henan Province, China’s major farm produce base, has already shifted 20 percent of ethanol production from corn to cassava, with an annual output of 300,000 tons.
Yet even with China’s ambitious perspective on renewable energy, environmental experts warn that the country should be wary of environmental impacts brought by bio-fuel production and should not just focus on energy security and cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
Meng Wei, President of the Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, said at a recent forum that bio-fuel utilization can also have negative consequences to the environment. To produce 1 ton of fuel ethanol requires 60 tons of water and releases a large quantity of wastewater.

(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)

Is religion being used to divide Malaysia’s workers?
Farish A Noor

MALAYSIA-watchers would know by now that the country is divided along the lines of race and religion, and has been increasingly divided thanks to the tendency of Malaysian politicians and social leaders to play the race or religion card whenever it suits them. Politicians of course are fully aware of the divisive potential of sectarian politics, so why do they constantly fall back on such parochial and primordial sentiments such as racial, cultural and religious loyalty to serve their own limited ends?
Weighing the costs of such moves may point us to the simple conclusion that sectarian politicians seldom care about the unity and well-being of the nation as a whole, particularly when that nation happens to be a complex and plural one in the first place. More often than not, the demagogues and chauvinists among us would be more inclined to keep to their own narrow corners and seek solace and support from their own respective communities.
These observations should hardly come as news to Malaysia-watchers in particular, for we all know by now that Malaysia’s convoluted 50-year history has been one dominated and almost entirely determined by the logic of racial compartmentalism and communitarianism. Every single leader who has climbed up the greasy pole of power in the country has done so by playing the race — and now increasingly, religion — card close to his chest. It should therefore come as even less of a surprise that there is now talk of forming a Malaysian Muslim Workers’ Union (PPIM) in the country, as if Malaysian society was not divided enough already.
Over the past two years the country has witnessed the emergence of around a dozen now religion-based NGOs and civil society organisations, most of them appealing to Malaysian Muslims in particular. While there used to be universalist, inclusive organisations that brought together Malaysians of various racial and professional background like factory workers, labourers, lawyers, businesspeople, professionals, etc, we now see the emergence of organisations that cater to the interests of Muslims primarily and exclusively. The PPIM is just the latest nail in the coffin of Malaysia’s failed attempts towards pluralism and multiculturalism, and should it come to pass then it would mean that yet another neutral public space in the public domain has been lost. Why was there ever a need for the PPIM in the first place, when surely the Malaysian Trade Unions organisation (MTUC) was there to unite all the workers of Malaysia under a common universal basis of shared collective class interests?
Two factors need to be taken into consideration here: The first is the fact that since the late 1960s Malaysian society has witnessed the instrumentalisation of religion — and in particular Islam — by right-wing communitarian politicians and activists who sought to mobilise Muslims as a bloc vote and political constituency. It began with sectarian organisations like ABIM and other Muslim students groups on campus that sought to introduce their brand of ‘Islamisation from below’, and whatever radical impact they could have had — by rejecting western economic-political-military hegemony across the world, for instance — was compromised by their own limited sectarian and exclusive worldview that was equally hegemonic in its ambitions. In time the potential of such groups was compromised as their leaders and members were co-opted by the ruling elite; the co-optation of ABIM’s leader Anwar Ibrahim by the then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad being a case in point.
Secondly, it should be stated frankly that all this talk of ‘protecting’ the seemingly unique interests of the Malay-Muslims in Malaysia is little more than fluff and nonsense, for the real agenda all along has been the furthering of the right-wing agenda of Malay-Muslim supremacy above all else. Malaysia’s Islamisation process pushed by Mahathir and Anwar in the 1980s and 1990s led to the further entrenchment of Malay-Muslim political and class interests; and benefited the ruling BN-led government and its clients most of all, further adding to the dominance of Malay-Muslims in the civil service, army and police; and further embedded Islam at the centre of Malaysian politics. It was not the universal values of Islam that were served here, but rather the agenda of Malay-Muslim supremacy otherwise known ’Ketuanan Melayu’.

—Khaleej Times





US & Iran: Extremists winning on both sides
Gabrielle Rifkind

SABER rattling and ratcheting up tensions is the dominant discourse between Iran and the US. The BBC was Saturday full of talk of whether war had become inevitable. A US attack could make problems in Iraq look like a sideshow. There are plenty of hard-liners on both sides who would welcome such an attack, as it would strengthen their positions. It could lead to the declaration of an emergency government in the country that could keep the hard-liners in power for a decade. Diplomacy is currently framed around carrot and stick. There is some engagement, but there is also a process of demonization on both sides. The US has designated the foreign wing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The Iranian Parliament for its part has voted that both the US military and the CIA are terrorist organizations. This is not the climate in which deep political differences are accommodated.
The US administration believes the Republican Guard will be weakened by the sanctions. They control a third of the country’s economy. The US move will deter foreign countries from dealing with them for fear of economic retaliation by the former. The latest economic pressure from the US, rather than bringing internal collapse in Iran, could further deepen the polarization and the escalation of a military solution. For the West, this seems a perfectly logical argument, but it misreads the mindset of the Iranian elite who are consumed with the asymmetry of power. They, seeing themselves as embodying a proud and ancient civilization, regard the US as their equals. They are deeply mistrustful of Western governments who they believe have set the agenda for too long. While the current regime in Iran with its revolutionary ideology makes a full relationship with the West problematic, there is still room for stabilization, mutual understanding and negotiations. The US and Iran have now met on two occasions to discuss Iraq, breaking a taboo of not communicating for 30 years. But the atmosphere is one of suspicion and there have been recriminations on both sides. A process of continuous engagement is required, to allow both sides’ genuine security anxieties to be addressed. Anything less is a high-risk policy. When power and strategic interest are mixed in the cauldron of mistrust, suspicion and extreme sensitivity, this brew can lead to war. Understanding what motivates the other is key. Iranians are much more multifaceted and complex in their thinking than is often communicated. They are proud not to lose face in the world and — with good reason — historically extremely sensitive to external intervention. Equally, the isolated Iranian regime lacks analysts who understand the mindset of the US administration. At present, the US, mindful of the 1979 hostage crisis, is growing impatient for a resolution of Iran’s nuclear issue.
The potential for misunderstanding is huge. I recently attended a meeting of senior Iranian and US decision-makers to discuss the nuclear crisis. They were on parallel trajectories, intent on the rightness of their own case. Neither side seemed to understand each other’s fears or genuine concerns. It was a dialogue of the deaf. The Iranian senior diplomats had been brought up during the Iranian revolution and talked of justice, symmetry of power and not being pushed around, and the negotiations taking place on a level playing field. The senior US official seemed genuinely affronted by the Iranian position and was mistrustful of being manipulated. This kind of encounter could make negotiations seem futile and strengthen the voice of those calling for war, but Western diplomacy, if it is to mean anything, must seek dialogue with those who do not think like us.

—Arab News