日首富願照料逾千災民
2011-3-24
大公報
圖：日本首富孫正義表示將承擔部分災民一年的吃居飲食費用
新華社
【大公報訊】日本產經新聞、日本新聞網、中央社東京23日報道：日本首富、「軟體銀行」（Softbank）的華裔創辦人兼總裁孫正義22日親自到受災最嚴重的福島縣訪問，看望了遭受地震和核輻射雙重打擊的災民，並向田村市市民做出避難1年期間提供就業與糧食供應的保證。
孫正義和佐賀縣武雄市市長通渡啟佑一同前往災區，與田村市市長富塚宥進行會談。由於田村市位於福島第一核電站20到30公里的範圍內，全市4.1萬多人中，有3.7萬人依然在市內生活，並沒有疏散到其他城市。孫正義提議，讓災民以團體為單位進行避難。
Jobs Search
通渡啟佑說：「武雄市可以收容1200人，有空下來的廳舍」。孫正義也表示，「避難1年當中的交通、就業和飲食，都由我方（即軟體銀行集團）保證」。
地震期間電話任打
孫正義同時表示，願意在地震孤兒成長到18歲之前，提供他們手機和通話免費的支援。此前，有網友在Twitter上向孫正義提議，希望可以讓日本地震中成為孤兒、無支付能力的孩子免費通話，孫正義回覆：「就這麼辦。」其實，自日本11日發生大地震後，孫正義便立即宣布從3月11日起的一周內，凡日本國內通話，無論時間長短，一律免費。
孫正義領導的軟體集團旗下的「軟體通訊」目前是日本第二大的移動通訊公司，也是美國蘋果手機在日本的總代理。根據美國《福布斯》雜誌所公布的最新全球富豪榜，有華人血統的孫正義，是2011年的日本首富，個人資產為81億美元，排名世界第113位。過去兩年，日本首富一直是日本「優衣庫」（Uniqlo）的老闆「柳井正」。
個人資產81億美元
孫正義自稱出自春秋時代的著名兵法家孫武的一族，是從中國遷到朝鮮，到孫正義的祖父輩，又從韓國大邱遷到日本九州去。後代搬遷到朝鮮，再在日本定居。孫正義在日本定居已有三代。他的家族說：「孫氏和韓國固有的孫氏不一樣。我祖籍和漢民族的孫氏屬於同一根源。」1980年代末期，孫氏仍不是日本公民。他的日本妻子隨他姓孫。結婚後，法律承認了她的新姓氏，孫正義隨之而成為日本公民而不用改姓傳統的日本姓氏，直至1991年，孫正義才正式「歸化」為日本人，並擁有日本姓氏「安本」。
2011-03-27
2011-03-26
The Genetically Modified Organisms (Control of Release) Ordinance, Cap. 607
The Ordinance
The Genetically Modified Organisms (Control of Release) Ordinance, Cap. 607 (the Ordinance), gives effect to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity to control the release into the environment and the transboundary movement of living genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and provide for related matters.
Living organisms are defined as any biological entity capable of transferring or replicating genetic material, including sterile organisms, viruses and viroids. GMOs are living organisms that possess a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology which include the application of in vitro nucleic acid techniques (such as recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles), or techniques involving the fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family, that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection. GMOs cover a variety of food crops (such as BT corn, anti-frost tomatoes and herbicide-tolerance soya beans), GM seeds, GM fish, GM flowers, etc. However, GMOs do not include non-living food products produced from GM crops, such as corn oil, soymilk and polished rice. They also do not include living organisms with genetic material altered through traditional breeding and selection techniques (e.g. hybrid rice and golden sweet maize).
Blue Mountain Greeting Cards
GMOs are regulated according to their intended uses, including:
GMOs intended for direct consumption as food or feed, or for processing (GMOs-FFP), such as virus-resistant papaya fruit, herbicide-resistant soy bean and BT maize;
GMOs intended for contained use, such as GM micro-organisms cultured in laboratories, transgenic plants growing in greenhouses and knock-out transgenic mice kept in cages; and
GMOs intended for release into the environment, such as seeds of GM crops to be sown on farmlands, experimental GM plants to be planted on open fields, and cut flowers of GM variety to be displayed in open area.
The Ordinance does not apply to or in relation to a GMO that is a pharmaceutical product for use by human beings.
The Ordinance ordains the following controls on GMOs in Hong Kong:
Restrictions on Release into Environment and Maintenance of Lives of GMOs
No one is not allowed to release a GMO into the environment, import a GMO intended for release into the environment or maintain the life of a GMO that is in a state of being released into the environment, unless:
the GMO has been approved and any condition for the approval has been complied with; or
the GMO has been exempted by the Secretary for the Environment from the restriction and any condition for the exemption has been complied with.
These restrictions do not apply to or in relation to a GMO that is in transit or transhipment. For detailed approval application process, please refer to the Guidelines for GMO Approval Application.
The approval will apply to all subsequent releases, after the GMO is approved and entered in the GMOs Register (www.afcd.gov.hk/gmo). There may be conditions attached to the approval. You may search the GMOs Register for the list of approved GMOs and the conditions for the approvals, before making an application or releasing a GMO into the environment of Hong Kong.
Contravention to the above restrictions commits an offence and is liable to a fine of HK$100,000 and to imprisonment for one year.
The Genetically Modified Organisms (Control of Release) Ordinance, Cap. 607 (the Ordinance), gives effect to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity to control the release into the environment and the transboundary movement of living genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and provide for related matters.
Living organisms are defined as any biological entity capable of transferring or replicating genetic material, including sterile organisms, viruses and viroids. GMOs are living organisms that possess a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology which include the application of in vitro nucleic acid techniques (such as recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles), or techniques involving the fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family, that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection. GMOs cover a variety of food crops (such as BT corn, anti-frost tomatoes and herbicide-tolerance soya beans), GM seeds, GM fish, GM flowers, etc. However, GMOs do not include non-living food products produced from GM crops, such as corn oil, soymilk and polished rice. They also do not include living organisms with genetic material altered through traditional breeding and selection techniques (e.g. hybrid rice and golden sweet maize).
Blue Mountain Greeting Cards
GMOs are regulated according to their intended uses, including:
GMOs intended for direct consumption as food or feed, or for processing (GMOs-FFP), such as virus-resistant papaya fruit, herbicide-resistant soy bean and BT maize;
GMOs intended for contained use, such as GM micro-organisms cultured in laboratories, transgenic plants growing in greenhouses and knock-out transgenic mice kept in cages; and
GMOs intended for release into the environment, such as seeds of GM crops to be sown on farmlands, experimental GM plants to be planted on open fields, and cut flowers of GM variety to be displayed in open area.
The Ordinance does not apply to or in relation to a GMO that is a pharmaceutical product for use by human beings.
The Ordinance ordains the following controls on GMOs in Hong Kong:
Restrictions on Release into Environment and Maintenance of Lives of GMOs
No one is not allowed to release a GMO into the environment, import a GMO intended for release into the environment or maintain the life of a GMO that is in a state of being released into the environment, unless:
the GMO has been approved and any condition for the approval has been complied with; or
the GMO has been exempted by the Secretary for the Environment from the restriction and any condition for the exemption has been complied with.
These restrictions do not apply to or in relation to a GMO that is in transit or transhipment. For detailed approval application process, please refer to the Guidelines for GMO Approval Application.
The approval will apply to all subsequent releases, after the GMO is approved and entered in the GMOs Register (www.afcd.gov.hk/gmo). There may be conditions attached to the approval. You may search the GMOs Register for the list of approved GMOs and the conditions for the approvals, before making an application or releasing a GMO into the environment of Hong Kong.
Contravention to the above restrictions commits an offence and is liable to a fine of HK$100,000 and to imprisonment for one year.
Why the U.S. can't abandon the nuclear renaissance
Why the U.S. can't abandon the nuclear renaissance
By Cyrus Sanati, contributor
March 17, 2011
FORTUNE -- The devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami last week has claimed an untold number of Japanese victims, but there's one casualty in the U.S. that won't go down without a fight: the nuclear power industry.
The resulting damage to one of Japan's nuclear power plants has resurrected old debates about the safety and soundness of nuclear technology and its ability to be used as a viable power source.
But even if nuclear power plant construction costs rise as a result of this incident, the economics of power generation still favor a mix of energy sources that include nuclear.
Renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar, while recently becoming more cost-competitive to nuclear energy (thanks in part to generous government subsidies), are still unable to efficiently generate enough power to keep the lights on and fully replace nuclear power in the United States just yet.
The possibility of multiple reactor core meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear power plant has captured the world's attention. We don't yet know if this will become another Chernobyl -- what we do know is that no matter happens, it is a public relations disaster for the nuclear industry.
Electric Car Conversion
In Germany, plans to overturn a directive that would have kept the nation's 17 nuclear plants from being closed in the coming years were placed on hold for three months.
Switzerland said that it was suspending efforts to keep three of its nuclear plants operating, while the European Union announced that it wants stress tests performed on all of its 143 nuclear reactors in response to what the EU's energy chief said was an "apocalypse" in Japan.
In Washington, the Republicans, who have traditionally championed nuclear power, have been pretty much silent on the news. But some liberal Democrats, like Rep. Ed Markey from Massachusetts, have called for a moratorium on nuclear plants in earthquake prone areas of the country, while Senator John Kerry, the Democrat from Massachusetts, went a step further and called for all nuclear power plant construction to be halted immediately.
This has put the White House in an awkward position. The Obama administration has earmarked $36 billion in its 2012 budget to help finance the construction of several new nuclear plants across the country.
That's in addition to the $18.5 billion in funds that were earmarked by Congress back in 2007, of which $10.2 billion remains unspent.
The nuclear commitment
In total, it looks like the US government has placed a $55 billion bet on an industry that could meltdown thanks to the Fukushima incident. President Obama has reiterated his support for nuclear power since the disaster struck, but that could change quickly, putting that $36 billion top-up to the industry in jeopardy. Republicans vow to slash line items in the budget, but the nuclear issue has not been their primary target, yet. As for the general public, it doesn't see the need for government support for the industry. An opinion poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News released on March 3, before the incident, found that financial support for the nuclear industry was the single most popular possible budget cut, with 57% agreeing.
It wouldn't take much to let the nuclear industry just die out in the US. Until last year, the government had not approved the construction of a new plant since the partial reactor meltdown at the Three-Mile Island nuclear facility in 1979. The last plant went online in 1996.
There are currently 20 projects being reviewed by the government but only three seem to be going anywhere. Atlanta-based Southern Company (SO, Fortune 500) is the farthest along and has been promised $8 billion by the government for the construction of a $14 billion plant Georgia.
But it is highly unlikely that any of the other projects will ever get built if the government takes away funding. While nuclear plants are cost effective in the long run, they have significant start-up costs. For example, the $14 billion price tag on the Southern Company's plant is around half of its entire market capitalization. Other companies far into the permitting process, like Dynegy (DYN), have market caps that are a fraction of the costs to get a plant constructed.
Those rallying against nuclear energy are pushing for the government to back other energy alternatives like solar and wind. Both have made great strides in becoming more cost competitive over the years, thanks in part to large government subsidies. While they remain highly uncompetitive to fossil fuels, they have overtaken nuclear on a cost per kilowatt basis.
That's because the cost to build a new next generation nuclear facility in the US has jumped 37% in the past year from an average build cost of $3,902 per kilowatt to $5,339/kW, according to a recent government study. New design specifications and a lack of competition in the nuclear construction industry were blamed from the increase in costs.
Solar power now looks on the surface to be potentially competitive. The cost to build a photovoltaic solar plant is down 25% in the past year from an average build cost of $6,303 per kilowatt to $4,755. The build cost for a solar thermal plant dropped 10% to $4,692 per kilowatt. Wind power remains the cheapest and the most expensive alternative to both nuclear and solar. Onshore wind power costs just $2,438 per kilowatt while offshore wind power costs $5,975/kW. For a comparison, natural gas blows all of them out of the water, costing just $978 per kilowatt.
Obstacles to solar and wind
But comparing alternatives on a cost per kilowatt basis is deceptive. Even with the government's careful controls of geography and markets, the cost factor doesn't seem to take into account the resources needed to generate the power on a scale that could serve the population.
For example, it is not possible to install wind or solar plants on a commercial scale everywhere because some areas of the country are just not windy or sunny enough to yield enough power.
That compares to a nuclear plant that could theoretically be built almost anywhere.
More importantly, alternatives don't generate enough power to do the job. Nuclear energy is a dense form of energy that requires very little in the form of land and transmission lines to carry it to a population center.
Alternative energies are not dense at all and require gobs of space to generate a fraction of the energy generated by a small nuclear facility.
For example, the government assumed a certain output would be generated by a plant in their calculations. For a nuclear plant it was 2.2 million kilowatts, while it was just 150,000 kilowatts for a photovoltaic plant and 100,000 kilowatts for an onshore wind plant.
That nuclear power plant is a large jolt of electricity neatly contained to an area of 8 to 10 square miles. Compare that to an onshore wind plant, the cheapest alternative according to the government. Each 2,000 kilowatt wind turbine takes up a quarter of a square mile worth of space, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
So to replace that nuclear power plant with wind would mean dedicating nearly 280 square miles of land to a gigantic wind farm, which would be about the size of New York City.
The energy concentration in nuclear power plants is just one reason why nuclear remains so attractive, despite the high start up costs. The nuclear industry has spent millions of dollars over the years touting its safety record and lobbying for government support, but just one incident by a massive earthquake has wiped most of that effort away.
It remains to be seen if the industry spent enough money to ensure that the government keeps its coffers open to them.
By Cyrus Sanati, contributor
March 17, 2011
FORTUNE -- The devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami last week has claimed an untold number of Japanese victims, but there's one casualty in the U.S. that won't go down without a fight: the nuclear power industry.
The resulting damage to one of Japan's nuclear power plants has resurrected old debates about the safety and soundness of nuclear technology and its ability to be used as a viable power source.
But even if nuclear power plant construction costs rise as a result of this incident, the economics of power generation still favor a mix of energy sources that include nuclear.
Renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar, while recently becoming more cost-competitive to nuclear energy (thanks in part to generous government subsidies), are still unable to efficiently generate enough power to keep the lights on and fully replace nuclear power in the United States just yet.
The possibility of multiple reactor core meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear power plant has captured the world's attention. We don't yet know if this will become another Chernobyl -- what we do know is that no matter happens, it is a public relations disaster for the nuclear industry.
Electric Car Conversion
In Germany, plans to overturn a directive that would have kept the nation's 17 nuclear plants from being closed in the coming years were placed on hold for three months.
Switzerland said that it was suspending efforts to keep three of its nuclear plants operating, while the European Union announced that it wants stress tests performed on all of its 143 nuclear reactors in response to what the EU's energy chief said was an "apocalypse" in Japan.
In Washington, the Republicans, who have traditionally championed nuclear power, have been pretty much silent on the news. But some liberal Democrats, like Rep. Ed Markey from Massachusetts, have called for a moratorium on nuclear plants in earthquake prone areas of the country, while Senator John Kerry, the Democrat from Massachusetts, went a step further and called for all nuclear power plant construction to be halted immediately.
This has put the White House in an awkward position. The Obama administration has earmarked $36 billion in its 2012 budget to help finance the construction of several new nuclear plants across the country.
That's in addition to the $18.5 billion in funds that were earmarked by Congress back in 2007, of which $10.2 billion remains unspent.
The nuclear commitment
In total, it looks like the US government has placed a $55 billion bet on an industry that could meltdown thanks to the Fukushima incident. President Obama has reiterated his support for nuclear power since the disaster struck, but that could change quickly, putting that $36 billion top-up to the industry in jeopardy. Republicans vow to slash line items in the budget, but the nuclear issue has not been their primary target, yet. As for the general public, it doesn't see the need for government support for the industry. An opinion poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News released on March 3, before the incident, found that financial support for the nuclear industry was the single most popular possible budget cut, with 57% agreeing.
It wouldn't take much to let the nuclear industry just die out in the US. Until last year, the government had not approved the construction of a new plant since the partial reactor meltdown at the Three-Mile Island nuclear facility in 1979. The last plant went online in 1996.
There are currently 20 projects being reviewed by the government but only three seem to be going anywhere. Atlanta-based Southern Company (SO, Fortune 500) is the farthest along and has been promised $8 billion by the government for the construction of a $14 billion plant Georgia.
But it is highly unlikely that any of the other projects will ever get built if the government takes away funding. While nuclear plants are cost effective in the long run, they have significant start-up costs. For example, the $14 billion price tag on the Southern Company's plant is around half of its entire market capitalization. Other companies far into the permitting process, like Dynegy (DYN), have market caps that are a fraction of the costs to get a plant constructed.
Those rallying against nuclear energy are pushing for the government to back other energy alternatives like solar and wind. Both have made great strides in becoming more cost competitive over the years, thanks in part to large government subsidies. While they remain highly uncompetitive to fossil fuels, they have overtaken nuclear on a cost per kilowatt basis.
That's because the cost to build a new next generation nuclear facility in the US has jumped 37% in the past year from an average build cost of $3,902 per kilowatt to $5,339/kW, according to a recent government study. New design specifications and a lack of competition in the nuclear construction industry were blamed from the increase in costs.
Solar power now looks on the surface to be potentially competitive. The cost to build a photovoltaic solar plant is down 25% in the past year from an average build cost of $6,303 per kilowatt to $4,755. The build cost for a solar thermal plant dropped 10% to $4,692 per kilowatt. Wind power remains the cheapest and the most expensive alternative to both nuclear and solar. Onshore wind power costs just $2,438 per kilowatt while offshore wind power costs $5,975/kW. For a comparison, natural gas blows all of them out of the water, costing just $978 per kilowatt.
Obstacles to solar and wind
But comparing alternatives on a cost per kilowatt basis is deceptive. Even with the government's careful controls of geography and markets, the cost factor doesn't seem to take into account the resources needed to generate the power on a scale that could serve the population.
For example, it is not possible to install wind or solar plants on a commercial scale everywhere because some areas of the country are just not windy or sunny enough to yield enough power.
That compares to a nuclear plant that could theoretically be built almost anywhere.
More importantly, alternatives don't generate enough power to do the job. Nuclear energy is a dense form of energy that requires very little in the form of land and transmission lines to carry it to a population center.
Alternative energies are not dense at all and require gobs of space to generate a fraction of the energy generated by a small nuclear facility.
For example, the government assumed a certain output would be generated by a plant in their calculations. For a nuclear plant it was 2.2 million kilowatts, while it was just 150,000 kilowatts for a photovoltaic plant and 100,000 kilowatts for an onshore wind plant.
That nuclear power plant is a large jolt of electricity neatly contained to an area of 8 to 10 square miles. Compare that to an onshore wind plant, the cheapest alternative according to the government. Each 2,000 kilowatt wind turbine takes up a quarter of a square mile worth of space, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
So to replace that nuclear power plant with wind would mean dedicating nearly 280 square miles of land to a gigantic wind farm, which would be about the size of New York City.
The energy concentration in nuclear power plants is just one reason why nuclear remains so attractive, despite the high start up costs. The nuclear industry has spent millions of dollars over the years touting its safety record and lobbying for government support, but just one incident by a massive earthquake has wiped most of that effort away.
It remains to be seen if the industry spent enough money to ensure that the government keeps its coffers open to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)