MARVEX 2023

#Marvex2023 - thrilled to be here The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (IEM) good job as always

#marvex2023 - KL Convention Centre - A platform to source, network and explore business opportunities to spur the growth of ACMV & R in the region. Meeting friends at Jabatan Standard Malaysia, The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (IEM), SIRIM QAS International. Great ACMV Products. Lots of discussion on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) , Sustainable Development, Artificial Intelligence and many more subjects.

(Photo below) meeting with Mr. Eu Boon Hoe ( Haier ) after the talk. It is most interesting to listen to his technical presentation on the new generation of Compressor (oil free) which incorporates AI and Cloud to monitor data. The specs are fantastic with energy saving features, anti-surge etc.

 

SKB GROUP OF COMPANIES

It's refreshing to have an audience with Mr. S. Khugan, The Group MD of SKB Group of Companies - SKB Resilient Sdn. Bhd., a leading financial consultancy firm with more than 2 decades experience in providing viable funding solutions to major corporations and companies throughout Malaysia.

We had an fruitful discussion and reached an understanding of moving forward during challenging times by integrating value-added elements such as corporate governance promoting transparency, anti corruption, sustainable development, risk management, management system standards etc. in the current service provision.




The new initiatives are geared towards strengthening corporate clients in enhancing their ratings and creditworthiness in all aspects - mergers and acquisition, corporate financing, project facilitation, due diligence, marketing and company restructuring for both domestic and international markets.

I thank you and hope for the best in our future undertakings.

WE NEED BETTER STRATEGIES TO SOLVE OR BETTER PREVENT HOMELESSNESS IN MALAYSIA

I was doing some brainstorming with interested private parties on the rising problems of homelessness in Malaysia.

Of course, solving homelessness is a complex issue that requires a multi-faceted approach involving various stakeholders, including government, non-profit organizations, communities, and individuals. 

While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, some strategies that can contribute to addressing homelessness:

1) More Affordable Housing 

Increase the availability of affordable housing options, such as subsidized housing, rent control measures, and low-income housing programs. Investing in affordable housing helps individuals and families secure stable housing.

2) Supportive Services 

Provide comprehensive support services to homeless individuals, including mental health services, substance abuse treatment, job training, and counseling. These services help address the underlying causes of homelessness and support individuals in regaining stability.

3) Prevention and Early Intervention 

Focus on preventing homelessness by implementing early intervention strategies. This can involve targeted assistance to individuals and families at risk of losing their homes, such as rental assistance programs or financial counseling.

4) Collaboration and Coordination 

Foster collaboration among government agencies, non-profit organizations, and community groups to coordinate efforts and resources effectively. This can help streamline services, avoid duplication, and maximize the impact of interventions.

5) Education and Employment 

Promote education and employment opportunities to enhance individuals' skills and increase their chances of finding stable employment. Partner with businesses and organizations to create job training programs and facilitate job placement for homeless individuals.

6) Outreach and Engagement 

Develop outreach programs to connect with homeless individuals and build trust. Street outreach teams can provide immediate assistance, access to resources, and information about available services.

7) Policy and Advocacy

Advocate for policy changes at the local, regional, and national levels to address the root causes of homelessness. This may involve advocating for increased funding for affordable housing, healthcare, and social services.

8) Homelessness Prevention Networks

Establish networks that bring together stakeholders, including government agencies, service providers, and community members, to identify local solutions, share best practices, and coordinate efforts to prevent and address homelessness.

9) Public Awareness and Attitude Shift

(One of the most important aspects for Malaysians)

Educate the public about the realities of homelessness and challenge stereotypes and stigmas associated with it. Promote empathy and compassion in order to build supportive communities that can help prevent and address homelessness effectively.

It's important to note that the solutions to homelessness may vary depending on the specific social, economic, and cultural contexts of different regions.

Addressing homelessness requires a long-term commitment, sustained funding, and a holistic approach that tackles the underlying issues contributing to homelessness.

URBANIZATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Dean Cira, Urban Expert, World Bank 

SUBMITTED BY HUONG LAN VU ON TUE, 2012-06-19 14:47

Urbanization itself cannot guarantee economic growth, but it does appear to be an inevitable process on the way to development: no country has achieved high income status without first urbanizing, and nearly all countries become at least 50% urbanized before fully reaching middle income status.

The trick is in how to manage this process in a way that plays up the benefits and minimizes the challenges it brings. 

When I was a little child, we lived in a 30m2 house in the suburbs of Hanoi, Vietnam, with intermittent supplies of power and clean water. But I enjoyed playing on the quiet and clean street in front of my house. Twenty years later, my whole neighborhood has been nicely renovated; there’s enough electricity to run all appliances in my house, including two air conditioners. But I get stuck in traffic every day on my way to work, and the smog is so thick I can hardly breathe, even with a mask on my face.

Urbanization has arrived to my hometown with both advantages and challenges. However, noises, heavy traffic, and air and water pollution are not unique to Hanoi. They can be observed in many cities in emerging countries all over the world (such as China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, the Philippines, or Nigeria). The Vietnam Urbanization Reviewnotes that if these challenges are well managed, they will allow cities like Hanoi to retain its unique charm and livability while enjoying the benefits that urbanization brings.    

------------------------------------------

URBANIZATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

SUBMITTED BY NIK ZAFRI ON WED, 2012-06-20 05:05.

Urbanization; to a certain degree; has always been an indicator to the level of success in the context of economics.I have no qualms against urbanization knowing the benefits of it such as infrastructures, job opportunity, healthcare, education, roads/highways, etc.

But nowadays urbanization can be a menace if not properly planned. No doubt proper town planning is always there for new plans of urbanization to incorporate elements of sustainable development - green building, environmental management systems, control of carbon emission etc. etc.

I'm talking about the current urbanized locations - as you've mentioned - traffic jams, uncontrolled pollution, bustling cities, social impacts such as crime, disunity as well.

I feel that the most important thing that the current urbanized location require is a mass awareness to be communicated to all of them using various tools such as the internet, the billboards, the conventional flyers/brochures/buntings etc, free seminars etc. to make them understand the significance of protecting the environment (to include contractors, developers etc.), have more unity-based activities rather than being in 'clans'/'groups', ice-breakings programs disregarding race/religious backgrounds etc.

Of course, everyone nowadays are talking about money and more money or having job opportunities or disliking certain political parties. For this, the mayors, the councillors, the authorities, the political parties, including people's representatives, religious representatives, associations etc. must come together to draw up a plan now!

Well, many would disagree with me but my intention making a call of unity and peace will always be there. If not here, elsewhere - till the day I die.

THE IMPROPER AND IMBALANCE TUTORING

Tetty
Henney's Log - 02/2006

A boy and his mother were standing in front of the school gate. Despite there was a huge crowd of students walking in and out of the school gate, yet parents persistently waiting for their loved ones. ON one side, a group of people was also busy with their work - cutting and trimming some trunks and branches of the trees inside the school compound. And besides that, felling trees as well!!

No more big and beautiful trees that used to be the symbol of the school natural beauty. Earlier, trees that were planted along the way up to the hill leading out to all sub-ways and sub-roads are being fell. The community may either talk yet annoyed or some may lodge complaints and others prefer to stay speechless.

The mother cried silently. Being a teacher as well, she told her students about the
importance of oxygen. She also provides them the source of where this air comes from. She urged her students not to cut trees as they are the major source of oxygen. The son who has just being introduced to science subject is a Year 4 student. "Mom, my science teacher told me that leaves supply oxygen to the air. Why my schools throw away the big leaves??

He is 10 years old. This year is the first year he is learning science. The mother was distraught and gazed at her son who was indeed, confused. There appear to be an improper and imbalance education between what he learns and what is happening around him. She sighed.

These are some of the smart children who at all times searching for some answers. And mothers seldom resolve such issues in a matured way. I have been told by some students that they were given a typical reply, "I will see your teacher or headmistress and ask why she permitted them to cut your trees, dear." She held
his hands and they both walked home expecting to see miracles.

Today, children are being taught science facts and hypothesis. There have been some achievements and improvements (evolutions) in the editions of the school's science books for the past 15 years.

Living in the new era, there are always conflicts arising between those people who
produce goods and services and those who fight for liberty, safety, peace, justice and quality. These two entities hold difference principles and goals in their lives. One brings out the resources to people and the others cry out for a better and healthier lifestyle. They do not share similar ideas and thoughts. They are both enemies.

The boy and the tree cutters are the simplest examples of these two entities.

The Star Global Malaysians Forum Posted: 06 August 2006 at 7:27pm

Nik Zafri's Comments

Here's an article from Greenpeace :

Nuclear power: No solution to climate change

“Nuclear power is expensive, slow and dangerous and it won't stop climate change. If the answer is nuclear power, it must have been a pretty stupid question.” Ian Lowe President, Australia Conservation Foundation.

The new battlecry of the nuclear industry is that nuclear energy is the answer to global climate change. Nuclear energy is toxic and dangerous. Far from being rehabilitated, the nuclear option is a convenient distraction from the problem of climate change and stalls real action to combat it.

Nuclear power lobbyists are correct that climate change demands an urgent and quick response. But replacing polluting coal and other fossil fuel-based power with another environmental disaster -- in the form of nuclear power -- is NOT the answer we need. Our best long-term solution for an emission free and greenhouse-friendly future are the truly clean and green renewable energy sources – particularly wind and solar - combined with technologies that vastly improve energy efficiency.

In Asia...

Asia is projected to have the largest growth in installed nuclear generating capacity from 2002-2025, accounting for 96% of the total projected increase.

Cost: Nuclear power is more expensive. Not only is nuclear power more expensive than fossil fuel generation and clean, renewable wind power, it also leaves a legacy of unsafe yet highly expensive technologies. Costs associated with safety and security, insurance and liability in case of accident or attack, waste management, construction and decommissioning are rising substantially for nuclear power, while the cost of wind and solar power is falling. Nuclear power plants have only presented a veneer of economic viability in the past due to heavy government subsidies. As energy markets have liberalized around the world, investors have turned their backs on nuclear energy. The number of reactors in western Europe and the United States peaked 15 years ago and has been declining since. By contrast, the amount of wind power and solar energy is rising at rates of 20 to 30 per cent a year.

The hazards associated with nuclear power include the risk of potentially catastrophic accidents like the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster, routine releases of radioactive gases and liquids from nuclear plants, the problem of nuclear waste and the risks of terrorism and sabotage. The International Energy Outlook 2005's projection that Asia will have the largest growth in nuclear generation in the next two decades exposes the region, which consists mostly of developing countries to these hazards, more than any other region. Asia will soon be dumping ground of nuclear technology if we do not reject this trend. and work in favor of renewable energy and improved efficiency.

Waste: Nuclear waste disposal is still an unsolved problem. The most dangerous form of pollution ever created, nuclear waste remains radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. Uranium mines typically generate volumes of long-lived, low level waste which is kept on site. Reactors release radioactive emissions to air and water. Reprocessing plants generate a high-level radioactive waste stream and emissions to air and water. All these pose risks to the health of the public. Monitoring and maintaining waste deposits over a period spanning 20 times the length of known civilization is an unacceptable burden we are placing on all future generations – with no guarantees of long term safety.

Nuclear proliferation: Nuclear technology, such as uranium enrichment is also used in nuclear weapons production, and therefore a proliferation risk. There are now more than 40 countries with the capacity to build nuclear weapons, and international efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology are failing. Nuclear technology will always carry the risk that it will be used to construct weapons of mass destruction.

Greenhouse polluters: Claims that nuclear power is “emissions free” are false. Substantial greenhouse gas emissions are generated across the nuclear fuel cycle. Fossil-fuel generated electricity is more greenhouse intensive than nuclear power, but this comparison only holds true if high-grade uranium ores are available. Even with such high-grade ores, there is a massive increase in greenhouse pollution from mining, processing and reactor construction before any electricity is generated. The known resources of high-grade uranium ores only amount to a few decades' use at the present rate. Most of the earth’s uranium is found in very poor grade ores, and recovery of uranium from these ores is likely to be considerably more greenhouse intensive. Nuclear power emits more greenhouse gases per unit energy than most renewable energy sources, and that comparative deficit will widen as uranium ore grades decline.

Safe, clean alternatives

To avoid dangerous further changes to our climate, we need to act now. Asia in particular should make a commitment to the sensible alternatives that produce sustainable cost-effective reductions in greenhouse pollution: wind power, solar water-heating, energy efficiency, gas and energy from organic matter. Renewable energy and energy efficiency can deliver the power we need – without the environmental and social problems.

Renewable energy already supplies 19% of world electricity, compared to nuclear’s 16%. The share of renewables is increasing, while nuclear’s share is decreasing. Renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar power are growing by 20-30% every year. In 2003, the cumulative installed capacity of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems around the world passed the landmark figure of 2,400 Megawatts of solar photovoltaic power. Global shipments of PV cells and modules have been growing an average annual rate of more than 35% for of the past few years, providing employment for 10,000 people and generating business worth more than 3 billion euros annually. Wind power, on the other hand, is the world’s fastest growing energy source with installed capacity growing at an average annual rate over the last 5 years of 15.8%

Renewable energies have truly limitless sources, can be more easily deployed in remote developing regions, present absolutely no risk to global security and are environmentally-friendly.

Because there is only a finite amount of investment available for new energy, any investment in nuclear power is effectively money denied to renewables and energy efficiency. Nuclear power, with fifty years of failure as its track record and still no solutions to its fundamental problems, remains a shockingly poor investment choice. The wise decision then, is to say no to nuclear, yes to renewables and energy efficiency.

Nik : So, with this, I say 'bye-bye' to nukes!
-----------------------------------
Comments by ahvincent

Nuclear power plants do not produce the same amount of green house gas pollutants but they produce another kind of pollutant, Nuclear Waste.!!! And nuclear waste will kill you a lot quicker and have a half life of hundreds of years with a potential to kill even more is it gets out of control !!!

Some of our Oz politicians have got s*&t for brains !!! They have completely missed the point, surely it would make more sense in trying to develop wind powered turbine farms or look at harness more hydro energy.

All along the coast around the Great Australian Blight the wind is very strong 24/7/365. It lends itself to wind farms and with modern light weight turbines which are very efficient I think they should investigate that option.
--------------------------------
Response by gleearch

Ahvincent,

I agree. Nuclear energy isn't a cure all. Nothing sustainable about it at all. You are right. A pollutant or waste is still waste. In this case highly dangerous. There's still not good way to get rid of nuclear waste. I don't think dumping them in concrete holding facilities is really doing any good. Or storing them under sea.

There's plenty of sun and wind in Australia as you pointed out. Some of the new skyscrapers going up in new York have built in wind turbines to generate electricity.

They keep on developing new wind turbines that can reduce accidents with birds. No pollution. Plenty of cheap renewable energy. Same with solar panels.
--------------------------------
Posted: 09 August 2006 at 8:15am

Response by ahvincent

I will recount a first hand story about an early experimental plant using solar energy generated electricity system. I used to work with a major USA based power generation company many years ago. They installed one of their early prototypes on an isolated village in Papua New Guinea. These villages did not have electricity and no road access. All diesel fuel will have to be flown in thus making it prohibitively expensive. So solar power was an ideal solution to bring the marvels of modern science to these primitive jungle tribes.

We intalled a solar powered generation plant enough to provide the bare essentials to the village. This system had a diesel motor as a backup to charge the batteries in case of a cloudy day or an emergency.

Everything seem to be working fine when our technicians were on site but once they left we keep getting calls that our system was not functioning properly. They have to use the diesel generator all the time and the authorities had to keep flying in fuel at a great expense.

So we send our technicians in and they found out that the natives who have not seen an electric light in their lives were keeping all the lights on all night and sitting around the lights watching it. Little wonder that the supply ran flat before morning.

Anyway the project was deemed a failure for a variety of reasons and we did not sell more than a handful of our remote solar electricity plants. That was many many years ago, I am sure the price of solar cells have got more efficient and less costly now and maybe this type of projects may become more cost efficient now. I don't know.

An other example (of what seems to be a good idea at the time) of another experimental project gone wrong is the big black (W) towers in Pittsburg. If you go to Pittsburg you will see a great big (I cannot tell you the name) electric sign next to where the Ohio & Mo...(I cannot spell the name) rivers. I don't know if the sign is still there now.

This sign is lit by thousands of light bulbs. The idea was to collect the heat given off by the bulbs in the sign and the building to drive the air-conditioning in the building. Someone's brilliant idea at the time. The end result - all the lights in the sign and the building had to be left on 24/7 otherwise no air conditioning.

Disastrous experiment costing millions. At the end they just had to connect the air condition back to the usually supply source.

On one particular conference I attended someone had another brilliant idea for storing electricity. We all known batteries are very ineffcient at storing large quantities of electricity, so his idea was to use off peak power to pump water to a pool at a higher level and during peak demand periods let the water drain back down driving turbines in the process. Electricity is thus stored in the form of kinetic energy.

Other bright ideas include using off peak power to wind up a series of gaint coil springs. This did not arouse the same level of interest as the first idea,
---------------------------------
Posted: 09 August 2006 at 11:27am

Response by gleearch

Ahvincent,

Interesting stories. That's what happens when not a lot of thought is given to the idea. Using light bulbs to power air conditioning? Duh! as homer simpson would say. Using electricity to power up the lights and then using the heat from it to power the air conditioning.

I mean, what were they thinking.

Ok I'll offer these instead.

Ice skating rinks generate heat. That is the cooling machinery used to create the ice on the rinks generate heat. (I'm simplifying things overly much) It is common practise now to use that waste heat for other uses. Melting snow around buildings so people don't slip and fall etc.

It's about using waste heat and having a secondary system in place. Not creating a whole system to generate waste heat just to power something else.
----------------------------------
Posted: 30 August 2006 at 10:11pm

Response by stingray2000

Nuclear Power Won't Fix It

Nuclear power is not the answer to tackling climate change or security of supply, according to the Sustainable Development Commission in Scotland.

The SDC nuclear report draws together the most comprehensive evidence base available to find that there is no justification for bringing forward a new nuclear power programme at present – supporting current Scottish policy.

Scottish Commissioner, Hugh Raven, says:

“Our report proves how right Scotland is to fight for its ‘no nuclear’ policy. We’ve thoroughly investigated nuclear power over the last year, but have found that any potential benefits are outweighed by substantial disadvantages. With our amazing renewable resources – combined with some serious political willpower – Scotland could become a true world leader in clean, sustainable energy.”

“The SDC urges the Scottish Executive to stick to its position of not supporting the further development of nuclear power while waste management issues remain unresolved. Nuclear is not the answer for climate change or security of supply.”

In response to the UK Government’s Energy Review, the SDC report gives a balanced examination of the pros and cons of nuclear power, based on eight new research papers.

Its research recognizes that nuclear is a low carbon technology, with an impressive safety record in the UK. Nuclear could generate large quantities of electricity, contribute to stabilising CO2 emissions and add to the diversity of the UK’s energy supply.

However, the research establishes that even if the UK’s existing nuclear capacity were doubled, it would only give an 8% cut on emissions by 2035 .This must be set against the risks.

The report identifies five major disadvantages to nuclear power:

1. Long-term waste – no long term solutions are yet available, let alone acceptable to the general public; it is impossible to guarantee safety over the long-term disposal of waste.

2. Cost – the economics of nuclear new-build are highly uncertain. There is little, if any, justification for public subsidy, but if estimated costs escalate, there’s a clear risk that the taxpayer will be have to pick up the tab.

3. Inflexibility – nuclear would lock the UK into a centralised distribution system for the next 50 years, at exactly the time when opportunities for microgeneration and local distribution network are stronger than ever.

4. Undermining energy efficiency – a new nuclear programme would give out the wrong signal to consumers and businesses, implying that a major technological fix is all that’s required, weakening the urgent action needed on energy efficiency.

5. International security – if the UK brings forward a new nuclear power programme, we cannot deny other countries the same technology*. With lower safety standards, they run higher risks of accidents, radiation exposure, proliferation and terrorist attacks.

On balance, the SDC finds that these problems outweigh the advantages of nuclear. However, the SDC does not rule out further research into new nuclear technologies and pursuing answers to the waste problem, as future technological developments may justify a re-examination of the issue.



Download the reports:

Full SDC position paper
» The role of nuclear power in a low carbon economy
A commentary by Jonathon Porritt
» Is nuclear the answer?

Or order your free hard copies

SDC Chair, Jonathon Porritt, says:
“It’s vital that we get to grips with the complexity of nuclear power. Far too often, the debate is highly polarised, with NGOs claiming to see no advantages to nuclear at all, and the pro-nuclear lobby claiming that it’s the only solution available to us.

“Instead of hurtling along to a pre-judged conclusion (which many fear the UK Government is intent on doing), we must look to the evidence. There’s little point in denying that nuclear power has benefits, but in our view, these are outweighed by serious disadvantages. The UK Government is going to have to stop looking for an easy fix to our climate change and energy crises – there simply isn’t one.”

Concluding with advice on a future energy strategy, the SDC report establishes that it is indeed possible to meet the UK’s energy needs without nuclear power. With a combination of a low-carbon innovation strategy and an aggressive expansion of energy efficiency and renewables, the UK would become a leader in low-carbon technologies. This would enhance economic competitiveness whilst meeting the UK’s future energy needs.

ENDS

[Notes to Eds:

- The SDC nuclear review, research papers and audio launch interview with Jonathon Porritt are available to download at www.sd-commission.org.uk.

- The SDC has spent a year gathering evidence and agreeing its position on nuclear power.

- The process for developing the SDC position on nuclear power has been rigorous and transparent. During the process, the SDC identified three divergent positions on nuclear power: position 1 - NO, position 2 – NOT NOW, position 3 - MAYBE.

SDC Commissioners voted as follows: eight Commissioners favoured position 1, five favoured position 2, and two favoured position 3.
As part of the current Energy Review, we expect the Government will go through a comparable decision-making process, and we advise them to be similarly transparent.

- The SDC nuclear review is based on eight new research papers
(see attached evidence base summary for key facts):
1. An introduction to nuclear power – science, technology and UK policy context,
by the Sustainable Development Commission
2. Reducing CO2 emissions: nuclear and the alternatives,
by the Sustainable Development Commission
3. Landscape, environment and community impacts of nuclear power,
by the Sustainable Development Commission
4. The economics of nuclear power
by the Science & Technology Policy Research (SPRU, University of Sussex) and NERA Economic Consulting
5. Waste and decommissioning
by the Sustainable Development Commission with contributions from Nirex and AMEC NNC
6. Safety and security
by the Sustainable Development Commission with contributions from Large & Associates and AMEC NNC
7. Public perceptions and community issues
by Professor Robin Grove-White, Dr Matthew Kearnes, Dr Phil Macnaghten and Professor Brian Wynne
8. Uranium resource availability
by Future Energy Solutions, an operating division of AEA Technology plc

- The Sustainable Development Commission is the government advisory body on all matters relating to sustainable development, reporting to the First Minister in Scotland and Prime Minister at UK level . Through advocacy, advice and appraisal, we help put sustainable development at the core of Executive policy.

SOURCE: Sustainable Development Commission UK

The Star Global Malaysians Forum
Posted: 26 September 2006 at 11:58am

Comments by ahvincent

Nowadays most Owners insist that we design certain basic "green" peinciples into buildings. The guideslines are still pretty loosely defined but generally speaking our designs do incorporate the basic generally accepted "green" principles and must be efficient and economical to build.
-------------------------------
Posted: 28 September 2006 at 10:59am

Further comments by ahvincent

I read somewhere they have started to construct a wind farm in the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria where it is always windy 365 days a year. I think they are saying that eventually there will be 2,000 such mills in the farm.

Some people say it is not economical....but I don't know or understand why it wouldn't be. It certainly is eco friendly. Well, I will just have to wait and see what will come out of it in the future.

Co-generation of electricity is already practised in parts of Europe and Japan. Australia is currently building a massive wind farm to generate power. It's success remains to be seen.
---------------------------------
Posted: 29 September 2006 at 6:59am

Response by gleearch

Ahvincent,

There will always be detractors who will say wind farms and pv farms are not feasible.

The question to ask is, compared to what?

A diesel burning electric generator? While they build those things in masses, it still takes fuel to fire up and operate. Not to mention the pollution etc.

Yet wind farms and PV use free energy. Since all generators need to be maintained, upkeep costs are somewhat moot. Though with PV, it's really low maintenance.

What most people don't realise is that these wind turbines are getting smaller and more efficient. Some are now being installed on high rise buildings to take advantage of the high wind speeds near the tops of these buildings. In some ways this is better, because you are utilizing urban space instead of green fields.

It's mainly the oil lobby which likes to kcik up a big fuss about the costs of going green. Unfortunately for them, those arguments don't hold much water now. The cost of green is coming down fairly rapidly and most new buildings that use LEED or similar sustainable design strategies are seeing these cost fast closing the gap with conventional construction.
--------------------------------
Posted: 29 September 2006 at 6:24pm

Nik Zafri's Comments

I think it's a fabulous idea to have wind turbines installed on top of buildings esp. here in Malaysia. I've seen it abroad but never seen it in Malaysia so far. The higher the building is the better - where wind is fastest. I ain't sure about the cost say...RM..../kWh. But I do know it's cheaper than nuclear.

I'm not sure about old buildings Gerard, probably they are not designed for stress from wind turbines compared to new buildings packaged together with wind turbines.

However, with oil/coal/gas are depleting, wind turbines can become an economical option.

I've also read somewhere about green building standard - it talks about renewable energy and fuel cell equipment - that will enable us not to be overdependent on fossil fuels and conventional electricity. Examples quoted - solar water heaters, photovoltaic systems and wind turbines.

You can see something even more interesting over here as well. The pic below is the FUTURE!



http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/01-02/RE_info/Urban%20wind.htm

Wind power can be used to generate electricity in an urban environment. The easiest way to do this would be if everybody built a 600kW turbine on the top of his or her house.

This is quite clearly not feasible, but urban wind generation is. The University of Strathclyde in Glasgow was involved in a project to redevelop the Lighthouse building in Glasgow. The Energy Systems Research Unit was involved to show how renewable technology can be utilised. One device they decided to use was a Ducted Wind Turbine.

This device sits at the edge of the roof of a building and utilises the updraft of the airflow along a building side. The air flows upwards, hugging the building wall then enters the front of the duct. The arrows above show the flow through the turbine. The spoiler at the top of the turbine also utilises a PV module to increase generation from renewable energy. The spoiler is optimised to create a pressure differential across the duct and the PV is mounted at this angle.

The devices are relatively small with a blade diameter of 600mm so they possess very little visual impact on a building.



These devices are suitable for an urban environment but not households. They are more suited to office buildings and high rise buildings rather than a small household. These devices are unlike most other common wind turbines in the fact that they are uni-directional. As explained in the Beginners Guide most turbines will position themselves perpendicular to the flow of the wind. A HAWT will yaw into position and a VAWT is always in the correct position. These turbines are fixed into position so are dependant upon the wind blowing in the correct direction. Because of the duct the turbine will perform favourably to a wind direction variability of 120o. (60o to each side of perpendicular to turbine.)



The wind direction is Scotland is predominantly south-westerly so the turbines should be positioned on the South and West edges of any structures roof.

Theoretical Power Outputs

Using the devices installed at the Lighthouse an approximation on the power outputs can be made. The theory from the Beginners Guide to Wind applies here.

Air density ( ) = 1.225kg/m3
Diameter (D) = 0.6m
Wind Speed (V) = 10m/s
Cp = 0.35

Swept Area of Rotor = R2 =0.2827m2



P = 173.18W (This is the theoretical power available)



P = 60.61W (This is a realistic value of power available)

The value above shows the power available theoretically for a single ducted turbine, but in real terms they would be installed in banks along the edge of a building roof.

One single ducted wind turbine would produce 530kWh electricity per year

An average installation would probably consist of 10-ducted turbines; this would yield an annual energy production of 5308.56kWh. The installation of a PV on the spoiler would again increase the power output and if the same module from the Urban PV section is used the expected power for a bank of 10 ducted turbines would increase by 722.93kWh to 6031.49kWh per annum, assuming that each ducted turbine has one PV module installed on its spoiler, which covers an area of 0.61596m2.

Actual Power Outputs

The previous calculation assumes the basis that the wind speed would be constant at 10m/s for the duration of the year and that the wind would be blowing in the correct direction of the turbine. The value of power produced from these machines will be less than stated above because of these stated assumptions.

An estimation of the expected wind speeds in Glasgow could be made using data collected in Bishopton (10 miles south-west of Glasgow) (NGR = 2418E 6711N - Altitude = 59 metres - Latitude = 55:91 N Longitude = 04:53 W) every hour during 2001-



The chart shows the availability of the wind at certain angles including the 60o availability. It clearly shows southwest to be the predominant wind direction. The chart shows that in the southwest direction that the wind is only available 11% of the year at 10m/s. Obviously the wind will blow at speeds less than 10m/s but as explained in the beginners section this would greatly reduce the power output. Again the wind will blow at speeds greater than 10m/s and greatly increase the power output but this would be a rare occurrence throughout the year.

The theoretical power outputs shown above are probably the upper limit of the power expected from these ducted machines and a capacity factor of about 25% is more realistic, knowing that for HAWT in Scotland the capacity factor is approximately 35%, since these ducted turbines are uni-directional.

Therefore a realistic power output from a single ducted turbine would be

(530.856 x 0.25)+ 72.293 (from PV) = 205kWh/year

Individual Possibilities

We have discussed how it would not feasible to expect everyone to have a wind turbine on their roof but there is a lot of unused roof space in city centres on large office buildings and also factories roofs could provide an ideal place for wind turbines to be deployed. As we are unsure of the roof area available in Scotland, this example will demonstrate the effects of a wind turbine for every person in Scotland (5,115,000 people)

One wind turbine (530.856 x 0.25)+ 72.293 (from PV) = 205kWh/year

This would result in an electricity production of;

i) = 205(kW) x 5,115,000= 1,048,575,000kWh

1,049GWh, which is 3.3% of Scotland's yearly electricity consumption
(Scottish Total = 32037GWh)

National Benefits

The introduction of ducted wind turbines could result in an annual reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in Scotland, every kWh of electricity produced from fossil fuels results in 0.97 kg of CO2

i) 0.97kg x 1,048,575,000kWh /year = 1,017,117,750 kg/CO2



1.4 % of Total Scottish CO2 Emissions - (1.4 % of 72,300,000,000 kg)

The future

No estimation on the cost of installation can be made, as these devices are very much in the research and development stage at this moment. The research into this field is growing as more people become interested in urban wind generation. Below are some images of ideas to utilise urban wind generation. A website exists that is only interested in the development of wind turbines for the urban environment. (www.urbanturbines.com).

Such a technology could be deployed relatively cheaply in the future however more research has to be carried out to examine the energy production potential and where electricity produced could be used successfully. Many designers are considering the integration of wind turbines within buildings again it is not yet known how feasible this will be.
-----------------------------------
Posted: 30 September 2006 at 12:59am

Response by gleearch

Nik,

Large system obviously would have a difficult time being retrofitted to old buildings. That's where PV panles and smaller wind systems could be used.

That's another issue. The reuse of older buildings.
More along the lines of saving and recycling historical buildings. Too often as we have seen throughout asia, beautiful old buildings are torn down and replaced by what is touted then as the future. Half the time, they are ugly boxes with no real design in them.

However recycling buildings, salvaging them and reusing them is another otpion of being green. Green isn't always about building a brand new building with all the latest technology.

Sometimes it's about reusing an old building. Some of these buildings have huge timbers, etc that you cannot find today. So it's worthwhile to salvage those materials if not reusing the building. If the existing building is reused, obviously there are issue with hazardous materials etc but those can be mitigated and old HVAC systems can be replaced. A good designer can make the most out an existing space or create additions which respect or work well to ennhance the existing building.

There's is so much more to being green. It's a good time to be working on saving the environment.

The Star Global Malaysians Forum - Posted: 02 June 2007 at 3:21pm

I always ponder on this subject since I was a kid – perhaps influence from sci-fi stories. Will we be seeing building designs of the future be different or with the sophisticated looks? Or perhaps getting taller and taller?

As I entered the 90s, yes, I have seen some futuristic developments as I expected when I was a child. But do you think, the building will be taller and taller in the future?

I don’t think so. Of course, once people become really economic-conscious, this skyscrapers would no longer be built as you don’t have proper justifications in terms of economy. Just visit any skyscraper in the world today - look at the ‘small’ office spaces as you go further up? And look at the rental price?

But if you all ask me, will digital age encounter higher evolution as time goes by? My answer would be a big ‘YES” and to evolutionize the digital age, you do not need to build high buildings, right?

You can just ‘go anywhere’ to find :

a) ‘wi-fi’ and ‘wi-max’ – a very rapid evolution of broadband which started from leased line which started from ‘dial-up’

b) ‘3G’ facilities – a very rapid evolution of GPRS, Bluetooth which started from WAP.

then you’ll get connected to the world - and these technologies are getting better and better as I speak now!

Now why would people build tall buildings on the first place? If you study carefully, the typical claims would be :

a. to denote some kind of success and glory via ‘monuments’,

b. plus (ironically) also an indication of the lifestyle of rich and famous, the taller the penthouse or CEO’s office suite be, the ‘taller’ the ‘success level’ would be

So, do you think, this philosophy will still be valid in the future? (Maybe now) I think what we’re facing now is part of the new industrial revolution (we’re still in the learning stage) and soon when quality genuinely takes its place, we would be concentrating to building a more secured, stronger + environmental friendly superstructures – green buildings (not necessarily high)

Now how would I know this? I see ‘signs are happening now’. I noticed that some true rich men coincidentally related to the digital business – surprisingly prefers lower buildings with good surroundings - just look at Google, Yahoo offices and even Microsoft building in Richmond. Now these firms are more into evolutionizing digital technology rather than making skyscrapers to denote their success.

Now the following are what I foresee (not Nostradamaus-oriented) :

a) The current skyscrapers will stay the way they are but new ones will no longer be built,

b) Even if there are new buildings to be built, the focus would be on reliability, strength, longer life-cycle and especially environmental friendly elements – in simple terms – GENUINE sustainable development,

c) Digital technology race and evolution will come to a total halt one day (but not as soon as skyscrapers) and we would still be maintaining what we have – possibly try to go back to the basics as much as we can.
-------------------------------
Response from flick068-Posted: 02 June 2007 at 4:34pm

I think you're not very far off in your Nostradamaus-oriented predictions. The current movement is towards green and sustainable buildings rather than glorified monuments. Although glorified monuments seems to be de rigueur in developing nations eg India & China. For eg, just read in today's paper a billionaire in India building a 60-storey palace with helipad, health club, etc for his business/office and home, just 'coz he can! If you've got it, flaunt it type of mentality I suppose. And look at all the one-upman-ship happening around in Shanghai, Taiwan, Malaysia included on who builds the tallest, longest, biggest building... (how about a building that works and not crack or leak would be better don't you think?)

Once people realise about scarcity of resources and the need for sustainability then the buildings will follow. In some ways the developed nations are getting there because they are the first to feel the effect, in a way.

Also, with the digital movement, it will change the way people work. Perhaps more people will work from home and there won't be need for massive office buildings - although i think this is much further away in the future.... i don't think human bosses have the necessary skills to manage staff remotely (another whole different discussion on human bosses' skills....)
------------------------------------
Nik Zafri's Response : Posted: 08 June 2007 at 2:46pm

Hi flick, thanks for seconding. The more I look into this matter, the more I see few things :

a. We have to learn the hard way - that is when the environmental factors started to deteriorate profusely, only then, people will understand that how important to safeguard nature in order not to destroy the future of their very own future generation. (many countries started out where we started. Some realized fast and drew the line to block the 'madness of unsustainable development' plus restarted trees planting but some countries were left very far behind and awaiting destruction - as a result of their own past guilts)

b. The (a) factor is very much related to serious need for attitude change - ignorance, talking hypotheses/dissertation (talk the walk), no follow-up action taken, waiting for something to happen first (reactive and corrective or firefighting attitudes) etc.etc.

Indeed ICT evolution should be channelled towards educating the people proactively!