Archive for February, 2011
As defined by the Brundtland Commission (Potter 2002) pg. 117, sustainable development is the “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. We all should seek to sustain the development of the nations, the equity between social classes and the end of poverty. Development is thus an appropriate goal that should be created through sustainable methods, in order to bring growth and the involvement of people in their own development.
The economy is based on its primary source, the environment-nature which provides animals, plants, air, water, land and so on. If we do not protect our primary source of life, sooner or later it is going to affect our health, quality of life. Social equity is gained through a strong economy and fulfilling other types of needs, beyond the basic ones. These three conform an interconnected cycle that provides us of almost all our necessities.
Spangenberg (Spangenberg 2004), pg 12 points out four issues we should address:
•The environmental challenge, the degradation of the natural basis of human life
•The first social challenge, the increasingly unequal distribution of income and assets,
•The second social challenge, the high number of people living in poverty
•The institutional challenge, the resulting threats to peace and security.
These issues seek, through the appropriate public administration, to provide citizens with the opportunities to have a dignified life, the basis of a sustainable development. A dignified life is thus affected by the following issues as Rogers et al (Rogers 2008) points out and are factors that should be considered strongly in order to attain sustainable development:
•Population Planning. According to Rogers et al (Rogers 2008) pg. 53, “population growth is not such significant factor in environmental degradation” but, I agree with the authors that when improves the competition for resources such as land and water intensifies which it may brings conflicts.
•Participation. Where citizens influence and control activities that brings their own development, including the poor and the disadvantaged
•Policy and market failures. Especially being indifferent to what is damaging the resources, or giving priority to activities to deforestation.
•Good Governance. Its relation with market failures is pointed out and the success of policy, unfortunately, in many developing countries, for example, corruption is common and is characterized by the use of any opportunity to abuse others. In my opinion, it is an unfair threat to development or the worse cancer to it. According to United Nations Development Programme (UNDP 2008), “The erosion of human rights and respect for constitutional authority hinders programmes to alleviate poverty and increase human security”. The impact of corruption is worse for poor people and in developing countries.
•Prevention and Management of Disasters. Disasters can affect everyone at any time and people should be aware of it. Disasters are unexpected, with little or no warning or opportunity to prepare. Available personnel and emergency services may be overwhelmed initially by demands for their services, and lives, health, and the environment are endangered (CT Department of Emergency Management & Homeland Security 2003). Migration of rural inhabitants to urban cities, seeking more work opportunities, health services or others, make people locate to the surroundings or hillsides of the cities, where utilities are scarce or do not exist as well as transportation or other services to the community. Usually people move under poor conditions aggravating the economic growth of the cities.
•Natural disasters. Disaster management is requested as a requirement for sustainable development because it impacts sectors such as social, economic and environmental.
Cristicisms of the 1st Green Revolution
The green revolution (GR) originally was implemented in response to the growing population during the 1960′s. As overlooked by Malthus, innovation became the solution to handling the exponential growth of the population. Food supplies were increased through the implementation of High Yielding Varieties (HYV’s) of crops that were genetically modified to increase yields. At first this was thought to have been a successful endeavor. Rice and wheat yields in India tripled as more crops were able to grow on the same amount of land. The GR was lauded for increasing productivity per capita, creating more resistant crops, using less fertilizer and shortening growing seasons (Benson 2007).
However, as the green revolution expanded, problems arose, socially, economically and environmentally. Economically problems began because the new varieties of crops were costly, creating a situation where only wealthier farmers were able to grow them. As food production increased for these wealthier farmers, food prices plummeted. Smaller-scale farmers were not able to compete with these prices and were forced to sell to the consolidating large monopolies. This, along with the fact that mechanization of farms created higher unemployment led to social problems due to an increase of people moving away from rural sectors and into urban ones. Cities became overcrowded with unemployed ex-farmers who were looking for employment—creating numerous social problems (Benson 2007).
Environmentally it was overlooked that the increase in yield per area would mean an increased stress on the land for that area. Higher levels of irrigation led to salinization of the soil while the increased water demand lead to salt-water intrusion in the aquifers. Due to the fact that the newly created crops were more resistant to the harmful effects of pesticides, farmers began using more pesticides rather than less. This subsequently further polluted the water supply, leading to the cycle where the poor become poorer because of environmental pollution.
The initial Green Revolution failed in part, because it did not examine the externalities. It myopically tried to focus solely on the problem of production without comprehensively considering the Social, Environmental and Economic Ramifications of its strategy.
The article “The End of Plenty” (Bourne 2009), points out that the use of pesticides and chemicals is killing farmers. It has also been shown to cause blood cancer in farmers. As an example, in Punjab, India, researchers found pesticides in farmers’ blood, their water table, their vegetables, even their wives’ breast milk. Another reason is the high cost of fertilizers and pesticides which has plunged many Punjab farmers into debt. A second green revolution could be based on genetic modification only with the purpose of growing new varieties with higher yields, reduced fertilizer needs, and drought tolerance, but, I believe that, nevertheless, a genetically treated seeds could involve other secondary effects still unknown. I agree with Rachel Bezner Kerr (Bourne 2009) pg. 58, that big companies are pushing farmers to participate in foreign programs instead of using ecological methods and local resources and skills.
In general, the first green generation failed because they focus only on using the land without having a better management plan to avoid depletion. This first green generation exemplifies the wrong idea we still have that mainly economic development is the best option for progress. The concept of the second green revolution is an improved version on what the first practitioners wanted to do, but this time the environmental element is included.
Incoming search terms:
Biofuels have seen a spurt in the US and the EU, with the latter planning to increase its annual production to about 10% of its liquid fuels by 2020. The United States has set up an ambitious target to produce about 8 billion gallons annually by 2012 and about 40 billion gallons by 2022. Though the energy companies are widening their portfolios to include biofuels, the move is fraught by significant challenges such as types of fuels to be used, regulations and regulatory approvals, increased usage of land for cultivating biofuel crops and diversion of food crops for fuel production which is resulting in the increase of food prices.
This report analyses the global market for Biofuels and the product segments analyzed in this report include Ethanol and Biodiesel. Rich statistical analysis is carried out for the global and the regional markets including the United States, Brazil, European Union, Asia-Pacific and Rest of World. The regional markets further analyzed for European Union – Germany, Sweden, France, Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom and Rest of EU; Asia-Pacific – China, India, Australia and Rest of Asia-Pacific.
Global market for Biofuels is projected to grow by a CAGR of 12.9% during the period 2006-2015 to reach US$ 61.5 billion by 2015. The report comprises 112 rich data tables, supported with meaningful and easy to understand graphical presentation, of market numbers. The statistical tables represent the data for the global market value/consumption volumes by geographic regions and the product segments.
The report covers the profiles of 51 key global players and 79 major players for The North America – 46; Brazil – 2; European Union – 21; Asia-Pacific – 6; and Rest of World – 4. The report also provides the listing of the companies engaged in research, technology development, equipment manufacturing and the supply of biofuels. The global list covers addresses, contact numbers and the website addresses of 692 companies.
Table of Contents
1. GLOBAL MARKET PERSPECTIVE
1.2 Product Segmentation
1.3 Biofuels Production Analysis
1.4 Snapshot on Global Biofuel Policies
1.5. Market Trends
1.6 Key Global Players
1.7 Key Business Trends
1.8 Global Market Overview
1.8.1 Market Overview by Product Segment
1.8.2 Product Segment Overview by Geographic Region
2. REGIONAL MARKET PERSPECTIVE
2.1 Regional Market Overview
2.1.1 The United States
2.1.3 European Union
22.214.171.124 European Union Market Overview by Country
The United Kingdom
Rest of European Union
126.96.36.199 Asia-Pacific Market Overview by Country
Rest of Asia Pacific
2.1.5Rest of World
3. GUIDE TO THE INDUSTRY
3.1 United States
3.3 European Union
3.5 Rest of World
3.5.6 Papua New Guinea
3.5.7 South Africa
3.5.8 South Korea
3.5.9 South Korea
4.1 Research methodology
4.2 The Questionnaire
Major Global Market Players
American Ethanol Group
Australian Biodiesel Group Ltd
Aventine Renewable Fuels Limited
BioFuel Energy Corp.
Biofutures International Plc
Blue Sky Bio-Fuels
BlueFire Ethanol Fuels, Inc.
British Petroleum Company PLC
Cavitation Technologies, Inc.
China Clean Energy Inc.
Consolidated Biofuels, Inc.
DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol Llc
EOP Biodiesel AG
Evolution Fuels, Inc.
Download a free brochure at http://industry-experts.com/brochure-biofuels/
For more details please visit http://industry-experts.com/research-estore/biotechnology/biofuels/
Globalisation and the changing role of the Private Investigator
Globalisation has created a dynamic and challenging business environment for everyone. Key contributors to this development in the History of Mankind have been, although not exclusively:
1. The Internet – Developments in communications
2. Greater openness and trade agreement between competing Nations
3.Better accessibility to, and cheaper international travel options
Oil prices have soared from a very flat period toward the end of the 1990’s, to record Highs this year, partly driven by supply demands, and certainly by speculators. Inflation in commodity
prices, have also contributed to the major world economies now experiencing inflationary pressures to a greater extent than ever before.
The recent credit crunch has restricted access to credit for consumers and businesses alike heralds the end of an era of credit based capital growth, or at least for many years to come.
The role of the Private Investigator has also changed to reflect this brave new world. Since the 1970’s, there has been an accepted place for gumshoes in the dark halls of corporate financing, buyouts and mergers, and obviously in respect to corporate recovery. Since the early 1990’s and the emergence of George Bush Senior’s New World Order, the day to day business of running a business has become complicated in terms of law, and the risks involved.
Many a modern private investigator has shifted emphasis from day to day operations involving more domestic and local investigative assignments to international investigations.
These multi-domiciled investigations can be complex and expensive to complete, and accordingly, the skill sets of the investigator have evolved and developed to embrace the new arena. For example, many established detective agencies recruit multilingual staff, from a multitude of disciplines, such as the legal
profession, Information Technology specialists and former embassy staff in order to meet the demands of the client who has a requirement for international investigations.
The new mantle a private investigator adopts is that of a risk consultant; someone who sees beyond the corporate veil to identify and assist clients in mitigating against all kinds of risks, from those involving international trade laws, to arbitration, litigation and asset recovery, not
to mention the burgeoning activity of international fraudsters.
A global economy that is under pressure represents a fertile environment within which the ruthless criminal and opportunist fraudster will operate. Businesses and individuals will be tempted to take greater risks to seek more elusive profits, and it is these false opportunities that the criminal will tend to create whilst intending to permanently deprive their victim of their assets.
In this New World Order, the role of the Private Investigator has become more important than at any time since the days of Pinkerton.
Four state and local agencies of North Carolina government have documented hazards of faulty gas chambers and supply cylinders at public animal shelters since 2004. Leaks and malfunctions were recorded by the North Carolina Department of Labor, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, and local fire marshals in Reidsville and Stokes County. The findings of these agencies were obtained through public record requests.
Most gas chambers in our state had reportedly never been formally inspected prior to 2004. Since that time, complaints from thousands of residents to government officials and the media have brought the controversial euthanasia method to the forefront.
One of the most compelling documents is a North Carolina Department of Labor inspection for Sampson County Animal Control in 2004 (1). The inspector’s worksheet reads,
“The animal begins to struggle because it cannot breathe…They wait approximately 10 minutes until the animal stops making sounds and then turn on a fan that is supposed to evacuate the CO from the chamber.”
Gas monitor readings showed employee overexposure to carbon monoxide, which the officer believed “is occurring when the chamber door is opened to remove the animal.” No respiratory protection was provided for employees.
Reidsville Fire Marshal John Harris inspected a gas chamber at Rockingham County Animal Control in 2004, on the property of Reidsville Veterinary Hospital, after repeated attempts to repair gas leaks (2). An inspection from August 2004 recounts:
“Harris checked the chamber finding that the door seals to the chamber were in disrepair and damaged in several locations. Harris also observed where attempts to repair the seals were made with what appeared to be caulking. Also noted that the integral safety systems for monitoring carbon monoxide levels has been DISABLED. Vent pipe from the top portion of the chamber is poorly fitted and sealed with what appears to be adhesive tape. During operation of the euthanasia chamber carbon monoxide monitors were used to test levels present adjacent to the chamber….carbon monoxide levels exceeded 984 ppm in the area of the chamber….After the purge cycle during removal of animals a reading of 460 ppm still remaining in the chamber as officers removed dead animals.”
Not only can gas chambers leak and malfunction, but gas cylinders provided by carbon monoxide suppliers have also been documented as a potential hazard. North Carolina Department of Labor inspections revealed faulty gas cylinders at Columbus County Animal Control (3) and Davidson County Animal Control in 2006 (4). The Davidson County inspection notes that National Welders Supply does not formally test the cylinders for leaks. The Columbus County inspection says, “It was determined the overexposure occurred whenever the valve on the CO cylinder was initially opened, so the feasible engineering control would be to have the cylinder and valves checked for leaks.” Animal control supervisor Rossie Hayes replied to the NCDOL, asking “for any suggestion on how to check the unit for leaks.” He asked if employees should wear some type of respirator.
Stokes County Fire Marshal inspected a rusty dump-truck gas chamber at Stokes County Animal Control in January 2007 (5). A letter from the Marshal to shelter supervisor Sarah Shumate documented high levels of gas at the supply tank as well as the gas chamber door. Marshal Bradley Cheek warned:
“During the euthanasia process, levels of carbon monoxide in excess of 1000 ppm were detected on the exterior of the chamber loading door. It is not known what the exact readings were; this is due to the monitor having a maximum reading of 1000 ppm….Carbon monoxide is immediately dangerous to life and health at 1200 ppm.”
Yet another jaw-dropping inspection was performed for Montgomery County Animal Control by North Carolina Department of Agriculture inspector Shelly Swaim in 2007 (6). Swaim writes,
“It was reported to me by Mr. Beane that the chamber is leaking and that there were visible cracks as well as an insufficient gasket around door. There is also no mechanism to facilitate venting of this unit. Inmates were on property and addressing chamber issues at 12:17. It appears that this CO chamber even with corrections employed at this time will pose a significant risk to the safety and life of the operator.”
Industrial hygienist Marilyn Parker of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services has performed gas monitor readings for two animal shelters, Granville County Animal Control in 2006 (7) and Randolph County Animal Control in 2007 (8). Both inspections revealed high level leaks of carbon monoxide around the edges of the gas chamber doors. Chambers at both facilities are modern, commercially manufactured units. Concerning the Randolph County inspection, Parker wrote, “While the chambers were in operation the monitor was placed in various locations around the door seals. Levels of CO were detected in excess of 500 ppm around the door seal….It was determined that the seals did not prevent carbon monoxide (CO) from escaping while the chambers were in operation.” Ms. Parker requested in both letters that she be called for follow up inspections after corrections were made. As of October 2008, Parker said that she was not aware of any correspondence with county officials since the inspections.
CO levels above 10% are explosive, as affirmed by the gas chamber explosion at Iredell County Animal Control of Statesville in 2008. No inspection record for the machine was available, but an invoice shows that the unit had been purchased only months prior from Cutting Edge Fabrication, after originally being sold to Union County Animal Control in Monroe. In a Statesville News and Record article (9), Cutting Edge owner Stephen Whitesell is quoted: “Whitesell believes the fan somehow sparked the carbon monoxide before the gas could be purged from the chamber….Whitesell said the fan is not explosion proof.” To the contrary, the AVMA 2007 Guidelines on Euthanasia include this warning about carbon monoxide chambers, “Any electrical equipment exposed to CO (eg., lights and fans) must be explosion proof.”(10) Union County Sheriff Eddie Cathey told the Enquirer Journal in August 2008, (11) “the chamber that was eventually sold to Iredell was returned to Cutting Edge three years ago because it had a warped door.” These are among the most expensive and hi-tech gas chambers on the market. Gas chambers from this manufacturer are reportedly still in use at Gaston, Cabarrus, and Union county animal control facilities.
Dangers to Humans
Carbon monoxide oozing from gas chambers can put shelter workers at risk of health problems, some of which can be delayed for weeks after exposure.
*The AVMA 2007 Guidelines on Euthanasia warns humans operating CO chambers: “In humans, exposure to 0.32% CO and 0.45% CO for one hour will induce loss of consciousness and death, respectively. Carbon monoxide is extremely hazardous for personnel because it is highly toxic and difficult to detect. Chronic exposure to low concentrations of carbon monoxide may be a health hazard, especially with regard to cardiovascular disease and teratogenic effects.” (10)
* The National Institute for Environmental Safety and Health published an International Chemical Safety Card for Carbon Monoxide, which states,
“The gas mixes well with air, explosive mixtures are easily formed. The gas penetrates easily through walls and ceilings…Fatal if inhaled. May damage fertility or the unborn child if inhaled. Causes damage to blood if inhaled. Causes damage to blood and central nervous system through prolonged or repeated exposure if inhaled…Inhalation Risk: A harmful concentration of this gas in the air will be reached very quickly on loss of containment. Effects of Short-term Exposure: The substance may cause effects on the blood, resulting in carboxyhaemoglobinemia and cardiac disorders. Exposure at high levels may result in death. Effects of Long-term or Repeated Exposure: The substance may have effects on the cardiovascular system and central nervous system. May cause toxicity to human reproduction or development. ” (12)
* The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says, “Perhaps the most insidious effect of CP poisoning is the development of delayed neuropsychiatric impairment within 2 – 28 days after poisoning and the slow resolution of neurobehavioral consequences.”(15)
* According to an article from the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2006, “Researchers discover a link between severe carbon monoxide poisoning and death years later from heart disease.”(14)
* A materials safety data sheet from National Welders Supply, a leading supplier of bottled carbon monoxide to animal shelters, says that carbon monoxide is “Harmful if inhaled. Causes damage to the following organs: Blood, Lungs, Cardiovascular System, Central Nervous System. Vapor may cause flash fire…Extremely flammable. Gas may accumulate in confined areas, travel considerable distance to source of ignition and flash back causing fire or explosion.” (18)
* A study by Ramona Hopkins and Fu Lye M. Woon states, “It is estimated that as high as 50% of individuals with carbon monoxide poisoning will develop neurologic, neurobehavioral, or cognitive sequelae.” (17)
* A study of patients poisoned by carbon monoxide, from LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah in 1999 concluded, “Ninety-three per cent of the patients exhibited a variety of cognitive impairments, including impaired attention, memory, executive function, and mental processing speed. Ninety-five per cent of the patients experienced affective changes including depression and anxiety.” (18)
* Yona Amatai studied the effects
Incoming search terms:
- wordpress blogs (16)
- dangers of gas on animals (2)
- carbon gas chamber effects (1)
- the problem with seals on loading dock doors if carbon monoxide is leaking (1)
- manufacturers of animal gas chambers 2011 (1)
- etCO2 units green house gas (1)
- effects from being exposed to gas chamber fumes at an animal shelter (1)
- Dangers of a co2 chamber (1)
- dangers in operating animal shelter gas chambers (1)
- yhs-shopathome_001 (1)
Copyright (c) 2008 Daniel Lafleche
Today’s journals of trade and popular culture are all but awash in the buzzwords ‘sustainable’ and ‘sustainability’. Here, we are obliged to raise the red flag and warn of lurking danger. These diverse and many advocates do a great disservice in more ways than they know.
For in this great sea of ‘sustainability’, which spans business strategies and regimens of weight loss, one all too easily loses sight of the real battle. We know that over-use of a term can have an unintended blunting effect. But the word is so much in vogue, and its employment so overzealous, that it has in many instances become obscured entirely. So, you ask, what is sustainable development? Who are its proponents and antagonists? And, oh yes, why exactly is it to be so desired after all?
Ours is an age in which we have come under the twin pressures of burgeoning population growth and an accompanying intensification of economic development. This development is necessary for the provision of the surging population’s needs and wants. Though rates of population growth show signs of slowing, the number of earth’s inhabitants will continue to expand massively in the foreseeable future. With the added variable of impending climate change, there is a sudden and new awareness of the potentially destructive nature of the human project.
These realities have given immense weight to calls for an oversight which explicitly takes account of the fate of future generations. Many nuanced definitions have been devised, but the most commonly evoked is that sustainable development “meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” General consensus holds that the sustainability project spans three interactive domains; these are (1) environmental sustainability, (2) economic sustainability, and (3) social-political sustainability.
Environmental sustainability is concerned with the preservation of resources and our earth’s natural environment. In the strictest sense, any process which allows natural capital (the net sum of all natural resources and other bounties of the earth) to be depleted faster than it can be replenished threatens its ability to function and to serve us properly and indefinitely. Advocates of environmental protection actively seek solutions which will minimize the present and future burden to our natural environment of industrial and other pursuits. The best solutions are those which find ways to incorporate renewable methods of resource exploitation.
The notion of environmental sustainability is thus inextricably bound to the premise of economic sustainability. Rapid advances in new technologies and production techniques are constantly altering and expanding the boundary of production possibilities. But ultimately, economics is the science of the allocation of a finite resource pool. Promotion of economic sustainability thus seeks to allow for future generations to reach their own optimal allocations free from constraints imposed by our own patterns of exploitation in the here and now.
The sphere of social-political sustainability is interesting in that it expands beyond the simple necessity of economic growth and its effect on the natural environment to more directly include the human element in the equation. Social-political sustainability promotes social harmony and continuity of healthy political institutions so that a mechanism is in place for the enactment of the collective will (presumably a will which is favorable to sustainability).
The project of sustainable development has inevitably encountered resistance. Some are eager to point out that any economic pursuit which entails resource depletion is by that very fact unsustainable. But to make this charge is to reduce the debate to semantics; to contend that the impossibility of an absolute application invalidates the endeavor wholesale is to court the ridiculous.
Another more prominent criticism is slightly more troublesome to counter. Available evidence seems to confirm the wisdom that as nations emerge from poverty and amass wealth they are more willing to dedicate a portion of their incomes to combat pollution and other unpleasantries. The wealthy industrialized nations of the world at one time advanced through dirtier stages analogous to the present progress of developing economies. However at that time there were no monitors or whistle-blowers. This school of critics cries hypocrisy. They uphold “dirty” mediums of economic growth that wealthier nations can now afford to bypass as the only hope to elevate massive populations from abject misery. In so doing, they seek to force arbiters of sustainable development into the unenviable position of choosing between the welfare of the earth’s poor and that of the earth itself.
In the face of these criticisms, proponents of sustainable development strive for the national and international coordination of environmental, economic and sometimes social policies in the advancement of responsible progress. They are mindful that the world more than ever is a system of actors, none of whose actions bear no consequence for others. Their goal is the day-to-day management of policy decisions such that humanity might enjoy the bounty of our natural environment without exhausting it, and without selfishly revoking the privilege of coming generations to do the same.
Without sounding the bells of certain alarmists, sustainability of this color is to be venerated and upheld. Dilution of the term’s strength by those who would seek to hijack its nobility is, on the other hand, to be regretted and indeed resisted.
Incoming search terms:
Currently, the technology and production of carbon fiber worldwide is still under the control of Japan and the USA owing to the complicated production process, high technical content, and the politically restricted introduction of technologies and equipment. There are now less than 20 countries and regions that can realize the industrialization of carbon fiber and no more than 12 enterprises that are capable of mass-production around the globe. Toray (Japan), Toho Tenax (Japan), Zoltek (USA), and Mitsubishi Rayon (Japan) rank the global Top 4 manufacturers by the capacity of carbon fiber, accounting for 23.4%, 17.1%, 14.3% and 10.3% respectively of the global total capacity, while Chinese enterprises occupy only 4.3%.
Capacity Percentage of Carbon Fiber Manufacturers Worldwide, 2009 (Based on the Capacity of Carbon Fiber Tow)
Globally, the production of carbon fiber is mostly dominated by PAN-based carbon fiber, the capacity of which in 2009 accounted for 96% or so of the global total capacity of carbon fiber. Japan’s Toray, Toho Tenax, and Mitsubishi Rayon are mainly engaged in the production of small-tow (≤24K) PAN-based carbon fiber, amounting to 70.5% of the global total capacity of small-tow carbon fiber in 2009; while America’s Zoltek mainly deals with large-tow (>24K) PAN-based carbon fiber and its capacity took 49.1% of the global total capacity of large-tow carbon fiber in 2009.
The entire market of pitch-based carbon fiber is not so big but rather centralized in production. Japan’s Kureha enjoyed the highest capacity of pitch-based carbon fiber by 1.45 kilotons in 2009, approximating 65% market share, followed by America’s Cytec of about 17.9%.
China has taken the industrialization of carbon fiber technology as a strategic task, however, the overall level is far behind that of the developed countries and the entire industry is still at the stage of initial development. Along with the breakthroughs in carbon fiber industrialized technologies, the successively released policies for carbon fiber industry development, and the stimulation of the huge gap between supply and demand in domestic market, China has launched a lot of research projects concerning carbon fiber and kiloton industrialization projects. Up to the end of 2009, China had formed the annual capacity of 7.81 kiloton PAN precursor and 3.31 kiloton carbon fiber, but the actual output of carbon fiber was just over 900 tons with the import dependency ratio as high as 83.9%.
Till June 2010, the capacity of carbon fiber projects planned to be built or under construction in China recorded 60 kilotons or so, hereinto, the capacity of the projects planned to go into operation at the end of 2010 (including those went into operation before June 2010) exceeded 7 kilotons. Nevertheless, only a small number of projects can successfully go into operation and realize stable production now that there is a lack of core industrialization technology with independent intellectual property rights in Chinese carbon fiber industry, but this heralds the development opportunity of the carbon fiber industry in China.
This report lays emphasis on the current development, supply & demand, competition pattern, price trend as well as the development trend of global and China carbon fiber industry. Moreover, it also casts light on the operation and development of 18 manufacturers worldwide such as Japan’s Toray, Toho Tenax, and Mitsubishi Rayon, America’s Zoltek, and China’s ZhongFu ShenYing.
Take Toray ranking world’s No.1 in terms of overall competitiveness of carbon fiber as an example. Its revenue of carbon fiber business mainly stems from aviation & spaceflight, industry and sports fields, occupying 44.2%, 36.7% and 19.1% respectively of the total revenue of carbon fiber business in FY2009. The economic crisis led to the postponed orders from aviation and sports fields for carbon fiber, and the revenue and operating profit of Toray’s carbon fiber business both plunged in FY2009, of which, the former fell to JPY50.7 billion, down 28% from the prior year, and the latter registered JPY6.2 billion, down 26.2% from a year earlier.
Revenue and Operating Profit of Toray’s Carbon Fiber Business, FY2008-FY2009 (Unit: JPY bn)
Source: Annals of Toray, ResearchInChina
Along with the rapid recovery of global carbon fiber market, Toray accelerates to perform the carbon fiber prepreg supply contract with Boeing B787 and respectively signs carbon fiber supply contract with EADS (European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, the parent company of Airbus SAS) and Daimler in 2010. Meanwhile, Toray is continuously expanding its capacity of carbon fiber in order to meet the market demand of carbon fiber for aviation and industry in the future. According to its schedule, the annual capacity of carbon fiber of Toray will hit 25 kilotons and the market share will reach 38% by the end of 2010. In addition, on April 22, 2010, Toray announced that it would take 11 years to fulfill the carbon fiber investment plan of KRW480 billion in South Korea via Toray Saehan, its subsidiary in South Korea.
For details of this report please visit http://www.researchinchina.com/Htmls/Report/2010/5939.html.
Incoming search terms:
As the world makes progress, our environment also regresses. Why is this so? It is because with industrialization booming, air pollution also progresses badly. It has been a problem that our world has ever since. Is there a solution to air pollution? Indeed there is.
Click Here For Carbon Revolt Instant Access!
Air pollution can be lessened, it can be avoided and surely it can be solved. We do not have to wait for other people to take action; we need to start on our own. Making smart and environment friendly choices can help much in reducing air pollution. Industries contribute much to air pollution, they thrive because there is a demand to produce products, and mostly they are made of paper and plastics.
That is why in order to address the growing demand for industries to produce; we have to make people aware of the importance of the 3Rs. That is to reduce the use of electricity, gasoline and even energy. We also have to make sure to reuse items which we can still use. Take for example boxes, bottles, glass and many other things that we can make use of and produce into another useful item. We also need to recycle. Paper products as well as plastic ones are on top of the list.
Car as we all know is second to industries which contribute to air pollution. Try to use your cars only when it is really needed. You can save on gas as well as other bills if you try to walk a short distance or use a bike while enjoying the scenery.
We need to have strong laws for getting rid of air pollution. We should have stronger and firmer laws. See to it that you abide by the laws and in this way step by step you will do your part in giving a solution to air pollution.
Click Here For Carbon Revolt Instant Access!
Air pollution is prominent all around us. Have you observed whether or not the air that we breathe is already polluted? Have you observed that the environment you are in is trying to pollute the air? If you do, then what should you do about it, what should be done to solve it? Controlling air pollution is the likely answer.
Click Here For Loose Your Footprint Instant Access Now!
There has been a rise in global awareness of air pollution but despite of this awareness, efforts to stop air pollution has been useless. Various sectors in the society try to prevent and lessen air pollution as much as they can but it seems like it is always put in vain. Awareness about the current air pollution is a good start to have. It may not seem to be an effective way but just being aware first can go a long way.
The most important people who need to be aware about controlling air pollution should be legislators and head of governments. Why is it so? It is for they can easily control their people and they can implement laws. They have to work together with environmentalists as well as educators in teaching children what they can do in making this world a better place to live in.
We people should also be aware that we need to do our part in controlling air pollution. We have to do our own role by not smoking, by not using aerosols, sprays, chemicals and other factors that can contribute to air pollution.
If you know deep in your heart that something can be done to stop air pollution then do it. Do not wait for somebody else to motivate you and make you do something. The effort to control air pollution must come within you and not from anyone else. Do it now.
Click Here For Loose Your Footprint Instant Access Now!