Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Chinese pay toxic price for a green world

  • 05-01-2011 11:04pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭


    times article here
    Just outside the heavily polluted industrial city of Baotou, Inner Mongolia, surrounded by smokestacks, lies a lake with no name.

    At this time of year the lake bed freezes into waves of solid mud. In summer, locals say, it oozes a viscous, red liquid. It is a “tailing lake”, where toxic rare earth elements from a mine 100 miles away are stored for further processing.

    Seepage from the lake has poisoned the surrounding farmland. “The crops stopped growing after being watered in these fields,” said Wang Cun Gang, a farmer. The local council paid villagers compensation for loss of income. “They tested our water and concluded that neither people nor animals should drink it, nor is it usable for irrigation.”

    This is the price Chinese peasants are paying for the low carbon future. Rare earths, a class of metallic elements that are highly reactive, are essential for the next generation of “green” technologies. The battery in a Toyota Prius car contains more than 22lb of lanthanum. Low-energy lightbulbs need terbium. The permanent magnets used in a 3 megawatt wind turbine use 2 tons of neodymium and other rare earths.

    In small workshops near Baotou, workers wearing no protective clothing watch over huge vats of acid and other chemicals, steam rising from rusty pipes, as they stir and bag toxic liquids and powders, turning the rare earth elements into compounds and oxides for further processing into batteries and magnets. Wearing no masks, they breathe air heavy with fumes and dust and handle chemicals without gloves.

    A thousand miles to the southeast, in Jiangxi province, the extraction process is more damaging. Green hills are studded with makeshift plants which pump acid into the earth. Last September villagers in Pitou county blocked lorries carrying chemicals and picketed the council, angry that their fields had been ruined.

    “We farm rice but cannot harvest anything any more,” said a woman, who was afraid to give her name because her husband is still in prison for protesting. “Fruit trees don’t bear fruit any more. Fish die in the river. We used to wash in the river and lots of fish would come to us, but there are none left. Even the weeds died.”

    Officially the polluting plants have been closed down, but villagers say they still operate at night, under armed guard, with the collusion of local Communist party leaders who help mafia bosses keep the lucrative trade going.


    Yep here we have it, a darker shade of green :rolleyes:

    Those shiny turbines we are buying from the Chinese, now the largest manufacturer of them and also country which controls 95% of rare earth production.
    Result in huge environmental damage, one needs to dig huge amounts of ore to extract small amounts of rare earth (hence the name rare), an energy intensive process which uses mostly dirty coal generate energy.

    We are effectively exporting our pollution to China, I wonder what do the environmentalists here have to say about this darker side of "green" technologies ...



    another article here
    0e56f7c3e0.jpg



    and another from same city


    chinese-pollution-spewing-factories-1000.jpg


«1345678

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    We are effectively exporting our pollution to China, I wonder what do the environmentalists here have to say about this darker side of "green" technologies ...
    Would it not be more accurate to refer to the above as a darker side of technology in general? Rare earth metals are used in far more than just wind turbines. Furthermore, China’s abysmal health & safety and environmental protection record extends far beyond rare earth metal production. The production of wind turbines does not necessitate environmental catastrophe in China.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Would it not be more accurate to refer to the above as a darker side of technology in general? Rare earth metals are used in far more than just wind turbines. Furthermore, China’s abysmal health & safety and environmental protection record extends far beyond rare earth metal production. The production of wind turbines does not necessitate environmental catastrophe in China.

    actually no, i dont think so.. it is a darker side of green...

    how many times have wind turbines been pushed on us as being the green option.. kinder better for the enviroment ect...
    yet now u can see the devastation these units bring...


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    robtri wrote: »
    actually no, i dont think so.. it is a darker side of green...

    how many times have wind turbines been pushed on us as being the green option.. kinder better for the enviroment ect...
    yet now u can see the devastation these units bring...

    There is confusion over the idea that any form of power generation is 100% clean. However, taking into consideration all environmental impacts, plus the obvious drawbacks of basing the global economy on finite fossil fuels, renewable energy is still the better option.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    Macha wrote: »
    There is confusion over the idea that any form of power generation is 100% clean. However, taking into consideration all environmental impacts, plus the obvious drawbacks of basing the global economy on finite fossil fuels, renewable energy is still the better option.

    personally i dont believe that any energy production is 100% green, as you say the production of the units(no matter what sort) and transport will have an impact on the envirment to a degree....

    but this is taking things a bit far.... this really shows how much damage is done to produce one of these wind turbines...


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    robtri wrote: »
    but this is taking things a bit far.... this really shows how much damage is done to produce one of these wind turbines...
    Have you seen what an open cast coal mine looks like?

    I agree that there are no perfectly green technological silver bullets to our environmental issues (even my beloved bike has a dark environmental history)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    Macha wrote: »
    Have you seen what an open cast coal mine looks like?

    i have thank you, but the point being no one is saying coal is an enviromental way of producing energy.....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Macha wrote: »
    Have you seen what an open cast coal mine looks like?

    Rare earth mines are even bigger and more damaging, the concentration of the rare earths in ores is very small (hence the name rare) in some cases even smaller than gold in gold ore
    Thats one of the reason's China has 95% or more of the worlds supplies, they are simply too dirty to operate anywhere else, there are rare ores in places like australia,us and canada but the more stringent laws means much higher cost and not being able to compete with China
    Higher costs of these metals would mean even higher costs of turbines, as outlined in the article typical 3MW turbine has 2tons of the rare earths

    And thats before we get to cars and their electric cells, lookup lithium mining in Andes
    Macha wrote: »
    Have you seen what an open cast coal mine looks like?
    The Chinese are building a new coal plant every week, refining and mining for rare earths takes huge amounts of energy mostly derived from dirty coal


    As I said not so Green, people on this forum seem to get carried away and talk as if Wind turbines grow from the ground and electric cars are delivered by Santa :D, I think its important that these issues are highlighted and brought to discussion. Theres no such thing as free lunch, in case of China its a toxic lunch.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Rare earth mines are even bigger and more damaging, the concentration of the rare earths in ores is very small (hence the name rare) in some cases even smaller than gold in gold ore
    Thats one of the reason's China has 95% or more of the worlds supplies, they are simply too dirty to operate anywhere else, there are rare ores in places like australia,us and canada but the more stringent laws means much higher cost and not being able to compete with China
    Higher costs of these metals would mean even higher costs of turbines, as outlined in the article typical 3MW turbine has 2tons of the rare earths

    And thats before we get to cars and their electric cells, lookup lithium mining in Andes


    The Chinese are building a new coal plant every week, refining and mining for rare earths takes huge amounts of energy mostly derived from dirty coal

    Again, all action should be viewed in consideration of the altneratives.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    As I said not so Green, people on this forum seem to get carried away and talk as if Wind turbines grow from the ground and electric cars are delivered by Santa :D, I think its important that these issues are highlighted and brought to discussion. Theres no such thing as free lunch, in case of China its a toxic lunch.
    True but please keep the comments about "people on this forum" out of the discussion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    Macha wrote: »
    Again, all action should be viewed in consideration of the altneratives.


    .

    very true, so my question would be seeing the devastion these units are leaving behind, is gas not the better more greener option? even though on burning it does release some fumes into the air


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    robtri wrote: »
    how many times have wind turbines been pushed on us as being the green option.. kinder better for the enviroment ect...
    Everything has some kind of environmental impact associated with its production. I’d still be pretty confident that the environmental impact of a wind farm is low relative to alternative forms of power generation.
    robtri wrote: »
    yet now u can see the devastation these units bring...
    It’s not wind turbines that are wreaking havoc with natural habitats in China, it’s China’s approach to, well, pretty much anything really – their environmental record is pretty abysmal.
    robtri wrote: »
    very true, so my question would be seeing the devastion these units are leaving behind, is gas not the better more greener option? even though on burning it does release some fumes into the air
    Gas would be one of my preferred options too, but does the construction of a gas-fired power station not have a pretty significant ecological impact? For example, a gas-fired power plant contains turbines, doesn’t it?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Everything has some kind of environmental impact associated with its production. I’d still be pretty confident that the environmental impact of a wind farm is low relative to alternative forms of power generation.

    The important point is that there is an environmental impact, some of the people arguing for wind power make it sound as if its cleaner than Virgin Mary.
    I am still not convinced nor buy all the hype surrounding wind, too much sales pitching too litle in the way of facts, studies and cost/benefit analyses.
    I dont like how the country is being directed down a single path of generating majority of energy from wind and more importantly all subsidised by everyone else but the people making guaranteed profits at our expense.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    It’s not wind turbines that are wreaking havoc with natural habitats in China, it’s China’s approach to, well, pretty much anything really – their environmental record is pretty abysmal.

    Then why are we and others trading with them and buying their products? I though environmentalists like to boycott things that are unethical or dirty, why nothing being done about this?

    djpbarry wrote: »
    Gas would be one of my preferred options too, but does the construction of a gas-fired power station not have a pretty significant ecological impact? For example, a gas-fired power plant contains turbines, doesn’t it?

    One gas turbine can produce up to several hundred MW on demand, one wind turbine is about max 3-5MW now (when wind blows of course) hence you need loads of these in different locations to provide same energy as one gas turbine for example

    and of course to connect these locations you need miles of cables and pylons, which dont grown on trees either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    I though environmentalists like to boycott things that are unethical or dirty...
    You've been asked once already to refrain from posting this kind of comment. You won't be asked a third time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Everything has some kind of environmental impact associated with its production. I’d still be pretty confident that the environmental impact of a wind farm is low relative to alternative forms of power generation.
    yes everything has an envromental impact.. but as i have said, not everything is been pushed as been "greeen" better for the enviroment..
    these wind turbines are been pushed as been harmless to the enviroment and dont pollute.... but their construction is causing devasting effects...
    I dont know if a wind turbine hasa lower impact overall than other forms of energy generation...but thats not the point..... no one is selling coal or gas as being enviromentally friendly

    djpbarry wrote: »
    It’s not wind turbines that are wreaking havoc with natural habitats in China, it’s China’s approach to, well, pretty much anything really – their environmental record is pretty abysmal.

    yes it is abysmal and by purchasing their products like the wind turbines we are contributing to this damage..
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Gas would be one of my preferred options too, but does the construction of a gas-fired power station not have a pretty significant ecological impact? For example, a gas-fired power plant contains turbines, doesn’t it?

    iirc most gas turbine generators dont have a lot of rare earth elements, their construction is completely different than wind turbines.. iirc


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    robtri wrote: »
    very true, so my question would be seeing the devastion these units are leaving behind, is gas not the better more greener option? even though on burning it does release some fumes into the air

    No, I wouldn't consider gas greener because with wind, 90% of the cost and 99% of the environmental damage is in the turbine manufacture and installation. With gas, the environmental damage is in the extraction, plant construction and throughout the running of the plant.

    When all these are taken into consideration (and not just ghg emissions at that), I would consider wind and other renewables to have a smaller environmental impact.

    Having said that, I would have to look around for some studies. I saw some a while ago...could dig them out.

    Edit: Also, gas and renewables work very well together so I see, in the near future anyway, gas and renewables plus some nuclear being the most likely path for Europe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,349 ✭✭✭Jimmy Garlic


    The whole wind farm thing is a complete racket at every level, it turns out that in the UK during the freeze when demand for electricity was at its highest the wind eyesores....sorry farms were working at 1% capacity and traditional power plants were nearly at breaking point trying to meet demand. As a source of power they are completely unreliable, they are only suitable on a much smaller scale for local or domestic power generation that is backed up by a battery bank, they have no place on a national grid.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Macha wrote: »
    No, I wouldn't consider gas greener because with wind, 90% of the cost and 99% of the environmental damage is in the turbine manufacture and installation. With gas, the environmental damage is in the extraction, plant construction and throughout the running of the plant.

    When all these are taken into consideration (and not just ghg emissions at that), I would consider wind and other renewables to have a smaller environmental impact.

    Having said that, I would have to look around for some studies. I saw some a while ago...could dig them out.

    Edit: Also, gas and renewables work very well together so I see, in the near future anyway, gas and renewables plus some nuclear being the most likely path for Europe.

    Actually we are doing the planet a favour by burning all that methane (natural gas) since its 40x more potent than CO2.
    You wouldn't want all this methane to find its way into atmosphere, as its doing already on its own in places like Russian tundra.

    Anyways considering this country has more cattle than people farting and pooping away methane in the fields :D this country aint exactly green.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Actually we are doing the planet a favour by burning all that methane (natural gas) since its 40x more potent than CO2.
    You wouldn't want all this methane to find its way into atmosphere, as its doing already on its own in places like Russian tundra.

    Anyways considering this country has more cattle than people farting and pooping away methane in the fields :D this country aint exactly green.
    Tell me you're joking.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    The important point is that there is an environmental impact, some of the people arguing for wind power make it sound as if its cleaner than Virgin Mary.
    What people?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    I dont like how the country is being directed down a single path of generating majority of energy from wind...
    Majority of energy from wind? I don’t know about that.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Then why are we and others trading with them and buying their products?
    Good question. But then, if we were to boycott every nation with standards lower than the EU, be they environmental, health & safety, or whatever, then the EU wouldn’t be conducting a great deal of trade with anyone. I doubt there’s much of an apetite in “the west” to force China to raise their game anyway, as this would result in more expensive products.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    One gas turbine can produce up to several hundred MW on demand, one wind turbine is about max 3-5MW now (when wind blows of course) hence you need loads of these in different locations to provide same energy as one gas turbine for example
    That doesn’t really address my point?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    and of course to connect these locations you need miles of cables and pylons, which dont grown on trees either.
    As opposed to a gas-fired station?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Actually we are doing the planet a favour by burning all that methane (natural gas) since its 40x more potent than CO2.
    ...if released into the atmosphere.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    robtri wrote: »
    these wind turbines are been pushed as been harmless to the enviroment and dont pollute...
    By who?
    robtri wrote: »
    iirc most gas turbine generators dont have a lot of rare earth elements, their construction is completely different than wind turbines.. iirc
    I don’t see why it should be – the principle of operation is exactly the same.
    As a source of power they are completely unreliable...
    Define “unreliable”.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    djpbarry wrote: »
    By who?
    does that really need an answer?? seriously???


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I don’t see why it should be – the principle of operation is exactly the same.
    as i said iirc they are not built the same... there operation is different.....
    will have to see if i can find some plans for them


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    robtri wrote: »
    does that really need an answer?? seriously???
    Yes please. Who has suggested that wind turbines are harmless to the environment and why should we listen to them?
    robtri wrote: »
    as i said iirc they are not built the same... there operation is different...
    The principle of operation (electricity generation) is exactly the same in either case – I would be surprised if the designs were radically different (but I’m open to correction). However, the general point here is that a gas-fired power station has a considerable economic impact (although I would, at present, favour gas generation over coal or oil) and I would be very surprised if it was the more ecologically sound option versus wind.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,349 ✭✭✭Jimmy Garlic


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Define “unreliable”.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unreliable

    Because wind is intermittent and they are reliant on wind to produce power, no wind- no power, too much wind- power surge. Often times when there is little or no wind (such as during the freeze) there is a bigger demand for power. Their practically is very questionable to say the least.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Yes please. Who has suggested that wind turbines are harmless to the environment and why should we listen to them?

    i never used harmless, i used the Green option...
    how about elccy companies, green party, sei.... to name a few

    djpbarry wrote: »
    The principle of operation (electricity generation) is exactly the same in either case – I would be surprised if the designs were radically different (but I’m open to correction). However, the general point here is that a gas-fired power station has a considerable economic impact (although I would, at present, favour gas generation over coal or oil) and I would be very surprised if it was the more ecologically sound option versus wind.

    i wouldnt be too surprised if it was more ecological sound than wind, but seeing as neither of us know the answer then we will have to agree to disagree


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Because wind is intermittent and they are reliant on wind to produce power, no wind- no power, too much wind- power surge.
    Nobody is advocating that we switch to 100% wind power for our electricity. However, every megawatt generated from wind is one less megawatt of energy derived from (imported) fossil fuels. Every surplus megawatt exported offsets the cost of importing said fuels. How is that a bad thing?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    robtri wrote: »
    i never used harmless...
    Yeah you did:
    robtri wrote: »
    these wind turbines are been pushed as been harmless to the environment...
    robtri wrote: »
    how about elccy companies, green party, sei....
    I’d be very surprised if any such organisations claimed that wind turbines were environmentally “harmless”.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Yeah you did:

    I’d be very surprised if any such organisations claimed that wind turbines were environmentally “harmless”.

    sorry that my bat... meant to continue to use the "green" word.. as in being pushed as the green alternative


  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Nobody is advocating that we switch to 100% wind power for our electricity. However, every megawatt generated from wind is one less megawatt of energy derived from (imported) fossil fuels. Every surplus megawatt exported offsets the cost of importing said fuels. How is that a bad thing?

    If we sell electricity generated from wind, at a loss i.e. if it costs more to generate electricity from wind than we can get from selling it, then there is no money remaning to offset the cost of importing fossil fuels.

    http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/3639/full
    "Britain is obtaining only a fraction of its electricity from renewable sources, just under 7 per cent in 2009-2010. The wholesale price of that quantity of electricity would be approximately £1bn, but the Renewables Obligation, a complex subsidy paid to generators but drawn indirectly from bills, adds a further £1.4bn, more than doubling the cost to the British consumer."


    On the subject of the colour of renewables, how green is displacing 1.3 million people?
    http://www.palinstravels.co.uk/book-829
    "Up river from the construction site we enter the most unspoilt pastoral landscape I've yet seen in China. A panorama of traditional cultivation patterns - terraced valleys winding back into the mountains, contours picked out by stone walls and winding paths. Hamlets of whitewashed stone cottages with wide-hipped roofs are tucked away amongst the trees, or dotted along sandy bays. Quite soon all this will have vanished beneath the waters of the reservoir. The occupants of those whitewashed farmhouses will be among the one and a half million who will be sent elsewhere, their homes and livelihoods sacrificed to the industrialization of the Yangtze Basin."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam
    "However, the dam flooded archaeological and cultural sites and displaced some 1.3 million people, and is causing significant ecological changes, including an increased risk of landslides.[8] The dam has been a controversial topic both in China and abroad.[9]"


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    If we sell electricity generated from wind, at a loss...
    Why is it being sold at a loss?


  • Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Why is it being sold at a loss?

    Because it's costing more than twice it's wholesale price to produce it
    http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/3639/full
    "Britain is obtaining only a fraction of its electricity from renewable sources, just under 7 per cent in 2009-2010. The wholesale price of that quantity of electricity would be approximately £1bn, but the Renewables Obligation, a complex subsidy paid to generators but drawn indirectly from bills, adds a further £1.4bn, more than doubling the cost to the British consumer."

    (To balance its grid, Denmark sells some of its wind generated electrcity; they have been selling it at a loss.)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Because it's costing more than twice it's wholesale price to produce it
    Spread over what time frame?
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    To balance its grid, Denmark sells some of its wind generated electrcity; they have been selling it at a loss.
    All the time?


Advertisement