This is from the SCMP (Feb 1 2006; p3), in case you missed it:

<B>Toxin control poses fresh challenge to power companies</b>

Cheung Chi-fai
THE environment watchdog is poised for another head-on clash with power suppliers as it proposes phasing-out old coal-fired generation units to meet an international convention on toxin control.
The plan aims to fulfil the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants that bans or limits the production and release of 12 toxins, including pesticides and dioxin.
Hong Kong has to submit its implementation plan on the curbs this year via Beijing, a signatory to the convention.
The proposed move comes at a sensitive time as CLP Power is locking horns with the government over plans to reform the electricity market and associated environmental requirements.
At the core of the potential new row is the release and production of cancer-causing dioxins and furans – two by-products emitted into the air and left in the ashes from burning coal.
It is estimated that the power companies could have contributed 26 per cent of the dioxin and furans produced in 2003, following metal production (39 per cent) and landfilling (28 per cent).
In the draft plan, the government says it may propose phasing out coal-fired generation units and replacing them with gas-fired units within 10 years of the policy being implemented.
Although the plan said switching to gas could reduce dioxin emissions by up to 95 per cent, it also acknowledged that a full-scale switch had to take into account energy policy, economic considerations and the city’s electricity needs.
The proposal is understood to be a “committed direction” of the government, although there is no clear timetable.
It also proposes as a “priority task” an investigation of the dioxin and furans content in coal-burning residues and recycled products containing the residues. Ash products – mixed with concrete or bricks – are widely used in construction projects.
Ash is being stored in ash lagoons in Tuen Mun and on Lamma Island operated by the two power suppliers. But the one in Tuen Mun might need to be moved because the government wants to use the site for landfill expansion.
Friends on the Earth environmental affairs manager Hahn Chu Hon-keung supported a review of the heavy reliance on coal.
“The dioxin emission from coal burning is one of the neglected areas in the electricity market reform and now is the time to deal with it. There is no excuse for the power companies to evade it,” he said.
Mr Chu said he was worried that few studies had been done on ash products, and feared that dioxin residues could be released back into the environment when structures or roads were demolished.
CLP Power said it was studying the implications of the convention.
Hongkong Electric said: “Dioxin emission in coal-fired generation is negligible due to its high boiler combustion temperature.”

The answer must be nuclear I'm afraid.

_________________
6 down, keep 280 metres !

I was thinking the same thing, unfortunately. Asia isn't alone in this dilemma, and here in Canada we have some very ugly examples of organic waste sites going wrong.

What we need is for the wizards at places like CERN to crack the secret of creating sustained nuclear fusion power in a practical manner. It's a tremendously tough problem to solve. Survival, not affordability, may become the primary issue if we continue to poison our planet at the current rate.

_________________
Lead me not into temptation;
I can find it myself, thank you.

The Iranians have a similar problem, as do other nations. Are we right in trying to stop them benefitting from nuclear energy on the assumption that they are trying to develope an atomic weapon?
OK, they have vowed to destroy Israel; but they are practically next door and to set off a nuclear device in their own back yard would be stupid ( fallout etc. )

If terrorists can get hold of nuclear waste materials for 'dirty bombs ' they already have a source in Pakistan.

Leave the Iranians alone!

_________________
6 down, keep 280 metres !

It's a difficult conundrum, this whole nuclear energy issue.

I can understand the difficulties the diplomats (the useful ones, that is) have trying to sort this mess out. I tend to be rather non-political, but I have a gut feel that the USA should not just waltz into Iran and try to have their way. For one thing, they're already stretched to the limit with regard to deployable resources and the means to fund them, no matter if they're right or wrong.

What ever happened to the approach of allowing Iran to prove its peaceful intentions? Where did diplomacy go wrong? Unfortunately, it involves a monitoring program, so Iran is faced with the choice between openly displaying their work and losing face, or slamming the doors and risking international sanctions. I personally can't decide which is the best approach, but a military invasion would seem to be be pure lunacy.

Meanwhile, back on Lamma ........

_________________
Lead me not into temptation;
I can find it myself, thank you.

They've got unlimited oil for energy, they don't care about global warming. The only reason to blow billions on nuclear "research" is to have a weapons capability. If they wanted another safe, clean power source they're in a perfect place (lots of flat, hot, dry land) to do solar and/or wind power in a big way.

Alan, you could be talking about several countries who are 'allowed' nuclear capabilities by the US.

_________________
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like bananas

Talking about dioxin levels in the environment -- there was a disturbing report in the Sydney Morning Herald last week, saying that fish from waters around Sydney (I assume the harbour and Parramatta river, but don't know if its any others too) had higher levels of dioxin than those from HK waters. Don't really know what dioxin is tho' and it didn't mention any other pollutants, however, I'll take a bet they don't have as much mercury in them over here as fish from HK waters.

True. It's inequitable that only a dozen countries have the capability of starting Armageddon. But however hypocritical it is of the existing nuclear powers to prevent other countries from building nukes, the world is safer if fewer countries do so.

But at least we're not pretending it's about "peaceful" nuclear technology. That's equally hypocritical.