Recently in Environment Category

By Alexander Villafania INQUIRER.NET

MANILA, Philippines – The campaign season is in full swing and so some of the public executives are in hot pursuit of getting voters' attention. This means many topics up for discussion are left unfinished, one of which is on nuclear power that was once hot topic among legislators especially with attempts to reactivate the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP).

Quietly, while everyone is busy with electioneering, a team of researchers from the Senate Economic Planning Office (SEPO) released their policy brief on the country's nuclear power capabilities.

The policy brief entitled “Powering the Future: Are We Ready for Nuclear Energy” identifies the Philippines' current power resources and requirements, comparative power status with other countries, as well as the local and national regulations that the Philippines has to discuss and enforce before coming up with nuclear policies.

The policy brief was prepared by Harry Pasimio, Jr. and Peter Turingan and finished last September. A downloadable version is found in the official website of the Philippine Senate.

The brief uses reports from local and international reports as well.

It identified that the Philippines' current power demand is pegged at about 9,700 megawatts for the entire country and continues to grow as the population grows.

By 2017, peak power demand would reach at least 13,000 megawatts.

Nearly 50 percent of this power is produced oil and coal based power plants. Another 21 percent is hydroelectric, 17 percent is from natural gas and 12 percent is from geothermal.

However, even with about 30 percent of power produced is coming from renewable energy, the majority of the plants are using fossil fuel, which produces 4,078 metric tons of carbon dioxide per gigawatt-hour.

Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is associated with the negative effects of climate change. The Philippine government has also been working to reduce carbon emissions.

The increased power demand and plans to reduce ozone-depleting greenhouse gases are pushing options to look into cost-effective and environment-friendly power sources. Nuclear power thus became a major point of contention from legislators, scientists and environmentalists.

In particular was the proposal by Congressman Mark Cojuangco to revive the BNPP, which drew criticism from some scientists who said that the interpretation of certain scientific results were skewed by Cojuangco to justify the dilapidated plant's reactivation.

Given these situations, the policy brief made one conclusion: that the realization of the country's nuclear plans would take years to complete unless the government implements many measures to ensure that nuclear power is safely established, distributed, disposed and regulated.

“Current efforts in both Houses of Congress to fast track the rehabilitation and operation of the BNPP are akin to putting the cart before the horse. Before the government can operate the BNPP or any other NPP for that matter, it must first undertake the preliminary business of getting its nuclear power program back on track by updating the scientific/technical, legislative, and regulatory frameworks that will guide the development of the country’s nuclear power industry.”

The points raised by the SEPO policy brief already points to a problem that legislators must first act on before rushing into having nuclear power. Hopefully, these points will be remembered by the next set of legislators after next year's elections.

By Alexander Villafania INQUIRER.NET In the aftermath of perhaps the worst typhoon that struck Metro Manila in recent years, environmental groups are blaming climate change for the effects of “Ondoy” (international name “Ketsana”). In different statements, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace warned that such a disaster could be repeated unless comprehensive measures are taken immediately. Greenpeace, in their statement , reiterated their call for industrialized countries to put in money to fund climate change measures especially in disaster-prone countries, including the Philippines. Greenpeace Climate and Energy Campaigner Amalie Obusan said in a statement that the disaster in the Philippines had to happen in between two international climate change meetings, the recently concluded G20 Summit and the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Summit. “While world leaders are pussyfooting on their commitments, countries like ours are left to experience the ravages of climate change,” Obusan said. In a separate statement, WWF-Philippines Vice Chair Jose Lorenzo Tan is calling for the reduction of fossil fuel consumption, which is being blamed for contributing to climate change. Tan said the country is not equipped to take the brunt of another similar disaster and so measures must be taken to help mitigate its effects. “Planning must start from scenarios of the future, rather than from the present. Collectively, we must identify 'next practices', because today's 'best practice' will no longer suffice. We must start small, learn fast and scale rapidly,” Tan said. The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) reported that Ondoy dropped the heaviest rainfall in Metro Manila in recent history, a record 34.1 centimeters (13 inches) of water in less than six hours. The previous record was in 1967 with 33.4 centimeters of rainwater over the course of 24 hours.

By Dennis Posadas While I appreciate the enthusiasm that groups like Greenpeace and WWF about enabling as much clean/renewable energy as we can put into the system, given that we have a new renewable energy law, there are also a few mindset changes we need to put into place. I am all for renewable energy; however, as a trained engineer, I also realize that there are some hurdles that need to be overcome. First is, some renewable energy sources, like solar and wind, while abundant, are also intermittent. The sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow. On the other hand, cogeneration and biomass plants, which are clean sources, can be stable if enough heat or biomass material is forecast and planned. For solar and wind, if we want to use it for 24x7 use, we need to make sure that there is an energy storage mechanism of some type. The most common energy storage device is of course a battery. For bigger solar and wind systems, running in the megawatt range, batteries would have to be connected together, so it probably won’t be practical. Concentrated Solar Plants (CSPs) that employ banks of mirrors in the desert use some type of liquid like molten salt. Another possibility is to use pumped storage, like in Lake Caliraya. When power is available, it is used to pump water up an elevated lake. During nighttime, the lake water can be released to drive a generating turbine. Other schemes involve compressed air (in the US), or as in the case of some wind systems, natural gas turbines. But for many systems, the storage technique they employ is to simply connect the renewable energy system to the grid. Now as we increase the percentage of renewable energy systems that connect directly to the grid, we have to remember again that these are intermittent. You can’t exactly tell the sun to shine exactly at 6:00am, or the wind to start blowing at 9:00pm. So there has to be a way to prevent blowups of circuit breakers or fuses, a way to plan when each energy source will come on stream. There is a role for software and intelligent grid systems that work with meteorological information to determine that there is a high/low likelihood that the wind/sun will be available at a certain time. The grid itself, and components will have to be redesigned to take into account the higher occurrence of intermittent turn-on and turn-off of power sources, many of them being renewable. Appliances may need to have chips in them, telling them that the power at a given hour is mostly coming from renewable sources, or not. Meralco’s plan, for example, to offer Internet over broadband lines, is indicative of this. The common perception is that they plan to mainly utilize this to offer broadband services to the public through their power lines. Actually, it is not as simple as that. The Internet over power lines can also be used to command and control equipment, such as chillers in malls, to turn on or to idle at a certain time. The grid needs to be intelligent, to handle the intermittent nature of clean/renewable energy systems. There will be a lot of new capabilities, already being experienced in places like California and Europe, that we will soon have here. Our electric meters (“kontadors”) for example, will run backwards and forwards. So if we decide to install solar panels or wind turbines on our roofs, not only can we be consumers, we can also be mini power producers supplying to Meralco. The amount we sold, is then subtracted from the amount we consumed. The more citizens and private industry, as well as government, invest in these mini and private renewable energy systems, the less need there will be for big, and often carbon emitting power plants. In other words, power generation will be decentralized to many small renewable power producers, as opposed to a few large ones. Now who will pay for that? Some cities in the US consider solar panels as part of the house (roof) and allow citizens to simply add a little extra to their real estate tax, and amortize the solar panels over 25 years. The payment can actually be taken from the savings generated by the panels, so in effect a no-cash out scheme is feasible. Are we ready for that? We all want reduced carbon emissions. But we don’t get there by simply joining token Earth Hour or Earth Day celebrations. We also need to do some work, and take the time to educate ourselves. ___________________________________________________________ Dennis Posadas is the editor of Cleantech Asia Online, and the author of Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009)

By Dennis Posadas It was apparent from the Asian Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) held at the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the USAID sponsored Private Financing Investment Forum held in Manila during the same week last June 15-19, that energy efficiency is enjoying an increased attractiveness for investments, like its more popular cleantech cousin, renewable energy. More than 500 delegates from around the world, policy makers, government officials, investors, entrepreneurs, media, attended the event. ACEF was co-sponsored by ADB, USAID, AusAID, Japan ODA, and the Spanish, Swedish and Norwegian governments, as one prelude to the Copenhagen summit on climate change later this year. One of the concepts explored in the ACEF was the concept of an equivalent power plant, or “efficiency power plant,” as some of the speakers called it. An efficiency power plant is a visualization of savings in power capacity from energy savings, a concept that is useful considering that most laypersons struggle to conceptualize energy efficiency, unlike the popular images of renewable wind turbines and solar farms etched in many minds. One low hanging fruit to implement energy efficiency is more efficient lighting like compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) to replace incandescent bulbs. “Lighting by itself is responsible for 19% of total electricity consumption,” said Martin Willemsen, Director of Marketing at Philips Lighting. Willemsen said energy consumption can be reduced by a factor of five if new technologies, such as CFL and more advanced ones such as LED lighting, are implemented fully. “For example, a 60w incandescent bulb can be replaced by a 12w CFL bulb,” said Willemsen. But large scale replacement of incandescents by CFL lighting brings about its own issues. In an interview with consultant Dilip Limaye, who has worked with various multilateral funded programs on CFL replacement in various countries, he stated that there are various hurdles to contend with in distributing CFL’s. These include: 1) the quality of the CFLs; 2) whether to give away these CFL’s or have people purchase them; 3) recycling issues; 4) testing and certification; and the destruction and proper disposal of incandescents. Fortunately, bilateral organizations like USAID have stepped in to help manufacturers, lighting companies, lighting councils and supporting organizations to identify and promote quality CFLs for the Asian region. According to a report (Confidence in Quality) released in October 2007 by the USAID ECO-Asia Clean Development and Climate Program, as many as half of the CFL’s produced in Asia are substandard, producing less light or burning out more quickly than advertised. Many stakeholders who wish to see CFLs replace incandescent are concerned that this finding may threaten to derail that goal. A March 2009 USAID report (Phasing in Quality) stated that 10 to 12 million metric tons of CO2 emission reduction can be achieved if poor quality CFL’s will be replaced by good quality CFL’s. “Energy saving lighting is one of the few ways where you can save energy and is at the same time cost beneficial,” says Willemsen of Philips Lighting. But in order to succeed, efforts in creating awareness, as well as the efforts of groups like the Asian Lighting Council, will have to continue in order for this strategy to succeed. Farther into the future, LED lighting will also be an option for widescale deployment. Asia plays a role at the moment, as most LED light manufacturing is done in the region. In order to encourage more local banks to lend for implementing energy efficiency projects, there should be a concerted effort to explain the benefits of energy efficiency to them. William Beloe is with the Sustainability Energy Financing program of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) in Manila. IFC is the World Bank’s private sector finance arm. “We see ourselves as more of a catalyst," Beloe said, citing IFC’s strategy of supporting climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts. One of their initiatives at IFC is the Small Power Utility Group (SPUG). Many of these small utilities are typically off-grid, and are normally the domain of governments. IFC is trying to move these types of utilities, which are ideal for renewable energy, to the private sector. On energy efficiency, the main issue according to Beloe, is awareness. "It requires millions of decisions to make an impact," he said. Recently, IFC has used the lack of demand for products because of the recession, to make its case. "We try, at IFC, to raise awareness that energy efficiency can contribute to the bottom line by cutting costs," he said. To do this, IFC is eager to work with local banks. "We are working to build their [local banks] loan capacity to support clean energy projects," he said. IFC normally finances large projects; their smallest tranche size in these types of projects would be in the $5 million range, said Beloe. However, he points out that the banks themselves will determine the nature of their portfolio. "All we do is to try to make the banks comfortable, maybe offer financial instruments," he said. Some will be more comfortable putting money in energy efficiency, some in renewable energy, he said. Energy efficiency is a relatively inexpensive and proven way to contribute to climate change mitigation, and at the same time contribute to the bottom line. We should expect it to share the limelight with its more visible cleantech cousin, renewable energy, particularly with ADB’s announcement during the closing plenary (and in media releases) that its target for energy efficiency loans is around $2bn/year. But until a way can be found to help businessmen and investors visualize what energy efficiency is and its viability as an investment vehicle, it will always remain the unsung relative of its more popular cleantech cousin, renewable energy. ________________________________________________________________ Dennis Posadas is the editor of Cleantech Asia Online an opinion site for cleantech in Asia. He is also the author of Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009)

by Dennis Posadas Coal is cheap and plentiful. Unlike oil, majority of which is controlled by OPEC states, coal can be found in many areas of the world, including the Philippines. As such, it has formed a significant portion of electric power generated worldwide, despite recent inroads by nuclear and renewable energy. Majority of those coal plants belch CO2 into the atmosphere, which is why NASA chief climate scientist Jim Hansen and many other experts say publicly that there should be a moratorium on the building of coal plants worldwide. Last April, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared that six greenhouse gases were a threat to human health and welfare. Chief among the six greenhouse gases was carbon dioxide (CO2). One of the largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the world is the electric power industry, particularly those that operate coal plants. The US alone emits around a billion-and-a-half tons of CO2 annually from electric power generation through coal. Try telling that to fast growing China and India, or the US. Or even to developing economies around the world like the Philippines. This needs to be discussed widely, because frankly, while clean energy is a great topic for discussion, there are still technical and economic issues in getting from where we are now to the point where we can replace coal totally. Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, one of the largest electric utilities in the US, said in an interview in an episode of 60 Minutes (a popular U.S. television show) earlier this year, that Hansen’s proposal to stop the building of new coal plants cannot be done. While Rogers was one of the first electric utility CEOs who used coal plants to acknowledge the problem of global warming from coal, he says that the industry will arrive at a solution, but not at the pace that Hansen is recommending. When asked if his company had already made the investments towards so called clean coal technology, he said that they are in the process of studying the alternatives. In reality, clean coal technology is really a way to capture the CO2 and store it underground. The technical term for the technology is called Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). One way to implement CCS is to pass the CO2 emission through a group of compounds called amines. This mixture is then pumped about one kilometer deep underground, into rock formations which have a lot of cracks that can absorb the mixture. The intense pressure underground causes the CO2 to liquefy, where it is hoped that the CO2 will stay underground forever. The solid form of CO2 is dry ice, which most of us have seen. But the long-term effectiveness of CCS is still unknown. If despite the expense to implement, it will still leak CO2 into the atmosphere, then the exercise will be a gargantuan waste of resources. There are a limited number of sites around the world that have built CCS facilities but a study on the long term effectiveness of CCS has yet to be conducted. A coal expert who I spoke to, but declined to be identified surmised that one possible scenario is a leak caused by an earthquake in the vicinity, although he said that it was a hypothesis. Aside from this, the scale of CCS is mindboggling. Unlike the nuclear power industry which can take nuclear wastes and store it in distant centralized repositories like Yucca Mountain in the US, each coal plant will need to have access to a CCS facility nearby. The US alone emits more than a billion- and-a-half tons of CO2 a year, not counting China and India, which gives an idea of the undertaking. In the end, it could all boil down to costs. In 2004, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) released a study called "The Future of Coal" which discussed the outlook for CCS technology. It estimated that to make CCS competitive, carbon emissions will have to be charged at around $30/ton. Recently, the US House of Representatives, through the Democrat sponsored Waxman-Markey bill, looks like it has arrived at a compromise, but will this be enough to justify CCS in new coal plants? Even if the US signs a treaty in Copenhagen later this year, it will be very hard to get private industry to support CCS if the economics doesn’t make sense. At this point theoretically CCS looks like a way to make coal a potentially non-environmentally threatening energy source. However, unless the technology and economics is brought up to speed and more research is done, it will remain simply a public relations tool brought up by the coal industry to fend off attacks against it for the moment.  _____ Dennis Posadas is the Editor of Cleantech Asia Online, a newly launched site devoted to opinions and insights about the Asia cleantech economy. He is also the author of Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009)

By Dennis Posadas THE Philippines may be one of the world’s top supporters of Earth Hour and Earth Day. We may have a new Renewable Energy Act. But if all this does not translate into greenhouse gas emission reduction, then all that is for naught. After all, don’t you think it is time to move beyond token political statements on clean energy, and actually implement these clean energy projects? In order for GHG reduction to take effect, the Philippines to seriously take advantage of the new Renewable Energy Act, by having a companion ecosystem for innovation, financing, and deployment of renewable energy projects. That is why I am so pleased to find out that opportunities to finance clean energy projects were showcased in the Philippines Clean Energy Investor Forum last June 15 at the Edsa Shangri-La hotel. The forum showcased projects that evolved from a competition, sponsored by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Private Finance Advisory Network (PFAN). PFAN is a multi-lateral public-private partnership which is managed in Asia by USAID's ECO-ASIA Clean Development and Climate program and initiated by the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Climate Technology Initiative. The PFAN Philippines Clean Energy Investor Forum served as a platform for Philippine energy entrepreneurs to showcase their ideas to investors. Six finalists were chosen by PFAN for the Philippines Business Plan competition. Each of the companies received mentoring and one-on-one coaching before they formally made their investment pitches in the forum. The event was basically a dog and pony show of those seeking investments, before a group of investors who also want to invest in renewable/clean energy. The total value of investments of those who made it to the finals was potentially more than $500 million, comprising both debt and equity finance. In addition to offering promising investments, these projects have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 per year, according to USAID. During the June 15 presentations, the panel of judges selected two Clean Energy Financing Award winners for the Philippines. The winner, Asea One, is proposing to setup 16 clean energy powerplants in Negros Oriental and the Western Visayas, while the other finalist, SURE is proposing to build, own and operate clean energy plants that run on feedstocks like rice husks and wood chips. "By bringing together clean energy entrepreneurs and investors, the PFAN Philippines Clean Energy Investor Forum is addressing the barriers that clean energy businesses face in seeking financing," said Jon Lindborg, Mission Director for USAID Philippines. "These barriers make it difficult for investors to identify and screen viable clean energy projects." USAID believes that by identifying and nurturing the best ideas, they can help facilitate financing for the projects. The Agency is also working to expand regional clean energy finance initiatives on a regional basis by developing a network of businesses and investors interested in promoting sustainable clean energy technologies and businesses. The next stop of the PFAN Investor Forum is Indonesia on June 25, and then Hong Kong, where the PFAN China Investor Forum will be held 27-28 September. It is great that we have the Renewable Energy Act in place, a product of all the years that groups like Greenpeace and WWF lobbied our Congress to implement. We can send all the representatives that we want to send to Copenhagen this year and have all the laws and policies in place, but if back home we do not build the ecosystem that will encourage actual clean energy entrepreneurs and ventures, we will simply be talking about greenhouse gas emission reduction, and not really doing anything about it. Dennis Posadas is the author of Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009)

MANILA, Philippines—A non-government organization (NGO) is calling on government to recognize the “real and present danger” posed by climate change to coastal communities on Earth Day which is being celebrated today. The Tambuyog Development Center, an NGO that assists coastal municipalities in drafting local Fisheries Code and Coastal Resource Management Plans, is calling the attention of various government agencies to fast track responses to climate change challenges. Tambuyog specified the assistance of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Department of Interior and Local Government. During its Earth Day event, Dinna Umengan, lead campaigner of the group, said Tambuyog was primarily concerned with the impact of climate change on coastal and marine natural resources that have a direct bearing on the food security and livelihood of millions of people in coastal communities. Umengan added that there are inconsistencies on the part of the government in prioritizing coastal development programs and projects and investments should be scrutinized in the light of the real situations in the coastal areas where much of these human induced hazards have brought great disasters to coastal people and natural resources in the past. Meanwhile, hundreds of fishermen belonging to Kilusang Mangingisda, a national coalition of small fishermen federations, marched and picketed the DA-BFAR and DENR offices during Earth Day to highlight the dangers they are continuously facing from natural and human-induced hazards. The group called on these agencies to act immediately by stopping all unregulated coastal reclamation, mining and quarrying, mangrove conversion, irresponsible aquaculture in brackishwater and marine areas that have been the cause of livelihood displacement to thousands of fishing families and greatly contributed to the depletion of natural coastal resources of this country. Climate change is a phenomenon in nature that is largely induced by human activities. The impacts of climate change are often worsened by the social and environmental costs of human productive or economic activities. Coastal quarrying and mining cause siltation and soil erosion which could damage corals and other marine resources aside from its effect on the coastal physical structures. Trawl fishing degrades corals and in so doing, increases the possibility of coral bleaching due to rising sea temperature. For coastal communities, the loss of corals means less food fish and loss of barrier protection from high waves. Similarly, the cutting of mangrove forests to develop fishponds deprives coastal communities of mangroves as source of food fish and their protection from rising seas and typhoons, as extreme weather phenomena are predicted to become more common due to climate change. Tambuyog specifically proposes that current programs, projects and investments in coastal area development should be reviewed and ordered to discontinue their operations if found to be endangering the communities. Second, immediately set up a social and environmental insurance and protection fund for the most vulnerable coastal communities to climate and human-induced hazards. Studies show that most of the municipalities in the Eastern seaboard or the Pacific Ocean side of the country are in great danger. Third, existing management plans for the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, coastal zones and watersheds need to be further developed to ensure they cover potential climate change impacts, mitigations and adaptation responses. And fourth, support all LGUs’efforts and community organizations initiatives in addressing climate change and allocate budget to increase their capacity for adaptation.

By Dennis Posadas Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared officially that six greenhouse gases namely carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride, are a threat to public health and welfare. Based on scientific evidence, particularly that summarized in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report of 2007, these greenhouse gases produce global warming which is responsible for stronger storms, changes in weather patterns, higher sea levels that inundate formerly habitable coastal areas, and other effects. This declaration by the EPA will hopefully be a precursor to how the United States will act in the Copenhagen summit this year. Copenhagen is where the world’s leaders will gather this year to find a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol which the Bush administration refused to ratify. Obama has long made it a priority to make the United States drive the technology for clean energy forward, in order to reduce greenhouse gases and cut their dependence on OPEC oil. Let me point out what many people already know, but some do not. If you shift from fossil fuel based energy (e.g. coal) to clean energy, you will cut greenhouse gas emissions. But how exactly does this affect the Philippines? Well for starters, we have a new Renewable Energy Act that was signed into law last year by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Key features of this law include tax incentives (no tax for seven years for clean energy businesses), a reduced tax after the seven year period has elapsed, payment for missionary (off-grid) electrification, incentives for domestic development and manufacturing. It also features a Renewable Portfolio Standard and a Feed-in-Tariff mechanism that was popularized in Europe, which gave rise to many of their clean technology companies there. What this means for the Philippines is that we simply need to get our act together , drive our academe and R&D institutes to do research on clean energy (e.g. micro hydro, micro wind, biogas, solar, energy conservation, biofuels, etc.), and try to transfer these technologies to the market as soon as feasible. In this way, we are able to create new green technology jobs and industries, and put the Philippines on the world map as a leader in clean and green technologies. Surprisingly, agriculture also contributes to global warming. The manure from farm animals produces methane. But fortunately the solution is a win-win solution. If you use the methane from the manure to generate electricity, you cut global warming and you also save electricity for the farm. We simply have to pick the niches we will play in. According to Fortune magazine, there was a company in China that was given around $4m in seed money a few years ago, not by the Chinese national government, but by the local provincial government of Wuxi, China. That company, Sun Tech, is now one of the largest solar photovoltaic companies in the world, and employs thousands of workers and generates several billion dollars a year in revenue. In India, a company called Suzlon Energy came out of nowhere to compete toe to toe in the large wind turbine category, with well-known companies like General Electric. Maybe we can specialize in typhoon resistant micro wind turbines that are ideal for tropical climates. Or micro hydro turbines. Or micro methane powerplants for agriculture. Or whatever we feel we can be world-class in. The point is to get the ecosystem going so that our researchers, our entrepreneurs, our investors, our policymakers, get together and decide that we are going to do this. Because we have limited resources, we should pick what technology we will be world-class in, and pour all our resources there, instead of trying to develop everything. We should begin to develop local technology companies that will be world leaders, and begin to shift our economy from a cheap manufacturing destination to one which develops and manufactures the products here. All the ingredients are there to build a clean tech sector in the Philippines. It is simply a matter of will on our part. Dennis Posadas is the author of Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009) and Rice & Chips: Technopreneurship and Innovation in Asia (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007)

A Filipino returning scientist is proposing to develop a solution to clean up areas that have been ruined by mining contamination. Agustine Doronila, a University of Melbourne senior research fellow, said that he was willing to help establish a "phytoremediation" research group that would harness plants to recover contaminants from the ground and water, thereby restoring ecological balance in a mining area. Doronila is now part of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) Balik Scientist Program. Doronila said the research, dubbed the Philippine Metalophyte Research Consortium, would be based in Ateneo De Manila University. He said there are endemic plants in the country that could be used for phytoremediation. These include the spurge plant or Euphobiaceae (scientific name Phyllanthus balgooyi), which has been described in a study by botanist Domingo Madulid as a "hyper accumulator" or a plant that could absorb large quantities of heavy metals. Other plants considered for phytoremediation are the Meliceae, Ochnaceae and Dichapetalaceae. The Filipino scientist said the yield of contaminated farmlands is only about P5,500 per hectare. But farms that have undergone phytoremediation could produce P165,000 of crops per hectare. The Philippines produces various metals, including chromite, copper, nickel and gold. Statistics from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Mines and Geosciences Bureau show there are 24 operating medium to large scale metallic mines in the country, up from 18 in 2006. There are also about 800 abandoned mines all over the country. Doronila said that mining contamination could affect people's livelihood and health.

By Dennis Posadas Contributor THE ongoing debate between the environmentalists and the pro-nuclear advocates simply illustrates what is missing in most arguments around the world on clean energy and climate change. Too often, the typical argument by the environmentalists is to position renewable energy as the alternative to nuclear energy. What many people don’t realize is that it is not as simple as not going nuclear, not going with coal and then just going renewable. It is nice to hear, and as a clean energy blogger (I run a blog called GO Clean Energy), I am also not that naive to say that renewable energy will solve all our problems in the near future. This notwithstanding the fact that technology is advancing in this arena; for example on the day of Barack Obama’s inaugural address as President, the firm FirstSolar announced that it had breached the $1/watt mark, at $0.98c/watt for its solar photovoltaic thin film cells. Granted that we can do a lot by conserving energy both voluntarily and technologically (think microchips to make appliances automatically adjust their demand), and that we Asians can tap energy sources like geothermal, and maybe even some good operating practices like staggered turn-on of large electricity consuming appliances like chillers and motors in our factories and shopping malls, the fact is that Asian societies have to move beyond simply mouthing phrases like No to Nukes or No to Coal, and actually educate themselves about what is out there as well as what is the state of the art. The problem that many are making is that they use what is basically a decades-old view of the situation and argue with that view. Such is the case particularly with vehement opposition to nuclear energy. Worse, they feel that they have already done a service by simply stopping there. But this is not an oped that argues for or against nuclear energy. Rather, I argue that IF a particular country decides that it will NOT go nuclear, then it should give its citizens the complete picture. Politicians and institutions should not simply argue that its citizens should go with renewable energy to the exclusion of nuclear energy, and then leave it at that. What they do not realize is that turning off that empty coffeemaker or that air conditioner in an empty room will probably result in less need for more coal and nuclear plants than some of these decades old slogans. Take for example renewable energy. Most Asians would like to see more of it, but they probably have some obsolete paradigms that prevent its widespread use. For example, many of us are operating with what is called the centralized utility approach. This means that most of us think of electricity as something that we merely consume, and it is only the electric utility that can generate power and distribute it to us. But for those that have bought their own generator sets, or their own wind generators or solar panels, or built their own power generation systems, there is also the decentralized way of thinking. It means that to a limited extent, we should ALL consider generating part of our own power needs, either as individuals, companies or communities, and sell it back to our power utilities for a change. After all, many renewable energy laws sprouting up across Asia now allow net metering, or the two way running of our electric meters, because precisely it allows us as citizens to sell back power that we generate ourselves to our utility companies. My point is that if we Asians will argue that we will no longer build regular (as opposed to clean) coal plants because these plants cause global warming, and some of us will not go with nuclear because of perceived safety concerns, then any movement that pushes these notions has to go beyond slogans. We need to offer real solutions because frankly there will be real power capacity problems in the future once the recession ends. How much that additional capacity will be is the function of how much growth we will get, how much energy conservation measures we can implement, as well as other factors. To simply say no to coal, no to nuclear and yes to renewable energy is incomplete. Without taking some responsibility as citizens on how we can utilize renewable energy or conserve electricity, we are not really helping. Asian governments and institutions need to educate people how to make these investments, how to participate in a new age of power generation, tell them about the limitations of renewable energy (the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow) and basically convince a large number of Asians to adopt a new lifestyle--one that encourages them to conserve electricity and makes them both power generators and consumers, and not simply insult their intelligence with incomplete slogans. Otherwise, you simply end up with a lot of nice to hear statements, but which at the end of the day, will simply result in more regular coal plants being built. Dennis Posadas is the Deputy Executive Director of the Congressional Commission on Science & Technology and Engineering. He is the author of Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable to be published by Pearson Education Asia this 2009.