aLgae
aLgae is a member of ECO Singapore, hoping to bring forward the gravity of the climate change issue in Copenhagen this December. The group is part of the International Youth Climate Movement (IYCM) at the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) 15th Conference of Parties (COP15).
Most green discussions nowadays focus on the “fierce urgency of now”. Taking a look around Singapore, we do not see much flurry amongst Singaporeans, to retrofit all their incandescent light-bulbs to the latest energy-efficient LED lamps, etc.; nor do we see tree-huggers advocating their cause on Orchard Road.
These lack of “green enthusiasm”, or simply “inactions”, are often interpreted to reflect the “bo-chap” attitude of the typical Singaporean.Thankfully however, we still have some saving grace, as some common features around Singapore have been referred to “exemplary” installations during some side events of COP15.
See below snapshots of presentation slides by Mr. Jens Laustsen (Senior Energy Policy Analyst, International Energy Agency, IEA) and give a little applause where it is due. Everybody needs a little encouragement now and again, and recognition of good work drives them to seek higher standards.
That said, a Carbon-Neutral Society is not made overnight, so Singapore still has a lot of work to do, just like all the other countries. I do hope though, that the typical Singaporean does not continue his laid-back approach and leave all the hard work to the governmental agencies. We are all in this together. We should all play our part. We must all care about the earth. It is the only home we’ve got.
Climate change is a result of human actions, and it should no longer be a blaming-game. Only with everybody’s unified and dedicated contribution can we ensure that the next generation has a chance at survival.
This article was originally published at http://unfcccecosingapore.wordpress.com/
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Thank you for speaking up! ECO Singapore is Singapore’s Greenpeace, I hope.
Great work ECO. Looking forward to hearing more initiatives from you when you are back in Singapore.
A lot more work Singapore! Those are plans and a lot of subsidy poured in to kick start. It is alarming to see that most Singapore on individual level still don’t care or choos to be ignorant.
3) kiasu.n.kiasi on December 12th, 2009 6.42 pm
A lot more work Singapore! Those are plans and a lot of subsidy poured in to kick start.
Be prepared to see alot more so called new technology companies start claiming to be part of the scheme soon, why? its the money and not the work man, big money! big money!
These lack of “green enthusiasm”, or simply “inactions”, are often interpreted to reflect the “bo-chap” attitude of the typical Singaporean.
I know this might upset some people here, but that statement expresses my sentiments not just in Singapore but also here on TOC.
Many comments in various threads accused most Singaporeans of being apathetic, always blinded by PAP’s glittering offers, and not seeing the real issue at stake. Yet when it comes to topics that are not sociopolitical, I think most here at TOC don’t really care either, which is apparent by the number of views and comments.
You want a party campaigning on green issues only? Btw does the PAP have a green MP / faction advocating environmental causes?
May I ask how many of these eco-singapore members or any other self proclaimed conservationists own private vehicles or sleep with the air-conditioner switched on?
As much as this organisation would like to contribute to this good cause, one must realise that flying 12 people to copenhagon to discuss about climate change and carbon emissions is ironically contributing to it. Are all 12 volunteers actually needed there?
One may argue that that this is a small issue compared to the general nonchalant attitude of Singaporeans toward climate change, which I certainly do agree with, but its now also harder to offset carbon emissions due to a 2 way flight to Copenhagon by any of the 12 individual participants who are, i am sure, committed to reducing their own carbon footprint.
Is there any word by Eco-Singapore on how they plan to do it when they come back?
@5) Jackson Tan on December 13th, 2009 2.10 pm
Hi Jackson,
I do agree that most Singaporeans aren’t really bothered with things like the green movement because like myself, we are just worrying about bread-n-butter issues. The pace of life here doesn’t leave anyone much to think about except how to feed families. I wish I had a sugar daddy that can swish me off to Copenhagen to make some noises there on climatic issues, but reality hits and I’m even contemplating whether to reply to a tread with only 7 comments. Basically not worth my time and frankly, as I have often mentioned in TOC, bloggers like me are NOT paid a cent to discuss fully into socio-political issues.
Why I chose to engage you is this: notice one of the slides — Zero Energy in Singapore. That is actually the Zero Energy Building at BCA Academy, Maxell Road — supposedly fully solar powered. You can read some of it in places like:
http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20071112/071107-9.htm
Now, the cost is nearer $11 millions, installed solar power = 190kWp but actual usage expected = 130 kWp. The technologies used are NOT leading edge stuff, in fact some components are from China. (Sorry, I don’t have time to give a link; you can search ZEB or BCA site)
Anyway, usually people talked about the cost per INSTALLED power for solar, so we are paying S$58/W or US$41/W. The market rate in USA, Europe, Japan is US$4-6/W. With China coming in now, it is probably US$3-4/W for the same deal. (You can Goggle, etc.. again). So U see why Singapore is seemingly slow to implement green tech? Why I hesitate to go into such issues?
Payback on solar is usually 15-20 years — that is what US/Europe/Japan are reporting; based on US$3-6/W, that seems about right. Do a simple calculation — what is the payback on our showcase at BCAA? You can use my figures of US$41/W, or the above link mentioning S$48K per year or current S$0.22/kW of electricity. Remember, we are using off-the-shelf tech, nothing fancy or new that required tons of R&D.
NOw hope you understand why we are more concern like why our PM’s pay is 5x that of USA’s Obama. Just Bread-n-butter issues matter to the common man on the street. Please wake up, or maybe you have a sugar daddy.
So, sure, Singaporeans can also be apathetic……
theforgottongeneration (#8):
Thanks for your comments.
Firstly, when I chose to reply on the topic of apathy, I’m just miffed about the fact that there are people who are accusing others of being apathetic about sociopolitical events, and yet they themselves are apathetic about non-sociopolitical stuff. Maybe it’s an unfair judgement, but I find it rather hypocritical.
Maybe you’re right in that most people here have a personal interest in sociopolitical articles. It is something that affects them directly and personally, rather than this environmentalism stuff, which affects everyone on the long term (and thereby seem more distant).
Now, to the topic you raised, green buildings. You mentioned:
Anyway, usually people talked about the cost per INSTALLED power for solar, so we are paying S$58/W or US$41/W. The market rate in USA, Europe, Japan is US$4-6/W. With China coming in now, it is probably US$3-4/W for the same deal. (You can Goggle, etc.. again).
I wonder where you got the high figures (for Singapore) from. The ones for US and Europe I can find easily, but I can’t think of a reason why, nor can I find a source that says, the price is that high. In fact, you said
Payback on solar is usually 15-20 years — that is what US/Europe/Japan are reporting; based on US$3-6/W, that seems about right.
According to the WildSingapore article you linked,
It seems to suggest a payback period in the same time scale. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood what you meant; if so, please clarify.
@9) Jackson Tan on December 14th, 2009 4.03 pm
Cost is S$11 million (revealed on TV news during official opening about a month back + in newspaper); the link says $10m, so it’s about there. Installed power = 190kW (you need to get specs of the buildings from BCA), so 11,000,000 divided by 190,000 = S$58/W. The figures don’t lie.
The 12 years is unheard of in solar circles; remember we are not using any latest tech with higher efficiencies. With Singapore sunlight, it is not really possible under 15 years (maybe with 2G or 3G tech), but that may be something to sweeten the sale to the public. So, Ok say 12 years.
One way to calculate payback is by the current (tariff) electric costs. Singapore irradiation = 4.62 per day, so 130 x 4.62 x 30 x 12 = 216,000kWp per year (taking the 130 average, not installed 190KWp). So savings is 216,000 x 0.22 = $47,500 per year, which is near the 48K mentioned. $11m divided by 48K gives the payback, which is way off global market rates. Certainly not even close to 12 years. The 36K is probably not assuming 30 days of usage per month, probably 22 days as per office practice of a working “month”, which worsen the payback more.
So, which part is still unclear? Do you want to dig further into such things? Just keep to the saving the environ, OK? Me, I have butter-n-bread issues to worry.
theforgottongeneration (#10):
Ah! I see that’s how you derived that number. In that case, it is unfair to compare that number to the price of solar cells of about US$4. This is because this small cost is the retail price, which is basically the manufacturing cost of the solar panel. I’m not sure if it include profit margins, but I don’t think it includes government subsidies, and certainly not installation costs.
In Singapore’s case, it is a retrofitted building, so costs will be terribly high (especially if it is a high rise building). If we wish to make a similar comparison, the CIS tower in Manchester has similar costs as well.
Now as for the quoted 12 years… this is what happens when I don’t read carefully enough. That sentence was a general sentence (probably meant for a house than a high rise building) and does not apply to the case illustrated. Thanks for correcting me!
@11) Jackson Tan on December 14th, 2009 6.31 pm
Appreciate you took trouble to look into what’s said and provide the CIS case. Unfortunately, that case also looked suspicious to me (& I could be wrong), so considered what is said about the CIS at:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/21/uks-cis-solar-tower-garners-390-kilowatts-from-the-sun/
It actually has an installed peak capacity of 7200 x 80W = 580kW, which is 3x that of the ZEB. Usually people talked about total installed wattage, whether full capacity is used or not, for simple comparison (e.g. only 4898 used). Also the statement from above link:
“….we’re pretty certain this solar panel makeover was concerned with matters other than dollars and cents….”,
which confirms my suspicion that its payback is not justified. So the CIS is 3x less expensive per installed watt and even that it doesn’t makes a good investment of money spent.
Your US$4 is probably the cost per bare watt back in 2005-2006. Since then, the cost has reduced about 20-30% (and we are not talking the Chinese stuff yet). Usually, supplier quoted small volume, so for a large project, a discount is usually in the offering, unless you show them you have a fat cheque-book! My figures refer to INSTALLED cost per watt, meaning all installation costs, supporting equipment, labor, commissioning, etc. factored in. This is usual and clearer way for comparison. I doubt anyone will talk only the basic solar panel costs for any installation site. Factor in about 2x panel costs (or 3x) for total cost, we still have about US$5.60-8.40 per INSTALLED watt at worst. This still doesn’t account for the US$41/W of the ZEB.
Using electric tariff payback calculation is just to confirm using installed cost. Both seems to give similar results.
BTW, the ZEB is a 3-storey building, so the retrofit is very straight forward – just dump solar panels on as much roof space as possible.
Anyway, I am going too deep as I would want like — just to give you some ideas to go away with on this issue. You can see that going green isn’t that simple, when it come to $$$. But there is what policy-makers and corporations are concerned with, so the common people can shout & scream, but I doubt it will influence much on any green policies.
theforgottongeneration (#12):
Sorry, I think I wasn’t clear in my previous post. What I meant is this: buildings such as the ZEB and the CIS tower are not cheap to retrofit. Using the article you linked, £5.675 million was spent installing solar panels delivering 580 kW of power. That works out to approximately S$22 / W, which is way high than the US$4 (or whatever price it is now).
My point being that, logically, installation cost varies with the type of building, and the usual 2x of panel costs for installation cost is probably a rule of thumb and does not apply throughout. That’s my purpose of bringing up the CIS tower — I don’t think we can compare these prices with the US$4 number.
But that still leaves us with a discrepancy of why the ZEB is more than twice that number. I cannot be sure, but I can make a guess: not all the cost goes into solar power. There are plenty of other features as well, like vertical plants and special glass. That may be where the high costs are racked up.
And I agree with you that payback for both buildings is unlikely to be in the next two decades. And I do know that when it comes down to the details, going green is quite complicated (and frankly, I’m rather ambivalent about carbon credits).
But when you say,
But there is what policy-makers and corporations are concerned with, so the common people can shout & scream, but I doubt it will influence much on any green policies.
that is sadly pretty much true for many sociopolitical stuff in Singapore at the current moment as well. Things may (and I believe, will) change one day, so I see no reason to stop focussing on green issues.
Last of all, I’m greatly thankful for this insightful discussion! And apologies if that took up some of your time.
To hs,
The general opinion of someone being eco-friendly has been pigeon-holed into skepticism about said person’s every single move. However much I agree with you on flying 12 volunteers and the carbon footprint, I must disagree with the confusion that they must do EVERYTHING right. Being eco-friendly is about taking as many practical steps as possible to reduce your carbon footprint, but it does not mean taking a step back from civilisation especially when it may be more practical to do some things.
Take for example hybrid cars. Good for you if you have one, but if someone has a second hand but fuel-efficient car that puts less stress on the environment, why not? The strain on the environment from mining raw materials, processing them, putting it together and shipping a brand new hybrid car is far more than if an existing car is used till it goes kaput. If the electricity is powered by solar panels, why not? It is what we should be moving towards: alternate sources of energy and ways to extend lifespan of products.
Sometimes it is the better of two evils. Maybe the lack of participants would not allow for more coverage or something.
To theforgottongeneration,
It is an outdated thought that being eco-friendly means spending a lot of money (i.e. having sugar daddy). It is the little things that help, and I think it admirable that there is increasing awareness of the climate issue. We can do our part while pushing our government to do more in terms of making corporations responsible for their carbon footprint. The power of the people.
I worry about bread and butter issues, but I learn that I can save a lot by just being a bit more sensible about my money. I walk 15 minutes to the MRT station instead of taking the feeder bus (same amount of time waiting for said bus sometimes, plus it gives me a workout, PLUS I save money). We stopped using the aircon and became smarter with curtains. I bought sulfate-free products which are good for the environment (seeing how it gets flushed out into the sea) AND my body, and the amount of dilution I could do makes it cheaper than if I had stuck with the usual commercial products. I swapped out my expensive makeup remover with olive oil, and it works at a much reduced price (and I can eat a salad afterwards). When I shop, I buy one quality (not branded) product that I can use for a longer period of time instead of a whole lot of crappy ones. I use alternate products instead of disposable sanitary products to reduce landfills, and trust me when I say it works out to be super cheap.
There is no need to be hysterical and buy up expensive products that claim to be green (not all of them are even if they claim to be, read the labels; no time? think about this: we use household products like vinegar and baking soda as cleaning products instead of buying commercial products). It is cheap if you become creative and think about it. It might be time-consuming to do it right now, but it works out in the long-run.
Environmental issues seem distant because there is little information on the impacts in Singapore. You also forget that if the green initiative goes through, it could create a whole new industry far more sustainable and steady than what we currently have. Is this not what you want for the future generation?
We argue that PAP does not have the foresight in the past for what we are experiencing now. What about the people who care not for the environment despite increasing evidence that should concern us?
You speak of the costs of the green building. First, this is a relatively new thing we are seeing in Singapore, and have you thought about the general lowered costs should it be implemented nationwide or at least on a wider scale? Secondly, this is retrofitting an existing building. The cost of a new one is 10% more than the usual building, as is stated in the article you linked.
15% of the $10m goes into solar cells/panels while the rest goes into making the building even more efficient. They may quote a savings of $36k, but if the building becomes more efficient in generating electricity and they were allowed sell-back of the excess, the savings would be far more.
@14) Ryvyan on December 18th, 2009 2.53 am
To Ryvyan
I think you are looking at my comments with Jackson Tan from an environmentalist point of view. No problems with that. I personally think there is lots of potential for everyone to do his/her part.
However, the main point of our discussion isn’t that. Just divide 10m or 11m by 36K(?) and you get the payback. What does that tells you? I doubt even a “10% more costly but more efficient retrofitted building” can justify that nor even last that long! Don’t be hoodwinked & follow blindly with what you want to believe just because spending 10m would seems a serious effort to get us into the solar league. The details don’t lie.
Again, I have absolutely no problem with going green…..