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

INDEKS PRESTASI UTAMA (Key Performance Indicators - KPI/IPU )

UNTUK SEKTOR PEMBINAAN

April, 2006 – Kajian : Nik Zafri Abdul Majid

Sebarang penyalinan, penggunaan, muaturun, cetakan, applikasi, rujukan kepada artikel ini dalam apa juga bentuk sekalipun perlu mendapat kebenaran pengarang terlebih dahulu. Pengarang tidak bertanggungjawab sekiranya mana-mana panduan yang diambil dari artikel ini gagal diaplikasikan oleh kontraktor dan klien tanpa merujuk kepada pengarang atau mana-mana perunding projek dan pengurusan yang bertauliah terlebih dahulu.

Dalam sektor pembinaan, klien memerlukan setiap projek disudahkan berasaskan elemen-elemen berikut :

* masa dan belanjawan yang ditetapkan,
* tanpa sebarang kerosakan,
* efisien
* spesifikasi yang ditetapkan,
* selamat dan berkualiti,
* dibekalkan oleh sebuah syarikat/kontraktor yang berwibawa (dari segi kewangan dan pengurusan)

Klien yang telah mempunyai track record dengan kontraktor yang sama mengharapkan pengurangan dalam kos dan masa projek.

Tujuan adanya Indeks Prestasi Utama (KPI/IPU) adalah untuk memastikan satu bentuk ukuran diwujudkan ke atas prestasi projek dan kontraktor yang menjalankan operasi pembinaan. Maklumat ini akan digunakan sebagai tandaras yang akan menjadi komponen utama sesebuah organisasi bagi mencapai konsep amalan terbaik.

Klien biasanya akan menilai kesesuaian kontraktor dengan sesebuah projek yang dijalankan dengan meminta kontraktor supaya membekalkan maklumat bagaimana mereka dapat menunjukkan prestasi mengikut petunjuk-petunjuk yang telah ditetapkan oleh klien.

Sesetengan maklumat ini boleh didapati daripada kontraktor yang telah pun menjalankan inisiatif penandarasan atau objektif organisasi yang telah diukur dan lain-lain. Maklumat ini akan menentukan kekuatan dan kelemahan sesebuah organisasi/kontraktor dan rancangan untuk meningkatkan lagi mutu perkhidmatan mereka secara berterusan.

IPU/KPI untuk sektor pembinaan perlu mengambilkira elemen-elemen seperti, masa, kos, kualiti, kepuasan klien, pindaan kerja yang dilakukan oleh klien, prestasi perniagaan dan keselamatan kerja.

Terdapat pelbagai petunjuk yang digunakan bagi tujuan analisa samada di peringkat projek atau di peringkat organisasi/kontraktor itu sendiri. Sebelum mendefinisikan IPU/KPI, 5 peringkat utama perlu dikenalpasi iaitu :

* Kesanggupan untuk melabur oleh klien di mana syarat dan keperluan perniagaan serta rekabentuk konsep akan bermula,

* Kesanggupan untuk membina bila masa klien telah mengarahkan pasukan projek memulakan operasi,

* Sediada untuk digunakan apabila projek telah disiapkan dan persediaan untuk menggunakannya telah diatur,

* Tempoh Liabiliti Kerosakan di mana kontraktor perlu memperbaik sebarang kerosakan sehingga tempoh ini tamat,

* Kelupusan Jangkahayat Projek – apabila apa yang dibina telah sedia untuk digunakan oleh pengguna.

Sebelum memulakan aktiviti IPU/KPI, jenis projek dan cara ianya dijalankan perlu diambilkira umpamanya ‘Rekabentuk dan Bina’ (D & B), Turnkey, ‘Kejuruteraan, Pembelian, Pembinaan dan Commissioning (EPCC), Inisiatif Pembiayaan Projek (PFI/IPP), Konvensional dan lain-lain.

Antara petunjuk-petunjuk yang biasa digunakan (IPU/KPI untuk sektor pembinaan) pula ialah:

* Masa – Tempoh pembinaan, tempoh ramalan – rekabentuk dan pembinaan, penukaran spesifikasi yang dijangka/tidak dijangka oleh kedua-dua klien/kontraktor dan tempoh membaikpulih kerosakan.

* Kos – kos pembinaan, kos ramalan – rekabentuk dan pembinaan, kos penukaran spesifikasi yang dijangka/tidak dijangka oleh kedua-dua klien/kontraktor, kos membaikpulih kerosakan dan kos semasa.

* Kualiti – kerosakan mengikut tret/kategori/lokasi dan sebagainya – sebelum, semasa dan selepas tempoh pembinaan, isu kualiti secara proaktif dan reaktif,

* Kepuasan Pelanggan – sebelum (pra-tender/kontrak), semasa (operasi/tempoh kontrak/projek) dan selepas (DLP/CPC/CMGD/CF)

* Penukaran Spesifikasi/Kerja (deviation/amendment) – oleh klien dan kontraktor,

* Prestasi Perniagaan – Keuntungan, produktiviti, pulangan modal kerja, pulangan & ratio tambah nilai (value-added), faedah, pulangan pelaburan (ROI), ramalan keuntungan projek, pesanan ulangan (repeat order) dari klien yang sama, baki kewangan dan tempoh capaian akaun penutup (final accounts)

* Keselamatan dan Kesihatan Pekerjaan – Kemalangan, kematian dan kecederaan (accident/incident) yang dilaporkan (termasuk elemen aktuari jika perlu), dan kemalangan/kematian/kecederaan yang melibatkan kerugian tempoh (loss-time injury/accident/incident – LTI)

Nota : Elemen dan petunjuk sebagaimana yang dipaparkan di atas (faktor a. – g.) adalah panduan pengarang semata-mata dan perlu disesuaikan mengikut jenis projek yang dijalankan. Kadangkala tidak kesemua elemen atau petunjuk adalah bersesuaian.

Klien dan kontraktor (termasuk perunding projek – pelbagai tret) perlu mengambilkira elemen/objektif/petunjuk yang dipilih mengikut prioriti/keutamaan pada masa perancangan IPU dimulakan dan jenis peralatan (seperti QCC/MP) yang sesuai.

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.

Posted on The Star Global Malaysians Forum: 08 October 2007 at 9:06pm

preferred anonymous by e-mail wrote:
Hi Nik, I saw your comments in Global Malaysians and got quite interested in them. I google and found your name in the internet which has led me to your website and how I got this e-mail address.

I am thinking of expanding my construction business and I thought of seeking funds from the financial institutions. I've done a business plan reflecting all the necessary items to qualify for financial assistance. Some of the important contents are (apart from the opening/executive summary & company background):

Construction Service & Product Description, Target Market & Analysis for both Product & Service, Competition, Marketing Strategy, Financial Projections - P & L, Cashflow & Balance Sheet.

Is there anything more I should add?


Dear Madam

At one glance, I think your business plan has all the necessary elements (in the context of business plan format). If I may say something - I noticed that you didn't really mention in what capacity your construction firm is in. Or what type of financial assistance you're looking for - Loans? Venture Capital? P.O Financing? Factoring?

This is the typical problem when it comes to e-mail query - a bit of limited space.

The reasons I asked:

a) since I saw the word "Product" (or for BOTH Product and Services - you are implying that you have two not one)....you see "Product" can mean many things when it comes to construction...it can mean that you are manufacturing and installing construction materials as well e.g. cement for concreting? Steel for reinforced concrete? (Which also serves to make you a supplier & sub-contractor for concreting works as well...)

b) The construction service is also not clear - Civil & Building Engineering? M & E?

All the two aforesaid examples are categorized within the trade "Construction".

So, I'm assuming you are in both sectors but I'm unsure of the weight between the two (which one your company focus on e.g. 60% - construction services and 40% Product/Construction Materials)

Based on my experience assisting construction companies doing business plan, if a company has something to do with construction materials manufacturing, then it should be a wise move to first separate the financial projections between the two before consolidating them both (or you can have both separated..that wouldn't be a problem).

In the Product Description - if your company is a specialized trade contractor i.e. Cement & Concreting, then you should be including the quality and safety of your products for construction application for various structures such as residential, commercial - hi/low rise building etc.

One of the most difficult part in the 'Target Market and Analysis' section, is finding the statistical figures (I sure hope you have included statistics as well) based on the different category of construction (let's say concreting) e.g. you should estimate the number of establishments in a particular geographical area vs no. of people being employed vs total annual sales.

You should also take into account, your current and past performances - say..a cut off period of 3 years (depending your financial projection) - meaning you will have to include audited accounts alongside with some accounting records for support. (e.g. how much sales you have made for your 'product' in the past 3 years. When you have these intact, you can make a better forecast for 3 years ahead based on the current trends.

Another part that is posing many problems to construction business plan is to include the business ratio (usually immediately after the financial projections) - this is about your industry profile statistics - comparison of industry standards and the key ratios for this business plan.

It's also good if you can include graphs for each projection - where applicable - besides than tabular explanation.

One important point to note, you must be able to convince the 'financiers' that your company and your project venture have the 'viability' and can 'sustain'/'survive' in the market for quite sometime. In order to do this, you need a separate analysis on the current construction trend...which is quite volatile..sorry to tell. (which is why business ratio is recommended to be included)

Overall, in this limited space, I would recommend you to first split between 'construction services' and 'construction product' - in short, make two business plans first then consolidate them together. Otherwise, you may potentially face confusion here and there if you mix both together. (Trust me)

Okay, that would be all for now....I wish you the best in everything you do.

Posted: 04 November 2007 at 3:54pm - The STAR Global Malaysians Forum - hread "Moment Silence"

I was asked by one forumer on 'one post' here in Global Malaysians that read :

nikzafri wrote:

Foo and everyone.I do not know if you people believe in the universal
or cosmic power that talks about laws of attraction. It is the one 'moment in time'
when you give to the needies or being good samaritans, and for some reason,
you 'overlook' the thought of getting something back in return but quoting Foo
- "done in good faith and humanity"In most cases, you WILL get something back
(some sort like a 'reward' for good deeds - provided that you're not hoping for
something in return).

Has it ever occur to you that why do philantropists making good habits to give 1/2 or 1/4 of their wealth for good causes? Oooo..some people told me, it's because to avoid tax. But try to think for a while if you are to become very very rich and you've got everything in the world that you've ever wished for, what else is there to do with the balance? Keep it to yourself? 'm sure you all know who Bill Gates is. He was the President of Microsoft once and he got so bored sitting up there and went down 'demoting' himself to become the Marketing man and start pushing Microsoft's marketing.

Then he somehow felt that it's time to pass over to new breed and blood and now he's in his very own foundation..doing what? Becoming more generous and generous.I recalled talking to Gerard Lee about this matter but in the economics perspective -
i.e. Liquidity in the long run. But not so many people has this kind of 'faith'
(even if they do..they can't stand the pressure too long)...most of them are impatient...when they give something, they do want something back in return and fast!

Someone very wise told me the following words: "If you are too obsessed in chasing for richness, you cannot define yourself as working hard, but you are; in fact; greedy. Just stop the chasing for a while and you'll see, the richness will come to seek you."

"There's no such thing as a "Perfect Human Being"....when you try to be too perfect & cannot afford to make any mistakes, you're killing yourself or worse commit suicide..but if you can afford to make mistakes and learn from them - that's what being human is all about..not a perfect human but human."

Another ruling on the laws of attraction states that instead you're focussing your inner powers so much to weaken certain people in order to 'take over' their position, you are actually making them more powerful and usually you'll loose in the end. On the other hand, you should focus and telling yourself these positive vibes- "I can do it..I can do it...I can do it...I will succeed, I will succeed, I will succeed" or if you want take him/her to become your idol, you can tell yourself "He's/She's a normal human being, he/she has brains, he/she works hard....So do I"Something for you all to think about.

Cheers (I'm off to work again)
--------------------------------------

The questions are about to know more about Laws of Attraction - among others:

1) Logical or not logical?
2) How it is actually done?
3) Would I be successful?

And I have great respect for the forumer because he/she (?) said :

"Criticize me if you have to! I can take it!" So here goes..

I need to tell this forumer (hereinafter referred to as "You" :-)) that I myself is not an expert or 'authority' in this field but I can share few tips :

(but alas, for personal reasons, I can't tell you or guarantee success or have I been successful in practising this?Otherwise a lot of people will take my words as gospel)

My answers will be based on few books that I've read from renowned authors such as:

a. Victor Norman Peale
b. Jose Silva
c. Napoleon Hill
d. Wallace D. Wattles
e. Joe Vitale

If you have read any of these books or similar to them, you will know that the first
golden rule of practising Law of Attraction (as they call it today or any other equivalent terms used) is :

a. Cast away your doubts - Believe - in other words - Have faith.

Thus when you asked in your 3rd question :"Will it be succesful?" - Then I would deem that you have broken to first rule by being doubtful? :-)

(inquisitiveness? curiosity? you said? Nay..they are totally different - in spelling and in meaning..inquisitiveness is usually being expressed by a practitioner/believer but he/she wanted to continually improve his/hertechniques) - no offend :-)

Coming back to the first question.

b. Is it logical or not logical.

My answer would be :

The decision of whether it is logic or non-logic is made by you and you alone - not me or not the authors. It is really up to you to reject or accept.

But you asked : Logic or Not Logic...Again the question represents :doubt.

A popular management phrase :

"People will reject something that they don't understand" which is to be simply interpreted as "Rejection to CHANGE!"

(Remember when many ancient scientists been considered magicians and eventually punished unfairly because people at that time REJECT things that they do not understand - luckily I don't live in this era! :-) )

Thus, if you are a teacher, do you find it difficult to explain or to educate the students once they have the REJECTION* attitude/mindset 'built-in'..

I'm sure and really hope - you're not one of them. (*Ignorance/Just Don't want or don't wish to understand or afraid of the consequences) Less but not least,

c) "How is it done?"

My question back to you? Have you actually read any of the books? :-)

How come you're asking me back the questions when you said you have actually READ one of the books I mentioned above? Really?

Now, after you have read my views on your questions, you can now read the non-intellectual tips once you have considered seriously what I've said above. All positive inputs are meant only for positive ouputs.

(Yeah I know people might misunderstood and argue on the typical fomula Positive + Positive but I'm not referring to 3 M (Maths or Marriage or Magnetic Field)..I'm talking about 'karma' or 'what goes around comes around' or whatever you want to call it)

I use to tell my friends all the time :

"If you pose someone a stupid question, (it is likely that) you'll get a stupid answer"

"The mirror doesn't lie to you, it's you who are lying to the mirror"

If you read back the original thread posted here, I was talking about being generous once you're rich. This statement; if not properly understood; might be seen as 'self-imposement of 'self created strict law' that you MUST forced/coerced) give in order to make LOA works! (hahaha..you're DEAD wrong!)

If you think that being generous will make you reap rewards, think again!

(In another perspective, you are teaching 'the man upstairs' of his job...when he already know what his job is...it's you who do not understand..you are providing your own terms and conditions that is "If I give I must get something back" who you're foolin?)

If I am him, I would say to you "You dare to teach me!!" :-) )

a) It is not really being generous when you start lying to yourself - means that
'you are asking/hoping something in return for something you give?" which makes you to a certain degree - an 'insincere' person? Again another golden rule broken.

b) you are creating another 'false rule yourself' about YOU MUST BE GENEROUS when you're practising Laws of Attraction (LOA).

What really is happening to you at this juncture is that without you realizing it, you are actually trying to pathetically xeroxing Bill Gates or Rockafeller without asking them why the heck are you guys being generous? Rule broken again.

The idea of being generous ONLY when you have money is illogical. So, you don't have money, you're not generous'lah'?...a rather narrow thinking - don't you think?

How about sharing food? or giving away/donating your clothes or other valuables to people in need? Being generous is not necessarily because you have money. I don't think you will be successful in your life if you hold to this principle. It's like waiting to be rich first before you can become generous later...hahaha..good luck my friend..

I'll tell you what this 'generous' attitude really means (in my opinion - taking into account the books that I've read):

Being generous is the expression of "being thankful" or "greatful" for "what you have been 'awarded' with..that's all. (and it's not only MONEY!)

Otherwise you'll end being generous because the LOA says so...which is not really accurate. (I'm not saying it's wrong to be generous but change the perspective a bit)

Now, how to create that 'thankful feeling' on the first place? Here are some basics :

Just flashback and remember/recall what has befallen you "BEFORE YOU ARE RICH" in the past? Financial Difficulty? Being Poor? How does it feel like? Would you want to be 'that way' again? Or have you forgotten your 'dark' past?

Only then, you would be really be thankful or greatful and as a result you would be
generous...now this is PURE SINCERITY - (which you will definitely FEEL so good..trust me not to mention of donating without wanting publicity (that is a BONUS!)

Thus, you're being generous because you're thankful or greatful for what you have been bestowed with and feel so good when you can help people out...You don't need anything in return because you already GOT IT!

Thus :

Input = Practising LOA
Output = Being Thankful/Greatful equals to "Generosity/Pure Sincererity"

(God..I feel like I'm a somesort of a 'guru' or something...hahaha..funny)

Now this is what I call giving back what you have been given.

BANTUAN GERAN/PEMBIAYAAN/PINJAMAN DI MALAYSIA

Oleh : Nik Zafri (Mei, 2007)

Atas permintaan ramai peminat dan pembaca, berikut adalah antara pautan-pautan penting bagi usahawan-usahawan memerlukan bantuan kewangan dalam bentuk geran atau pinjaman/pembiayaan.

Pautan-pautan URL yang saya letakkan di sini adalah antara agensi-agensi/institusi-institusi kewangan (kerajaan/swasta) yang jarang diketahui oleh bakal-bakal usahawan terutamanya golongan muda.

Kebanyakan isi kandungan pautan-pautan ini adalah dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

Walaubagaimanapun, masih terdapat lain-lain pilihan permohonan pinjaman/pembiayaan seperti MARA, TEKUN, PROSPER dan sebagainya (atau terus menghubungi bank-bank/institusi-institusi kewangan) yang tidak saya letakkan di sini kerana umumnya ramai yang telah mengetahui akan kewujudan agensi-agensi/skim-skim ini.

Sebelum pembaca melawat pautan-pautan ini, suka saya mengingatkan pembaca/bakal usahawan akan perkara-perkara berikut :

a) Pastikan pembaca/bakal usahawan menentukan apakah jenis perniagaan atau industri dan saiz (SMI/IKS dll). perniagaan selaras dengan jumlah geran atau pinjaman/pembiayaan yang bakal dipohon. Kesilapan yang sering berlaku ialah memohon jumlah yang tidak selaras dengan saiz atau jenis industri yang bakal diceburi.

b) Pastikan pembaca/bakal usahawan mempunyai pengetahuan, kelayakan dan pengalaman yang secukupnya sebelum menceburi apa-apa jenis perniagaan dan industri. Dapatkan input daripada perunding atau pakar atau rakan-rakan yang mempunyai pengalaman yang lebih lama dalam perniagaan/industri berkenaan. Kesilapan yang sering berlaku ialah kegagalan perniagaan/industri disebabkan kurang pengetahuan mengenai sistem, operasi dan pelaksanaan.

c) Kepentingan/Objektif utama permohonan geran atau pinjaman/pembiayaan adalah untuk perniagaan dan industri yang bakal diceburi. Kesilapan yang sering berlaku ialah apabila kelulusan diberikan, wang terus digunakan untuk 'menutup lubang' (hutang) yang besar. Jika ini berlaku maka aliran tunai perniagaan/industri akan mengalami kegagalan dalam tempoh yang pendek. Apatah lagi, jika wang itu tidak digunakan untuk perniagaan/industri sebagaimana permohonan asal.

d) Dalam membuat kertas kerja, pastikan pembaca/bakal usahawan memberikan keterangan yang benar dengan data, analisa atau bukti yang mencukupi. Kesilapan yang sering berlaku ialah apabila terlalu banyak haipotesis (kumpulan teori-teori) digunakan terutamanya pada bahagian 'Pemasaran'. Trend kini menunjukkan bahawa kebolehupayaan perniagaan/industri (business viability) merupakan satu bentuk 'cagaran' yang penting dan akan dinilai oleh panel pemberi pinjaman/pembiayaan atau geran. Kesilapan yang sering berlaku ialah meletakkan cagaran berbentuk aset semata-mata tanpa mengambilkira kebolehupayaan/jangkahayat perniagaan berkenaan. Atau memasukkan sejumlah wang dalam akaun bank syarikat bagi menunjukkan 'penyata bank yang baik' kepada pihak pemberi pinjam. Kemudian, wang itu dikeluarkan selepas menerima penyata. Perkara ini perlu dielakkan kerana trend menunjukkan bahawa bukanlah jumlah wang yang ada dalam bank yang diambilkira tetapi corak pergerakan 'turnover' (keluar masuk) wang berkenaan bagi tempoh tertentu.

'Turnover' ini perlu dibuktikan dengan data yang mencukupi seperti terdapatnya Pesanan Belian (PO), Invois dsb. Pembaca/bakal usahawan juga perlu cuba mendapatkan surat-surat sokongan/surat niat dari bakal pembekal, bakal pelanggan, institusi kewangan (surat niat kemudahan kredit) dsb. bagi menggambarkan viabiliti dan jangkahayat perniagaan berkenaan.

Setidak-tidaknya cubalah buat tinjauan dan penyelidikan yang mencukupi dalam perniagaan/industri yang bakal diceburi.

Banyak di antara pautan-pautan berikut juga memberikan sampel atau contoh kertas kerja atau pelan perniagaan termasuk proses-proses/kriteria-kriteria yang perlu difahami dan diperlukan oleh agensi pemberi pinjaman/pembiayaan atau geran.

Walaubagaimanapun, perlu saya nyatakan bahawa saya tidak ada sebarang kepentingan atau kaitan secara professional dan peribadi dengan agensi-agensi yang disebutkan di bawah ini. Tetapi, sekiranya pembaca/bakal usahawan memerlukan panduan-panduan lain/info. lain, sila e-mel kepada saya.

MALAYSIAN VENTURE CAPITAL (MAVCAP) - CRADLE INVESTMENT PROGRAM

Geran diberikan untuk perniagaan ICT, bioteknologi dan lain-lain industri yang berkaitan. Program ini juga membuka peluang kepada idea-idea baru untuk diperuntukkan geran. Usahawan juga dikehendaki mendaftar secara talian selain digalakkan/diwajibkan menyertai kursus-kursus yang disediakan.





http://www.cradle.com.my/cms/index.jsp
Artikel/Bahan Menarik Panduan Penulisan Ringkasan Eksekutif Panduan Pemerosesan Permohonan Carta Alir Proses Permohonan

MALAYSIAN DEBT VENTURES

Objektif Pinjaman/Pembiayaan diberikan adalah hampir sama dengan apa yang diperuntukkan oleh MAVCAP

http://www.debtventures.com
Dokumen-Dokumen Carta Alir Proses Permohonan

SMIDEC

Objektif Geran dan Pinjaman/Pembiayaan diberikan untuk IKS yang berpotensi. Usahawan juga dikehendaki mendaftar secara talian.

http://www.smidec.gov.my/checkgrantdataservlet?hdAction=grant

CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION (CGC)

CGC mempunyai 6 Skim Utama iaitu Laluan Terus, Usahawan Kecil, Perbankan Islam, Anjal, Francais dan ENHANCER. Ianya berbentuk pinjaman/pembiayaan di mana CGC adalah badan yang memberikan jaminan kewangan dan syor kepada pihak bank bagi meluluskan pinjaman/pembiayaan berdasarkan kertas kerja/pelan perniagaan yang dinilai. Usahawan
juga dikehendaki mendaftar secara talian selain digalakkan/diwajibkan menyertai kursus-kursus yang disediakan.



http://www.iguarantee.com.my/iguarantee/index.htm


TECHNOPRENEUR

Technopreneur adalah satu inisiatif MDeC/MSC (Perbadanan Multimedia (Cyberjaya) - Koridor Raya Multimedia) untuk meluluskan geran khusus kepada usahawan ICT yang berpotensi. Terdapat juga maklumat berkenaan permohonan status MSC.


http://www.technopreneurdevelopment.net.my/cms/AllProduct.asp?CatID=122

The Star Global Malaysian Forum - 24 October, 2007

corpbabes wrote:

Greetings! I stumbled across this website and thought it's really fantastic that people can discuss and get information here. I'm a newbie and I'm just wondering if anyone can help me. My question is : is there any statutory prescriptions in relation to warranty periods for construction works buildings, designs etc for theme park related works. Also what if personal injury and death, can warranty period and exclusion of liability help reduce liability ? I would be glad if someone can explain these issues to me. Thank you in anticipation.

------------------------------------
Ahvincent's Response

The statutory limit is normally six years. However, it can sometimes be extended to 12 years.

In the construction business some defects are latent i.e. it cannot be readily identified by a competent engineer for example concrete cancer which can take years to become evident.

In such cases the six years may start from the date that circumstances that could lead to a claim was first identified.

Exclusions can sometimes help but remember you cannot contract out of the law. You may exclude certain things but you definitely cannot exclude death or injury due to you negligence, error or omission.

In simple words you can have a sign on the front door to say "Enter at your own risk - no liability accepted." But if I was killed because you did not install the sign properly and it fell down and bang me on the head, you will be liable for damages. Or if your roller coaster ride fell off it's tracks due to poor maintenance or neglect than you can be sued for damages under the law of tort.

But having say all that - Yes, a limitation clause is good to have. It is better than nothing and gives your lawyers something to work with in the event of a claim.

However, the difficult thing in design and construction is "how to get the other party to agree and sign the contract that contains clauses that potentially decreases your liability. Unless that other fellow's lawyer cannot read.
-----------------------------
Nik Zafri's Response

corpbabes wrote:

Greetings! I stumbled across this website and thought it's really fantastic that people can discuss and get information here. I'm a newbie and I'm just wondering if anyone can help me.

Welcome corpbabes...that is why GMN is my first choice!

corpbabes wrote:

My question is : is there any statutory prescriptions in relation to warranty periods for construction works buildings, designs etc .

Depending on which stage that you're referring to - pre-construction, during construction and post construction? You see, different countries may adopt different practices, terminologies and timeframe. (which will affect the contract)

If you care to delve further in this very same topic, you will see that we've been discussing 'heavily' about Defect Liability Period, Warranty Period, Developer's Warranty etc. Try to have a look, probably it would help you and us further to understand the issue. (I'm sure you've heard the Govt is planning to revise and standardize these practices - but I'm unsure when)

corpbabes wrote:

for theme park related works

Or perhaps you may be referring to 'during the theme park already in operation - if so, which target group? 'the theme park workers?'? The theme park visitors? The 'entertainment machines'? (roller coaster, merry-go-round etc.)

corpbabes wrote:

Also what if personal injury and death, can warranty period and exclusion of liability help reduce liability ?

Again, depending on which stage...and as ahvincent said - something like- this case should be mentioned in the contract to avoid future ambiguity and 'conflict'.

corpbabes wrote:

I would be glad if someone can explain these issues to me. Thank you in anticipation.

Don't worry, GMN has a handful of helpful hands (3H)...ahvincent is definitely one of them...
-------------------------------
Response from corpbabes - 26/10/2007

Hello again!

Thanks so much for such prompt reply! Really appreciate it. I know my questions were not really specific and vague, hence Im trying to get more information regarding that before enquiring further.

Sorry for being so ignorant, coz Im really new in this field,Im just a pupil doing a research in this area. So forgive me if I sound so blur!

Im just wondering what happens if the defects occur after the warranty period, who will be liable and is there any legislations regarding this? As for the owner of the building for example, is his liability reduced if anything happens after the warranty period is over?

Also, can I give an anology: Say in a high rise building in genting, a disaster happen due to a design defect ; Contractually we exclude design defects and say construction defects, in death or personal injury, therefore can we say that in this scenario that the project owner be liable? What if we have designer and builder ... To what extent can we pass the buck to them?

Thanks in advance for all the assistance
-----------------------------------

ahvincent wrote:

Your question is many questions in one. Without being specific it is very difficult to answer. Firstly, if you identify a defect after the defects liability period then you don't stand much of a chance of a successful claim. If I bought an apartment from you (the owner) and I identify a defect within the warranty period, of course I will sue you. The contract of sale is between me and you. It has nothing to do with the builder who may have designed and constructed the apartments. I, the buyer do not have a contract with the builder, the owner does. The builder does not owe me a duty. I did not hire him and neither did I pay him, so how can I hold him responsible. I can only sue the owner who sold me the faulty apartment. However, the owner may join the builder as a co-defendent on the basis that as a result of his (the builder's) negligence he is now being sued and the builder should be held responsible. I guess one of your questions is "the owner has stated in the contract that he is not responsible for design and construction faults" thus trying to avoid any liability. I am afraid that attempt will fail. I, as the buyer can expect that the apartment is "fit for it's intended purpose." So, regardless of what you the owner try to do you will still be liable. Remember what I said before "you cannot contract out of the law." The law of tort will be on my side (the buyer). I have every right to enjoy my purchase. If you sold me an apartment and the roof falls down in 6 months and the walls start to crumble and the floor starts to sink, I will ask the court "what did you sell me?" I tell the court that you the owner sold me a faulty product and I want my money back !!!. You did not sell me an apartment that is fit for it's intended purpose i.e. as a place of residence. I will strongly suggest that a good lawyer for the owner will not try to get out of it by simply denying liability because the case is so obvious. He, the owner can quickly run away, change his name and go into hiding or he will quickly join the designer and constructor as co-defendants and seek proportional liability. Anyway, your questions sounds very unethical by trying to pass the buck. Forget it !!! No lawyer worth his salt will let you get away with putting such irresponsible "get-out of jail free" clauses. The text books tell us that the law is fair. Therefore you can try to be smart and put in lots of sneaky clauses but since the law is potentially fair it will rule any unreasonable clauses to be null & void and find you liable. There are plenty of fish in the sea. I always advise my clients if the other party wants everything in their favour - walk away from the deal. You don't want to do business with such unreasonable people. Unless of course he makes you an offer too good to refuse. But again - nobody gives away something for nothing.

----------------------------------------
Nik Zafri's response

Good one ahvincent!!

My turn :

corpbabes wrote:

Im just wondering what happens if the defects occur after the warranty period, who will be liable and is there any legislations regarding this? As for the owner of the building for example, is his liability reduced if anything happens after the warranty period is over?

That's why looking into SPA (sales and purchase agreement) is very important before signing them - (that goes to everyone..not only housebuyers but property buyers as well) we don't want to end up in sticky situations like this one. I BET no party (developers, builders, bankers, lawyers) would tell you of your RIGHTS (esp. implied ones) since their interest in ONLY to sell and attempted to their best 'intellectual' knowledge NOT to be accountable.

These parties make you look merely into the 'expressed' terms but somehow they failed or ignore/deny your rights to know the 'implied' ones.

One example - You may or may not know that even during DEFECT LIABILITY PERIOD (DFL), the purchaser/buyer has implied RIGHTS to know what's going on - otherwise, how would we know of the final quality? How 'd heck' CMGD or CF (they keep changing the terms - now they call it "Certificate of Fitness for Occupation (CFO) be issued on the first place and suddenly we buyers found out that we have been 'had' when 'leaks' are discovered in our so-called newly bought houses or buildings?

Here's another 'masterpiece' :

http://www.nst.com.my/Weekly/PropertyTimes/News/Viewpoint/20030305105233/Article/

The waiting game


Many house buyers complain of having to take over of vacant possession (VP) of their new houses when they are not ready for occupation.

One of the reasons for this is that prior to amendment, the Housing Developers Act allowed developers to hand over VP upon application for the Certificates of Fitness for Occupation (CF). Many developers exploited this tenet of the Act by rushing to hand over the properties the minute the architect declared “practical completion”.

Problems for buyers

The hand over of VP without a confirmed date for occupancy has created numerous problems for house buyers. First, the new owners would have to make all outstanding payments as stipulated in the Third Schedule of the Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) upon taking VP. Next, the 18-month defect liability period would start to run 14 days from the date of notification of the hand over of VP, and third, the buyers would have to take over the responsibility for the security of their properties.

This state of affairs is grossly unfair to buyers. Imagine not being able to stay in your property after you’ve made all the outstanding payments, including maintenance charges. And if you’re not able to stay in your house, how will you identify and rectify faults that may be caused by the developer? Supposing the CF is issued six months after you receive your keys; this means six months of the defect liability period would have been wasted. Another point is that if you cannot stay in your home, how can you prevent vandalism and theft of your fittings, short of hiring a security guard, which many cannot afford?

Besides these, the house Buyers Association has come across other complaints from buyers who have been shown CFs from other projects that have been presented as theirs or CFs with falsified endorsements! Some buyers have taken VP, only to find that the developers have financial difficulty in fulfilling their obligations to apply for the CF!

Developers’ responsibility

The application for CF is governed by the Building By-laws Act. As the name implies, the CF is an official document issued by the local authority to acknowledge that a building is safe for occupation.

It is the responsibility of the developer through its appointed qualified professionals, chiefly the architect, to make the application according to the Building By-laws and other conditions imposed by the appropriate authorities.

When complaints surface, both developers and the appropriate authorities point fingers at each other. As explained by Ministry of Housing and Local Government legal adviser Shamsulbahri bin Ibrahim, and advocate and solicitor Toong Gek Fong, in an article on the Malaysian Law Journal website (http://www.mlj.com.my/free/index.asp): “The crux of the problems relating to delay in issuance of CFO could be because:

1. The developer’s application for CFO is incomplete or not in compliance with all the requirements necessary for the issuance of CFO, resulting in the application being rejected by the appropriate authority. For instance, some developers fail to submit the Form E together with copies of all letters of clearance or approval (surat sokongan) from the relevant technical agencies, which are required by the appropriate authority for issuance of CFO, or

2. The delay or inefficiency of the appropriate authority issuing the CFO.”
To exonerate the local authorities from blame, the Ministry of Housing has issued directives to the effect that:
• All applications for CF submitted by developer are to be checked and confirmed to be in compliance with all requirements for issuance of CF before such applications shall be accepted by the appropriate authority;
• Upon acceptance of the Form E, the appropriate authority is to issue its written confirmation that the Form E submitted by the developer has been duly checked and accepted by the appropriate authority;
• Once such applications have been duly checked and accepted by the appropriate authority, the CF shall be issued or deemed to be issued within 14 days from the date such applications are accepted by the appropriate authority; and
• The appropriate authority will submit a written report/explanation to the Housing Ministry in respect of such cases where the CF is not issued within 14 days from the date the relevant application is accepted by the appropriate authority and in any other cases of undue delay in the issuance of the CF by the appropriate authority.

By-law 25 of the Uniform Building By-Laws 1984 was amended to provide for the issuance of the CF by the appropriate authority within 14 days from the date of acceptance of Form E, failing which the CF shall be deemed to be issued to the owner of the building.

Under the amended Housing Development Act, developers’ responsibility with regard to VP and the CF has been expanded to include the following:

1. Conditions for delivery of vacant possession
It must submit a supporting certificate signed by its architect certifying that the building has been duly constructed and completed in accordance with all relevant Acts, by-laws and regulations and that all conditions by the appropriate authority in respect of the CF have been duly complied with and a supporting letter of confirmation from the appropriate authority certifying that the Form E (the application form for CF) has been duly submitted by the developer and checked and accepted by the appropriate authority.

• Duties to the Controller of Housing:
It must inform the Controller of the handing over of VP to the buyers and submit a certified true copy of the architect’s completion certificate and that water and electricity supply are ready for connection. It must also inform the Controller if the appropriate authority has refused to accept the submission of any document relating to the issuance of the CF and submit the refusal letter from the appropriate authority.

With the amendments to the Housing Development Act and the Building By-laws, it would seem that when house buyers receive notice of hand over of VP, they can assume safely that the occupancy of the property can be confirmed within 28 days of the notice. If not, the hand over of vacant possession can be considered premature, and the house buyer has every right to challenge the notice and asked the developer to withdraw it.

With the amendments too, the HBA sees no cause for local authorities to issue temporary certificates of fitness as it is not to the house buyers’ advantage to occupy a home based on such a certificate.

We hope the Ministry of Housing is confident enough to implement further amendments of the Act, such as imposing that the delivery of VP comes with the CF. It is only right that a buyer should be able to take vacant possession of a home that is certified fit for occupation.

The National House Buyers Association is a non-profit, non-governmental, non-political organisation manned by volunteers. Our website is www.hba.org.my. E mail: info@hba.org.my

- Property Times 1st March 2003 issue -

Which also may shed the light on your next analogy

Corpbabes : Also, can I give an anology: Say in a high rise building in genting, a disaster happen due to a design defect ; Contractually we exclude design defects and say construction defects, in death or personal injury, therefore can we say that in this scenario that the project owner be liable? What if we have designer and builder ... To what extent can we pass the buck to them?

Perhaps I didn't understand the question. But somehow, I doubt that this clause (design defect) is excluded in the contract - again depending on which stage you're talking about but typically in the 'design and build' mode, it's very irregular if a contract exclude such clause cos' it is regulated in Uniformity Building By-Laws 1984 (+ The Engineers Act as well) Even if there is NO such clause, the law prevails over 'deficiency' of such clause in a contract.

Remember, when a contract doesn't favour the law (where the latter being the former's umbrella), then the law shall prevail - e.g. clause ambiguity, or 'something that should be included but excluded - yet the law states clearly that it should be included'

But alas, despite of my explanation here, you should know that ahvincent is talking about the 'ugly REALITY of the construction industry' (which I must admit..it's TRUE) and you should take his suggestions into account as well.

and corpbabes (what's your real name..or at least a short one) - don't have to apologise profusely or being humble, you should be proud to pose such difficult question amidst a topic that not many want to be participating

Corpbabes further posted :

First of all, thanks ahvincent and nik zafri for explaining patiently to the issue that i have put forth. Dont worry, I understand the ethical issues that arise, but theoretically, i still have to see things from every issue so that i can write a good research on it.

After taking everything both ahvincent and nik said, correct me if im wrong, but does it mean that during the warranty period, in the event of personal injury and death, the owner wont be fully liable, but he can bring in, say the developer etc as contributory negligent? but after the warranty period, it would be difficult to make the owner liable for any defects that comes up?

Further, on the same thread, can we then exclude design liability? It may take years to discover the defects, but say, from the owner's point of view, can we exclude liability still by contract and also contractually exclude tort after the warranty period is over?

re there any statutory prescriptions in relation to warranty periods for construction works that i spoke about in my first post, nik, you said that would depend on which stage that i'm referring to - pre-construction, during construction and post construction? May i know if there is any statutory prescriptions for all stages of construction?

Many thanks in advance.

----------------
nikzafri's reponse

Let me try : (I’m trying only maaah - so corpbabes – take the following as my personal views…as I may be right and I may be wrong..all is based on experience - and you must excuse me..some of your questions may not be answered - not that I don't know - and I'm sorry)

1. “during the warranty period, in the event of personal injury and death, the owner won’t be fully liable, but he can bring in, say the developer etc as contributory negligent? but after the warranty period, it would be difficult to make the owner liable for any defects that comes up?”

2. “Further, on the same thread, can we then exclude design liability? It may take years to discover the defects, but say, from the owner's point of view, can we exclude liability still by contract and also contractually exclude tort after the warranty period is over?”

No. 1 - I’m sure you remember the Highland Towers Case? It was WAY after the warranty period itself BUT the designer was still being summoned by court.

http://www.lawyerment.com.my/library/doc/laws/casecode/jdgm/11082000-01-1.shtml

Within this civil suit, you can clearly see the consultant (design) consortium (defendants) was still being called to defend itself (not necessarily being charged if proven that the onus of liability is not due to his design)

So, when a case happen, it will relate to one process to another and will start from the Design/Planning stage itself.

Of course, in the process, if the designer will argue to prove that it may or may have nothing to do with his/her design - with sufficient evidence substantiating his/her testimony – if the court is OK with it, then definitely the developer would be the NEXT target (contract may be referred to)

In this stage, probably the answer/onus may lie on the developer or the contractor. Certain things like ‘approving and/or making unlawful (design) deviation’ not according to the ‘approved design brief/specifications/drawings/plans’ or ‘using low-quality materials’ etc. etc. may come into the picture.

It depends really on how the court handle the case judging by evidence submitted. You'll be surprised that the outcome may be a LOT different that what I've said here.

But, I personally think, despite that the owner said that he can bring the developer according to the contractual obligation; yet; by right, being the owner, he should know what’s happening right from the start to the end of the project .

Back to the ‘ugly reality’ the owner would usually ‘wash his hands’ and PUT other parties responsible for the ‘failure’ just because he has all the money but he doesn’t have the experience!

But he should remember that he’s the one who was responsible for appointing the developers (if not himself IS the developer) plus agreeing to the appointment of design consultants (in turnkey/design and build environment). So it would be more effective if the owner IS a technically competent person by qualifications/and/or experience.

When it comes to court’s judgement, it’s very complex to determine ‘who is wrong for what’ as the process of the law is a bit different…too many factors to be considered. Sometimes, the law doesn’t state clearly or citing the examples but there are supporting elements that can be deemed as legal – for example, standards and codes of practice regarding design.

In another situation, the right people you should also be asking would the insurance company on construction insurance – I do not know much about this one but I do know one thing, construction insurance can sometime NOT cover a ‘prototype technology/design’ without any technical documentation, codes of practice/standard, method statements, research etc. to prove that the design is SAFE even after the warranty period. So try the insurance company…

Apart from Insurance, you should also try to pose the question to these ‘guys’ who I considered ‘my e-associates’ as well :

http://pmimy.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=90&forum=2

Nevertheless, You should take this into account as well -.every warranty period has an ‘expiry date’. In some countries, 20 years is sometimes considered ‘dilapidated’, ‘unsafe’ and possibly ‘condemned’. Notice is given and legal action can be taken…

No. 2 – It really depends on the case we’re talking about, how severe the case would be. Usually design liability cannot be excluded even after the warranty period typically ‘in the event of ‘total design or major design failure’ (I’m unsure of personal injury and death – but in Highland Towers – the main focus was the design failure as it involved ‘total structure collapse’ as the 'cause' – then, followed by 'personal injury and death' as the effect - even the effect was associated to legal action taken by immediate family of the deceased..if not, probably there would be no case)

Of course, I’m not referring in view to discover defects related to design after many years of project completion, it wouldn’t be practical (we can’t dismantle or hack what is already being installed and used)

What I’m referring to is actually the documentation/data/forms/supervision during all stages of construction including design data/calculation, design amendment procedures, inspection and testing ,construction methodology/method statements etc. as this should be ‘archived’ safely during the post-construction stage (final accounts) – usually kept by all parties – the client, the developer cum the consultants + the contractor. (again, some data could already be destroyed due to record retention policy...hmmm difficult isn't it?)

Thus, from these documentation/data, we can ‘go back in time’, detect any possible deficiency/how the corrective/preventive actions being taken (right or wrong way)

On the question of whether there is such prescription of statutory, I think my answer has been given in ‘BOLD’ abovementioned. That’s why we have contracts, codes of practice, design coordination, method statements, inspection and test plans etc. – these documentation serve as the professional justifications to the law itself and to assist implementation of the law. Again I would reiterate - in any case..the law prevails.

(Which law? you can easily buy them - 3 titles recommended - Contract Law, Uniformity Building ByLaw and the Engineer's Act)

And YES, (again this is my personal view) it SHOULD be covering ALL STAGES of construction as design is not only during pre-construction – despite being approved – they are still subject to amendment and revision – why? Because of the application based on the actual site condition – there will still be deviations even during and after the construction. (But I’m not implying that the law mention all these very clearly) – Contracts are originally about ‘proclamation of I trust you and vice versa’ and they should be ‘referred’ to the law.

Here’s another unique case you should be looking into :

http://www.contractjournal.com/Articles/2007/01/31/53440/questions-of-law-and-design-liability.html

But alas, there are too many arguments on the subject that you’ve asked. I’m not surprised if some quarters may argue my opinion..so regard what I’ve said here as ‘personal views’ and not representing anyone or any party.

The Star Global Malaysian Forum

The Star Business - Wednesday November 7, 2007

Construction assets draw foreign interest - Infrastructure and development projects a boon to sector

PETALING JAYA: Local construction assets seem to be attracting the interest of foreign investors of late.

Last month, Putrajaya Perdana Bhd saw the entry of a new controlling shareholder, Swan Symphony Sdn Bhd, which bought over Eastern & Oriental Bhd¡¦s stake in the former. Swan Symphony is jointly owned by Abu Dhabi-Kuwait-Malaysia Investment Corp (ADKM) and Autron Investment. With the support of the new shareholders, Putrajaya Perdana is anticipated to expand its presence to the Middle East.

Meanwhile, PJBumi Bhd told Bursa Malaysia on Monday that its substantial shareholder, PJS Industries Sdn Bhd, planned to sell a 10.2% stake to Al-Saudia for RM3.1mil. This was on top of the 25% that PJS disposed of to Metro Utilities Sdn Bhd in September. PJBumi, which is trying to return to profitability, is involved in the design, trading, installation and maintenance of fibre-reinforced plastic, reinforced concrete sewage treatment plants and underground petrol cum storage tanks.


It also manages wastewater treatment, solid waste and garbage collection.

The Government¡¦s efforts to improve the quality of water in the country by rolling out various projects look set to benefit PJBumi. Another company that is going to see a new shareholder is low-profile water player Loh & Loh Corp Bhd. The shares, which are usually thinly traded, seemed to have sprung to life, having appreciated more than 30% over the one week period. The counter was last traded at RM4.12 before being suspended in afternoon trade yesterday.

Loh & Loh told the exchange that its substantial shareholder, Vital Achievement Sdn Bhd, intended to dispose of its shares. An analyst at AmResearch said Loh & Loh was well known as a dam builder in the water sector, having completed several jobs as a sub-contractor for Gamuda Bhd. The company also has experience in bulk earthworks and rail track construction, having built bridges for the Ipoh-Rawang double-track project.

Aseambankers in a report said the domestic construction scene could be seeing another boom, given that at least RM165bil worth of infrastructure and development projects identified by the Government and the private sector were likely to kick off by the turn of the decade. Government spending should pick up since it had to date only spent 25.4% of the RM200bil in development allocation under the Ninth Malaysia Plan, it said.

¡§We foresee high impact and chunkier projects in the rail, water, and oil and gas sectors, and the government¡¦s regional development efforts, to be the key drivers,¡¨ the brokerage added.

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

The way I see it this is a good tonic for the local construction industry. Of course, this has something to do with IDR, ECER, NCER just being launched, It is also related to the relatively competitive project management costs that Malaysia has to offer. With various crisis happening almost everywhere in the world, Malaysia is drawing construction FDI interests and possibly JV, smart partnership, strategic alliance and even merging possibilities would be happening. Despite my worries about uncontrolled construction materials cost; come to think of it; the FDI may help the local construction firms in terms of long term financing - thus may help in the long run to ensure the construction industry sustains.

There are somehow other concerns:

a. Shareholding in terms of JV or smart partnerships? Will our construction firms be too strict and not embarking on a 'win-win' situation?

b. Is the local construction firms ready with

i) all the necessary expertise,

ii) possible mixed work cultures influence,

iii) more than enough 'quality' services to provide - in terms of system/process/workmanship, the necessary infrastructures/machinery/ICT capabilities, corporate governance good practices etc.?

c) Will (more and more) our financial institutions be willing to cooperate - help out the local construction industry or just hope that the foreign construction firms come out with majority of financial backups and in the end, we promise them a big amount of concessions, contra with finished properties, or share the future profit reaped from the finished projects? etc? in order to cover the financial backups that are rendered by the foreign construction firms? (via foreign financial institutions e.g. soft loan or long terms bonds or any other financial instruments)

Thus, while we are happy almost seeing big money coming in, I think the local construction firms should also think of what I've said herein. Based on history (and my experience working with the local JV partners) many mega projects management appear to love doing things 'last minute' - I hope this is not the example we're going to show them.

Let's welcome construction FDI with wide hands..WELCOME..but please...let's local construction firms be ready to show a very professional ethics in terms of our personal traits, business, technical, system etc.

This is one of the 'wake-up' call article.

--------------------------------------------------------
The Sun Makin Sens Section - by Tan Siok Choo

East Asia - no longer a follower?

THAT the US appears to be sliding into a recession cannot be denied. What is uncertain is whether East Asia in general, and Malaysia in particular, can avoid following in its wake. While it may be premature to offer a definitive answer to this question, three separate indicators underscore export-dependent East Asia’s growing resilience.

First, a recent article by Bloomberg suggests Japan may escape the recession that appears to be engulfing the US. As one of the world’s largest financial news and data provider notes, since 1970, Japan has followed the US into all five recessions. In 1970, the US accounted for 30% of Japan’s exports. Today, that figure has fallen to only 20%.

Japan’s reduced economic dependence on the US is largely due to the success of manufacturing companies like Toyota in capitalising on buoyant markets, particularly in China and other countries. In the past two years, Japan’s exports to China jumped by 45% while those to Russia doubled.

Additionally, a 5.6% drop in US vehicle sales didn’t stop Toyota’s total unit sales from rising in the first quarter. Furthermore, Toyota is poised to overtake the US-based General Motors as the world’s largest auto company in terms of sales.

Last month, two usually bearish brokers on Japan – Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley – backed off from predictions that the world’s second largest economy will go into a recession this year. The catalyst for both brokers’ changed view was because revised industrial production figures for February showed output rose to a record rather than fell, the Bloomberg article says.

Even though exports could slow down, corporate Japan is now financially stronger than when its stock and property bubble burst in the late 1980s. The average ratio of corporate liabilities to assets has dropped to about 65%, the lowest level since 1955 from about 80% in the mid-1990s, the Merrill Lynch report says.

Moreover, Japanese companies have soaked up excess production capacity. Reduced debt and streamlined production will enhance corporate Japan’s capability to withstand a slump in the US, Bloomberg notes.

Second, the price of oil has continued its inexorable climb to a record high, even though its biggest market appears to be softening. Last in electronic trading last Friday, US crude futures for June delivery hit an intra-day record of US$126.20 (RM403.84) a barrel.

Admittedly, the escalating price of oil this year may be prompted by concern about possible disruptions in continued supply in countries like Nigeria and Venezuela. That prices continue to skyrocket despite sharply declining demand from the US, the world’s largest consumer of oil, is unusual. In February this year, US demand for oil fell to 19.7 million barrels of oil a day, down by one million barrels from last year’s average.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) says oil use worldwide will increase 2% this year because of growing demand in emerging markets. For the first time this year, emerging markets will consume more crude oil than the US, the IEA notes. Emerging markets will consume 20.67 million barrels of oil a day, an increase of 4.4%. In contrast, demand in the US will contract by 2% to 20.38 million barrels daily.

"The US recession will be a footnote as far as the oil market is concerned. Supply isn’t growing and demand is growing robustly in the developing world," says Jeffrey Rubin, chief economist at CIBC World Markets in Toronto who has correctly forecast higher oil prices since 2000.

Third, shipments of personal computers (PC) grew at a double-digit pace worldwide in the first quarter despite anaemic growth in the US, technology research firm, IDC says. Indeed, global figures for the first quarter exceeded its forecast.

Although growth in US sales slowed to around 3%, overseas gains boosted global first quarter PC shipments 14.6%, IDC notes. That’s because the US accounted for 23% of global shipments in the first quarter compared with 25% a year ago.

"Even if there is a particularly bad US market, it is becoming a smaller piece of the global puzzle," IDC vice-president Bob O’Donnell points out.

Despite these positive indicators, East Asia’s growing resilience cannot be equated with total independence from the US economy.

For a start, if the US economy is in recession, it may take months before the impact is transmitted to East Asia. Additionally, in an increasingly interlinked global economy – particularly in financial markets – it is inconceivable that what happens in the US can be ring-fenced from other emerging economies.

But if the inconceivable does happen – if the US sinks into recession and if East Asia succeeds in decoupling from the world’s largest economy – then a new era in global economic history may have begun.

Some deals can be tough!!



Microsoft and Yahoo! No deal
May 8th 2008 | SAN FRANCISCO
From The Economist print edition

Microsoft walks away from Yahoo!, and both companies lose


RATHER as John McCain cannot be displeased to have seen Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama fighting it out, Google has for the past three months enjoyed watching its only two serious rivals, Yahoo! and Microsoft, tear each other to pieces. Yahoo!, once an internet pioneer, has fallen far behind Google in web search and related advertising. Microsoft still dominates desktop computing but lags behind Google as software moves online. So Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's boss, dared ask Yahoo!: what would be wrong with making, if not exactly a dream team, at least a joint effort out of it?

But on May 3rd, after a frustrating marathon of meetings, Mr Ballmer walked away. He had raised his offer for Yahoo! from an initial $44.6 billion on January 31st to about $47.5 billion, some 70% more than Yahoo!'s value at the time of the opening bid. Jerry Yang, Yahoo!'s co-founder and boss, wanted at least $5 billion more. Mr Ballmer wrote him a bitter letter saying that “you and your stockholders have left significant value on the table.” Wall Street's verdict, on May 5th, was to cut Yahoo!'s value to $34 billion.

That the sell-off was not even worse primarily reflects the possibility that a deal may yet happen. Another software company, Oracle, recently dropped a bid for a smaller rival, BEA Systems, after its board rejected the offer, but eventually had its way after BEA's angry shareholders forced their board back into negotiations and a sale. Mr Ballmer's farewell letter to Yahoo!, by recapitulating the negotiations in all their embarrassing detail, provides just the sort of fodder for Yahoo!'s investors to order Mr Yang to resume talks.

Mr Ballmer took particular pains to criticise Yahoo!'s readiness to “make Yahoo! undesirable as an acquisition for Microsoft.” By this he means Mr Yang's apparent plan to outsource Yahoo!'s search-advertising technology to, of all people, Google. In a purely mathematical sense, this could indeed make Yahoo! somewhat more valuable. Google is better than Yahoo! or Microsoft at placing relevant ads next to search results and collects more in revenue for each resulting mouse click.

Yet it is a bizarre tactic. The history of Yahoo! during this decade is of trying, failing, and trying again to catch up with Google in search advertising. Its first big failure was not to bid high enough to buy Google outright. Its next attempt, in 2003, was to buy Overture, the company that pioneered search advertising, but by then Google was pulling ahead. An outsourcing deal with Google was considered and rejected. For the past two years Yahoo! has invested oodles in a project called Panama that was meant, again, to catch Google.

Presumably Yahoo! has been exerting itself so because it believes that the advertising technology is, along with search, the source of competitive advantage in the internet era. That is certainly what Microsoft believes, which is why it bought aQuantive, an online-advertising specialist, and built its own search-ads platform, called adCenter. What Yahoo! and Microsoft lack is volume—in the number of both searches and advertisers bidding to place ads. Teaming up would help to address that problem; but a capitulation by Yahoo! to Google would merely invite antitrust regulators to look at Google's dominance.

Mr Yang could merge Yahoo! with AOL, the web portal of Time Warner, but AOL already outsources its search ads to Google and would be no help at all in catching the leader. Asserting, as Mr Yang does, that Yahoo! all by itself could become “the starting point” on the internet, and its advertising powerhouse, rings hollow.

Things look just as bleak for Mr Ballmer. He has invested billions trying to make Microsoft an internet and advertising superpower. But it seems not to matter. According to Danny Sullivan, a web-search analyst, Microsoft “literally has no brand” when it comes to its online services—nobody has ever been advised “to Live” or “to MSN” a recipe or a cute classmate. The only one having any fun continues to be Google.