2 March 2007South Africa has identified the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal provinces as key for development in the forestry, wood and paper sector, with reforestation a vital part of the strategy.Business Day reported this week that the government envisages between R20- and R30-billion of investment by the private sector, including the Industrial Development Corporation, over the next five years to develop the economies of the two provinces.Forestry is one of the sectors identified as a key growth area in terms of the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (Asgi-SA), which aims to reduce poverty and unemployment and help the country achieve an economic growth rate of 6% per annum.In addition, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has drafted a separate sector strategy to deal with challenges facing an industry that has been neglected over the past decade.According to the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, the sector employs about 170 000 people and contributes more than R16-billion annually to the South African economy.Speaking to journalists during the Eastern Cape Forestry and Timber Processing Summit in Mthatha on Monday, Water Affairs and Forestry Minister Lindiwe Hendricks said that developing the industry in the Eastern Cape had the potential to create about 26 000 direct jobs at plantation level and a further 1 700 jobs at processing level.Business Day reports that up to 15 400 such jobs could be created in KwaZulu-Natal.“In SA the backlog is bad, as we have not planned new trees over the past decade,” DTI deputy director-general Lionel October said during the summit. “There is the immediate potential for the forestation of more than 100 000 hectares [in the Eastern Cape].”October told Business Day that while an explosion in global industrial development and construction, led by China, had boosted demand for timber and wood products, South Africa had not taken advantage of this situation.He said the DTI would work with Water Affairs and Forestry and the private sector to ensure increased downstream processing opportunities for small businesses as well as black economic empowerment companies.The development of downstream industries will require massive investment, however, and it is hoped that foreign investors will come to the party. According to October, delegations from Finland and Indonesia have already visited South Africa and have shown an interest in investing in the industry.SouthAfrica.info reporter Want to use this article in your publication or on your website?See: Using SAinfo material
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Dusty Sonnenberg, CCA, Ohio Field Leader“So where is it coming from, and what more can we do?” This is a question many northwest Ohio farmers ask themselves, knowing they will likely be the ones to take the blame as the subject of the Lake Erie algal bloom regularly makes headlines in the paper and on the evening news. Considering the weather challenges faced during the planting season of 2019, many farmers are left perplexed. According to Jason Williamson of the Williamson Insurance Agency, the question is valid. “Looking at the prevent plant numbers released by the USDA, 30% of the acres in the counties we cover in Northwest Ohio are prevent plant,” he said. “Wood County alone reported over 50% prevent plant.”Those are acres where farmers did not get a crop in the ground, and the vast majority did not apply any fertilizer this spring or summer. With that being said, the lake is on track to have its fourth or fifth largest harmful algal bloom (HAB) on record. Farmers are asking where the phosphorus is coming from, and what more can they do if this happens when they didn’t apply fertilizer or manure.According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Lake Erie Harmful Algal Bloom Bulletin, released on Sept. 3, “The Microcystis cyanobacteria bloom continues in the western basin of Lake Erie. Recent satellite imagery showed the bloom extending from Maumee Bay north along the Michigan coast, to Brest Bay; east along the Ohio coast to the Marblehead Peninsula, and offshore through the Bass Islands, and up to 10 miles east of Pelee Island.”“So far, we are on par with the July prediction of a 7.5 or 8 for the severity of the bloom, which would make it possibly the fourth or fifth largest,” said Chris Winslow, director for Ohio Sea Grant and Ohio State’s Stone Laboratory. In July, NOAA and its research partners predicted western Lake Erie would experience a harmful algal bloom of cyanobacteria this summer significantly larger than the mild bloom in 2018. Scientists predicted this year’s bloom to measure greater than a 7 on the severity index. The severity index is based on a bloom’s biomass — the amount of its harmful algae — over a sustained period. The largest blooms, 2011 and 2015, were 10 and 10.5, respectively. Last year’s bloom had a severity of 3.6 which is considered a mild bloom. Ohio soybean farmers, along with other commodity groups in the state, have invested millions of dollars in research aimed at determining the cause of the algal bloom, and finding potential management practices to functionally mitigate the problem. Farmers are working closely with universities, government agencies, and environmental groups to make changes to protect the water. Practices like cover crops, nutrient management plans, soil sampling and more are increasing every year, and farmers are applying less fertilizer than ever before.So where is all this coming from? When asked this question, Winslow said the phosphorus in the lake that is causing the bloom is largely coming from “three buckets” as he likes to refer to them. The “first bucket” as he refers to it is what he identifies as current use phosphorus.“This is real-time phosphorus. This phosphorus would come from fertilizer applied in the spring that is available to the plants and can get in the water right now. Due to the lack of planting this spring and limited fertilizer application as a result of the weather, this first bucket is most likely not a substantial contributor this year,” Winslow said. “The second bucket is from the legacy phosphorus. This is the phosphorus that was already found in the lake or is held in the soils’ that have high phosphorus levels. This is phosphorus available to the algal bloom every year. The third bucket of phosphorus results from the heavy rainfall events and large amounts of precipitation we frequently receive.”These large rain events move phosphorus found in the soil and environment into the lake. Winslow surmises that the phosphorus contributing to this year’s bloom is largely from the legacy phosphorus and any phosphorus the large rain events have carried to the lake.“Our prediction was that 24% less phosphorus would be entering the lake (due to less fertilizer being applied) this year. We have equipment that pulls river water samples at various locations all across the watersheds in the Western Lake Erie Basin. We can detect when, and in general where, we get phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) spikes as the water travels to the lake. We know what the water samples show at the beginning, and as the various tributaries empty into the watershed along the way,” Winslow said. “For example, in a normal year, we can tell when farmers are sidedressing their corn because if we get a large rain event, we see a spike in the N level in the samples from those areas at that time. With our sampling equipment, we know the levels of N and P before and after each event.”Winslow explained that this year was beneficial to the researchers because they were able to observe a change in one of the variables, or “buckets” as he describes them. The decline in the amount of “real-time” phosphorus that was applied in the spring and summer on a large scale has allowed researchers to observe the response of the bloom with the other two “buckets” remaining relatively the same. Winslow said having the “three buckets” makes finding simple solutions to the algal bloom situation challenging for farmers.“If we did not have the ‘third bucket’ of large and frequent rain events this year, we would have had a regular planting season and more normal fertilizer application, which is the source in the ‘first bucket.’ Due to the frequent and heavy rains in the ‘third bucket,’ we did not have as much of the ‘first bucket’ real-time phosphorus applied, but still had the “second bucket” legacy phosphorus, and still more of the ‘third bucket’ heavy rains,” Winslow said. “Any combination of the buckets is a problem.”When explaining how the forecast for the harmful algal bloom is made, he noted that the formula to forecast the bloom is based on the river water samples from the first of March to the end of July in a given year.“Anything prior to the first of March, and the lake is too cool for it to have any real impact on the algae. By August and September, the lake is beginning to cool again, and additional phosphorus by that point will have little to no effect on the current bloom,” he said. “Typically, the peak of the bloom is around the end of August or early September. Sometime later in October NOAA will issue their final number rating.”Winslow pointed out that the size of a bloom is not necessarily an indication of how toxic it is and the location of the bloom is important to consider as well.“Research has found that high concentrations of phosphorus in the water can increase the size of the bloom. High concentrations of nitrogen in the water can increase the toxicity of the bloom,” he said. “Winds drive the location of the bloom. The strong easterly wind has kept the bloom largely in the WLEB.”He also noted that the waves mix the water and algae bloom. This can impact drinking water quality for many of the cities that get their water from the lake because the water intakes are located near the bottom of the lake.“On a calm and still day, the bloom is largely on or near the surface. As the winds pick up and the water churns, it causes the bloom to mix and be distributed across the various layers of the water,” Winslow said. “If the water is calm and the bloom is near the surface, it is not a concern. It becomes more of a concern when the water churns and the bloom mixes in the different layers that it could potentially be a factor for the water intake structures near the bottom.”According to NOAA, the observed conditions the end of August and beginning of September promoted mixing and eastern transport of surface bloom concentration, now present in the central basin. Measured toxin concentrations were below recreational thresholds throughout most of the bloom extent.Ohio Field Leader is a project of the Ohio Soybean Council. For more, visit ohiofieldleader.com.
Allison Bailes of Decatur, Georgia, is a speaker, writer, energy consultant, RESNET-certified trainer, and the author of the Energy Vanguard Blog. You can follow him on Twitter at @EnergyVanguard. The debate continues next weekThis week, I’ll be interviewing Paul Francisco, the new chair of the ASHRAE 62.2 committee. As far as I can tell, his views are more in line with Dr. Sherman’s, so if you’re looking for a more balanced look at the great ventilation debate, you’ll get your wish in my article next week. A note about Lstiburek’s air leakage credentialsJoe got his doctorate at the University of Toronto. His research was on the topic of air flow in buildings. You can download his dissertation from Building Science Corporation’s website: Toward an Understanding and Prediction of Air Flow in Buildings (pdf). He did a thorough review of the air leakage literature for his thesis. He also has a lot of experience with the Building America program, as he mentioned in the interview, and BSC’s many clients. Joe Lstiburek: Well, the rates are a huge reduction. A balanced system with distribution & mixing is going to be about 40 cfm whereas an unbalanced sys. w/o distribution & mixing is going to be about 90 cfm, so there’s a huge difference in rates. The dumb system is one that doesn’t recognize the effects of distribution, doesn’t recognize the effects of supply vs. exhaust vs. balanced so the dumb sys. is 62.2 not the BSC system.A.B.: Why is distribution such a big deal? Do you have experience from the work you’ve done or research papers?J.L.: There’s all kinds of research papers and work that we’ve done that’s going to be posted on our website shortly that shows that if you don’t have mixing you’re going to have high concentrations in bedrooms that don’t get the same amount of air so what happens is mixing reduces the high contaminant locations. This is not new. This is recognized by the experience that I had in Canada with R-2000 in the 1980s so the fact that this is even a question or a controversy is bemusing to me and disappointing to me.A.B.: Another question that came in the comments of my article was: Are we exchanging one set of guesses for another?J.L.: The answer is that we’re not. We know the following that are not guesses. We know that houses ventilated at the 62.2 rate lead to comfort problems in cold climates by drying out the building and drying out furnishings. We know that ventilating at the 62.2 rates in houses built to the Model Energy Code lead to part-load humidity problems. We know for a fact that these rates lead to humidity problems in the South and dryness and comfort issues in the North, so that’s not a guess. We know this from experience.We also know that millions of houses were constructed in the 1990s and 2000s that were between 3 and 5 air changes per hour at 50 Pascals with no ventilation systems and their air change rates are between 0.2 and 0.3 air changes per hour as tested by tracer gas work and that’s consistent with houses tested in the ‘70s and ‘80s as well. The myth of the old leaky house is just a myth. These houses had no ventilation systems in them at all and they’re not suffering from indoor air quality problems because nobody’s measured any contaminants. There’s no measurements.What we’re doing is we’re actually adding controlled ventilation to houses that have not had any so we’re reducing risk but not adding an excessive amount that’s going to cause these systems to be turned off. We learned in cold-climate housing with R-2000 that the high rates caused the systems to be turned off so we had to moderate them. These are not guesses. This is based on actual experience.A.B.: It sounded like you said that no matter if you have an old house with a really high blower door number or a newer house with a lower blower door number, the tracer gas results are about the same, 0.2 to 0.3 ACH. Is that correct?J.L.: I’m simply saying that the typical house built in the ‘80s, ‘90s, and 2000s, the tracer gas work shows us that it’s between .2 and .3 air changes per hour. These houses are not…it’s a myth that we’re, oh my God, going to create all these problems by reducing the ventilation rate is just a myth because the ventilation rates have always been low. Max is going around and saying, my God, the ventilation rates are 0.5, 0.7, and 1. Well, that’s not true. He’s getting those numbers by taking his blower door numbers and applying his model to them. That’s bullshit. It’s just not true.The only true measure of air changes is tracer gas. I quoted a reference that showed that an Ottawa house studied by Tamura and Wilson in 1963 had a tracer gas measurement of somewhere between 0.2 and 0.3. When I was director of research at the home builders association and in charge of R-2000, I went to NRCDBR [Ed.: Canada’s Natural Research Council, Division of Building Research] and said, look, what is the typical air change rate of the house built in the 1970s, and they said, our tracer gas work says between 0.2 and 0.3. So I said, well, the ventilation rate if we build an airtight house should be 0.25. That’s where that number came from.The current code in Canada, if you read Gord Cooke’s comment [Ed.: He’s referring to a LinkedIn discussion in the Building Science Community group], is a very illuminating one. The Canadian code basically sizes the system at the rate of the 2010 62.2 but it’s operated at 40-50% of that which is exactly I had been saying for years. So we’re not guessing here. We have lots of experience.By the way, under the Environments for Living program under MASCO and the Engineered for Life program with Green Fiber, we put in probably half a million ventilation systems in houses that are operating at these rates which don’t lead to humidity under part-load and don’t lead to dryness in cold climates. We significantly improved the air quality because we provided mixing and distribution. So I’d like to know where all these dead bodies are, where all of these problems are. There’s no health science basis to the 0.35.A.B.: Where did the 0.35 come from?J.L.: It was in the old ASHRAE 62-89 standard but remember, nobody was ever following that standard, right? The building code said you could have operable windows so nobody ever used that. It was a number that came from the ‘89 standard because they guessed that that’s what the actual air change rate was. It turns out that it wasn’t.A.B.: You were talking about excessive humidity in the South, and I’ve seen some problems with positive pressure ventilation systems. What do you think about positive pressure systems? Do you think they’re better than exhaust-only systems, which you’ve talked about so much?J.L.: Well they’re better because you know where the air is coming from and you provide distribution, but they’re not as good as balanced systems. Right? The best system is balanced that has exhaust and supply plus mixing and distribution. The supply systems that are connected to the air handler provide mixing, distribution, but they do not provide balance. But the most important thing is they provide a known location of air.A.B.: As I understand it, the problems that have happened in humid climates with positive pressure systems is mostly they’re getting overventilated…J.L.: But it’s not a problem with the positive pressure systems. It’s a problem with exhaust systems that run at too high a rate. It’s a problem with supply systems that run at too high a rate. And it’s a problem with balanced systems that run at too high a rate. I’m irritated that you’re saying the problem is with positive pressure systems. It’s a ventilation system that runs a too high of a rate. If you ran an exhaust only system at a lower rate, you wouldn’t have a part-load humidity problem. If you ran the positive pressure system—your outside air to the return—at a lower rate, you wouldn’t have a problem. Same with the balanced system. The problem is the rate.A.B.: Speaking of rate, I want to clear something up that came up in our blog. You said that in the past, you were designing systems to 62.2, putting in 150% of the capacity, and commissioning at 50%.J.L.: That’s correct.A.B.: There was a discussion about whether you were talking about cutting the rate to 50% of 62.2 or running it half of the time.J.L.: The rate. Your guys explained it correctly. At the end of those questions, they did a better job explaining it than I had done. They got it right.A.B.: How do you see the new standard getting out there and getting adopted?J.L.: Well, it’ll be adopted by individual state building codes and programs.A.B.: Are you finding a lot of interest in BSC-01 vs. 62.2?J.L.: The phone has not stopped ringing and the emails have not stopped coming. People are not happy with 62.2. You can say that…look, they’re [Ed.: the ASHRAE 62.2 committee] tone deaf and some of them are arrogant. Some of them are not listening to the problems and some of them are arrogant enough to believe they’re the only game in town. So guess what? Now they’re listening. And they realize they’re not the only game in town.A.B.: What about combo systems where someone’s using a balanced system for part of the ventilation and an exhaust for the remainder to meet the requirements. I’ve seen this in some Habitat houses where they’re trying to do balanced with the Whisper Comfort, Panasonic’s ERV, and it doesn’t quite get them to the 62.2 level so they put controls on the bath fan.J.L.: Well, under my approach, they’re going to be able to meet it simply because they get mixing and distribution. So the numbers will be low enough they will be able to meet it.A.B.: So you see the Whisper Comfort, which is balanced but it doesn’t have distribution according to your definition, do you think that would count for distribution?J.L.: I’m assuming they’re going to have some kind of forced air as well, right?A.B.: Right.J.L.: So the mixing also provides distribution, right? They’ve got it all so they’re going to get the lower rate. That’s a phenomenal approach. So you basically put in that system and you provide a timer on an AirCycler to mix the air, that mixing gives you mixing and distribution. You get it all, and you’re going to get it at the lowest rate. To me, that’s the least expensive way to get everything. I think that’s a phenomenal system.A.B.: I wasn’t thinking that would count for distributed because it’s just a point-source ERV.J.L.: Yeah, it’s a point-source ERV and the distribution and mixing’s provided by the mechanical system with a timer. You get it all.A.B.: One thing that somebody brought up is about volume. So your standard and 62.2 are both based on square footage of conditioned floor area. Why not base it on the volume of the house if you’re circulating volumes of air.J.L.: The reason for that is you’re penalizing a large-volume houses where what we’re worried about is the contaminants actually in the occupied space, and the large-volume houses allow you to distribute more contaminants because they’re able to…emission rates and concentration are different with large-volume houses. If you have the same source strength, and you have a smaller volume, obviously the concentration is higher. If you have the same emission rate and you have a large volume, they’re actually better so the larger volume houses should have a lower value, not a higher value.A.B.: BSC-01 is just for new homes. Do you have any plans to introduce one for existing homes?J.L.: The answer is yes.A.B.: Do you want to say anything about how that might look?J.L.: It’ll be very similar.A.B.: What about the issue of deciding when the house has crossed a threshold and needs ventilation and when it won’t do any good.J.L.: My feeling is that the magic number is 5 air changes at 50 Pascals.A.B.: So for existing homes, using a blower door to decide when you need ventilation can be a good thing and 5 ACH50 is your number?J.L.: That’s correct because we’re talking about averages but the blower door’s no excuse for [ignoring] combustion safety. In other words, the source control is much more important. It’s much more important to deal with combustion safety and the source control issues than anything else. It’s preposterous that we’re missing the most important thing.A.B.: So for existing homes, you think that if a house comes in at 5 ACH50 or lower, then you put in a ventilation system that’s going to have to meet, no matter where it is below 5, it’s going to have to meet the same number?J.L.: That’s right but the big thing is going to be the emphasis on combustion safety.A.B.: And no infiltration credit?J.L.: That’s correct. And it gets even better. You ready? The control is in the hand of the occupant. It’s preposterous to say that you have to put in this system that has to be run at this rate and it’s not up to you because the committee decided it. That’s preposterous.A.B.: So BSC-01 is formally going to be introduced at Summer Camp?J.L.: The Westford Symposium on Building Science.A.B.: All right.J.L.: There might be some interesting news with respect to the standard as to who’s adopting it.A.B.: Well, it’s going to be a very interesting Summer Camp.JL Damn right it is, Bubba. RELATED ARTICLES How Much Fresh Air Does Your Home Need? Resistance May NOT Be Futile in the Residential Ventilation Wars ASHRAE 62.2 Committee Chair Defends Ventilation StandardAn Interview with Dr. Iain Walker on Ventilation Designing a Good Ventilation SystemHRV or ERV?Ventilation Rates and Human HealthVentilation Requirements for Weatherized Homes Just Right and Airtight Unintended Consequences Suck Dr. Joe Lstiburek of Building Science Corporation is on a mission. The issue is residential ventilation. He contends that the residential ventilation standard, ASHRAE 62.2, ventilates at too high a rate, causing problems with humidity in hot or mixed humid climates, comfort and dryness in cold climates, and too much energy use everywhere. The 2013 version makes it worse.You can read the background in my last article, which covers the new ventilation standard he’s about to release. After I published that article, a number of questions came up that I thought would best be answered in an interview. I spoke with Joe last Thursday, and now present to you the transcript of our talk. Interview with LstiburekAllison Bailes: Somebody said that it looks like BSC-01 is a dumbed-down version of 62.2, the rates aren’t that different, so why do you think BSC-01 is a better standard? A clarification about air changesWhen I was transcribing the recorded interview afterwards, it occurred to me that there seemed to be a contradiction. For someone with a PhD in physics, I’m not very quick to connect the dots sometimes, so I sent another question to Joe by email.A.B.: You said that tracer gas shows that, “The myth of the old leaky house is just a myth.” If that’s true, is the emphasis on air-sealing a waste of time? If no matter how many holes there are, the ‘natural’ air change rate is 0.2 to 0.3, it would seem that’s the logical conclusion. But that doesn’t correlate with Blasnik’s contention [See the comments in my article about blower doors and ventilation.] that over the course of a year, the infiltration models are pretty good at predicting energy consumption from air leakage. What am I missing?J.L.: “On average” is the key point. During colder weather with the stack effect driver air changes are higher. Worst is spring and fall – or summer houses without ac. No air change at all.And it is not Blasnik’s contention, it is mine and was mine long before Blasnik, and I stole it from Handegord in 1982 who said that if you average things over a long enough time period you get the right answer. Just divide the ACH50 number by 10 or 15 or 20 and you get the right answer depending on the age of the house and the location. How is that for an infiltration model? Complicated eh? Why not use utility bill data to estimate infiltration? “The Blasnik Model”? Much better than the Sherman-Grimsrud model. You can quote me on that. Or use the Handegord model – “take the ach50 number and divide by a number….pick any number”.There is lots of other tracer gas stuff in the literature. I am putting stuff together and will present it at summer camp. I did all of this in 1982 the first time. I did it periodically during the 1990’s. Apparently I have to do it again.A bunch of stuff BSC has done is about to get released and posted that shows the effect of various ventilation system effectiveness on the same house using tracer gas analysis.If you take away the “peaks” you save energy. That is a good idea. Filling in the valleys during non energy intensive periods is also a good idea. But then raising the average year round is a dumb idea. I want to keep the two good ideas and nix the dumb idea.
Congress president Rahul Gandhi on Monday said that attacks on migrant north Indian workers in Gujarat is a sign of “a crumbling establishment and economy.”‘Terror of poverty’ “There is no bigger terror than poverty. The root of the violence in Gujarat lies in unemployment and closed factories. The system and the economy are both crumbling. Targeting migrant workers is absolutely wrong. I will stand completely against it,” Mr. Gandhi tweeted in Hindi.Earlier, the Congress said Chief Minister Vijay Rupani does not have the right to continue in his position if he cannot stop the violence against migrant workers.“The recent incidents in Gujarat, where more than 40,000 people from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Rajasthan are being beaten up and forced to flee is part of a conspiracy that needs to be exposed,” said Congress spokesperson Priyanka Chaturvedi.Following the rape of a 14-month-old girl in Gujarat’s Sabarkantha last week, allegedly committed by a migrant worker from Bihar, there has been a backlash against workers from Bihar and U.P. in the State.Asked to comment on reports that Thakore Sena — an organisation associated with Congress lawmaker Alpesh Thakore — was behind some of the mob attacks on migrant workers, Ms. Chaturvedi said,“When they cannot control a situation, they use the patented technique of blaming the Opposition.”“The BJP is using this to carry out a ghar wapsi of the workers from Bihar and U.P.,” she added.
Bayern Munich CEO Karl-Heinz Rummenigge said the German champions would never spend anywhere near the 222 million euros ($261 million) that Paris St Germain paid for Brazilian forward Neymar this month, saying he would prefer a stadium with that money.Rummenigge, who also heads the Europe’s clubs association (ECA), said more “rationality” was required as transfer costs spiralled out of control.”During the Neymar transfer I asked myself the question what would be more important: Neymar or the Allianz Arena,” Rummenigge told Sport Bild magazine on Wednesday.”I have to say clearly that I prefer having the Allianz Arena which is also more important. We as Bayern Munich must have a different philosophy,” Rummenigge said. “Overall the Neymar transfer could cost even more than the arena.”Bayern took out a 346 million euro loan in 2005 to build its new stadium on the outskirts of the city and paid off the 25-year loan 16 years early in 2014.Bayern’s own transfer record was set in June when the Bavarians paid 41.5 million euros to sign France international Corentin Tolisso.”We do not want to do this and we cannot do this (spending like PSG). And that is fine. That is also seen as the right way by the public and our fans,” Rummenigge said.The French club paid the record fee earlier this month to lure the talented 25-year-old Neymar from Barcelona.The transfer doubles the previous world record fee paid when Paul Pogba moved last August from Juventus to Manchester United for a 105 million euros.”FIFA, UEFA, the ECA, leagues and the players union FIFpro should discuss this,” Rummenigge said.advertisement”I think we should all sit at the table, that would be my proposal. We could find more rational rules for football as a whole. Otherwise the public will not understand it anymore, fans will lose their connection.”