Category Archives: Environment

Pioneers show Americans how to live “off-grid”

from Reuters

By Tim Gaynor

BISBEE, Ariz (Reuters) – With energy prices going through the roof, an alternative lifestyle powered by solar panels and wind turbines has suddenly become more appealing to some. For architect Todd Bogatay, it has been reality for years.

When he bought this breezy patch of scrub-covered mountaintop with views to Mexico more than two decades ago, he was one of only a few Americans with an interest in wind- and solar-powered homes.

Now, Bogatay is surrounded by 15 neighbors who, like him, live off the electricity grid, with power from solar panels and wind turbines that he either built or helped to install.

“People used to be attracted to living off-grid for largely environmental reasons, although that is now changing as energy prices rise,” he said, standing in blazing sunshine with a wind turbine thrashing the air like a weed whacker overhead.

Spry and energetic, Bogatay makes few sacrifices for his chosen lifestyle. He has a small, energy saving refrigerator, but otherwise his house is like any other, with satellite television and a computer with Internet service.

“Electric and gas are going to skyrocket very soon. There are going to be more reasons for doing it, economic reasons,” he said.

Bogatay and his neighbors at the 120-acre development are among a very small but fast-growing group of Americans opting to meet their own energy needs as power prices surge and home repossessions grow.

Once the domain of a few hardy pioneers, the dispersed movement is now attracting not just a few individuals and families, but institutions and developers building subdivisions that meet their own energy needs.

“It has its roots in 1970s hippy culture and survivalism, but it has now superseded that completely,” said Nick Rosen, a trend analyst and author of the book “How to Live Off-Grid.”

“Because of technology advancing … and because of high house and energy prices … there are a lot more people moving off grid.”

read more here..

Cheap Drinking Water from the Ocean

Carbon nanotube-based membranes will dramatically cut the cost of desalination.
By Aditi Risbud

A water desalination system using carbon nanotube-based membranes could significantly reduce the cost of purifying water from the ocean. The technology could potentially provide a solution to water shortages both in the United States, where populations are expected to soar in areas with few freshwater sources, and worldwide, where a lack of clean water is a major cause of disease.

The new membranes, developed by researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), could reduce the cost of desalination by 75 percent, compared to reverse osmosis methods used today, the researchers say. The membranes, which sort molecules by size and with electrostatic forces, could also separate various gases, perhaps leading to economical ways to capture carbon dioxide emitted from power plants, to prevent it from entering the atmosphere.

The carbon nanotubes used by the researchers are sheets of carbon atoms rolled so tightly that only seven water molecules can fit across their diameter. Their small size makes them good candidates for separating molecules. And, despite their diminutive dimensions, these nanopores allow water to flow at the same rate as pores considerably larger, reducing the amount of pressure needed to force water through, and potentially saving energy and costs compared to reverse osmosis using conventional membranes.

Indeed, the LLNL team measures water flow rates up to 10,000 times faster than would be predicted by classical equations, which suggest that flow rates through a pore will slow to a crawl as the diameter drops. “It’s something that is quite counter-intuitive,” says LLNL chemical engineer Jason Holt, whose findings appeared in the 19 May issue of Science. “As you shrink the pore size, there is a huge enhancement in flow rate.”

The surprising results might be due to the smooth interior of the nanotubes, or to physics at this small scale — more research is needed to understand the mechanisms involved. “In some physical systems the underlying assumptions are not valid at these smaller length scales,” says Rod Ruoff, a physical chemist and professor of mechanical engineering at Northwestern University (who was not involved with the work).

To make the membranes, the researchers started with a silicon wafer about the size of a quarter, coated with a metal nanoparticle catalyst for growing carbon nanotubes. Holt says the small particles allow the nanotubes to grow “like blades of grass — vertically aligned and closely packed.” Once grown, the gaps between the nanotubes are filled with a ceramic material, silicon nitride, which provides stability and helps the membrane adhere to the underlying silicon wafer. The field of nanotubes functions as an array of pores, allowing water and certain gases through, while keeping larger molecules and clusters of molecules at bay.

Holt estimates that these membranes could be brought to market within the next five to ten years. “The challenge is to scale up so we can produce usable amounts of these membrane materials for desalination, or gas separation, the other high-impact application for these membranes,” he says, adding that the fabrication process is “inherently scalable.”

Eventually, the membranes could be adapted for a variety of applications, ranging from pharmaceuticals to the food industry, where they could be used to separate sugars, for example, says co-author Olgica Bakajin, a physicist at LLNL. “Practically, the next step is figuring out how to take a general concept and modify it to a specific application,” Bakajin says.

“There are many studies that one can imagine to build upon this study,” says Northwestern’s Ruoff. “Our understanding of molecular processes will be helped by experiments of this type. There are interesting possibilities for nanofluidic applications, such as in nanoelectromechanical systems and in ‘smart’ switching [on and off] of the flow through such small channels.”

Scientists target poor to test sludge theory

from the Cape Cod Times.


BALTIMORE — Scientists using federal grants spread fertilizer made from human and industrial wastes on yards in poor, black neighborhoods to test whether it might protect children from lead poisoning in the soil.

Families were assured the sludge was safe and were never told about any harmful ingredients.

Nine low-income families in Baltimore row houses agreed to let researchers till the sewage sludge into their yards and plant new grass. In exchange, they were given food coupons as well as the free lawns as part of a study published in 2005 and funded by the Housing and Urban Development Department.

The Associated Press reviewed grant documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and interviewed researchers. No one involved with the $446,231 grant for the two-year study would identify the participants, citing privacy concerns.

There is no evidence there was ever any medical follow-up.

Comparable research was conducted by the Agriculture Department and Environmental Protection Agency in a similarly poor, black neighborhood in East St. Louis, Ill.

The sludge, researchers said, put the children at less risk of brain or nerve damage from lead, a highly toxic element once widely used in gasoline and paint. Other studies have shown brain damage among children, often in poor neighborhoods, who ate lead-based paint that had flaked off their homes.

The idea that sludge — the leftover semisolid wastes filtered from water pollution at 16,500 treatment plants — can be turned into something harmless, even if swallowed, has been a tenet of federal policy for three decades.

In a 1978 memo, the EPA said sludge “contains nutrients and organic matter which have considerable benefit for land and crops” despite the presence of “low levels of toxic substances.”

But in the late 1990s the government began underwriting studies such as those in Baltimore and East St. Louis using poor neighborhoods as laboratories to make a case that sludge may also directly benefit human health.

Meanwhile, there has been a paucity of research into the possible harmful effects of heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, other chemicals and disease-causing microorganisms often found in sludge.

A series of reports by the EPA’s inspector general and the National Academy of Sciences between 1996 and 2002 faulted the adequacy of the science behind the EPA’s 1993 regulations on sludge.

The chairman of the 2002 academy panel, Thomas Burke, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says epidemiological studies have never been done to show whether spreading sludge on land is safe.

“There are potential pathogens and chemicals that are not in the realm of safe,” Burke told the AP. “What’s needed are more studies on what’s going on with the pathogens in sludge — are we actually removing them? The commitment to connecting the dots hasn’t been there.”

That’s not what the subjects of the Baltimore and East St. Louis research were told.

Rufus Chaney, an Agriculture Department research agronomist who co-wrote the Baltimore study, said the researchers provided the families with brochures about lead hazards, tested the soil in their yards and gave assurances that the Orgro fertilizer was store-bought and perfectly safe.

“They were told that their lawn, as it stood, before it was treated, was a lead danger to their children,” said Chaney. “So that even if they ate some of the soil, there would not be as much of a risk as there was before. And that’s what the science shows.”

Chaney said the Baltimore neighborhoods were chosen because they were within an economically depressed area qualifying for tax incentives. He acknowledged the families were not told there have been some safety disputes and health complaints over sludge.

“They were told that it was composted biosolids that are available for sale commercially in the state of Maryland. I don’t think there’s any other further disclosure required,” Chaney said. “There was danger before. There wasn’t danger because of the biosolids compost. Composting, of course, kills pathogens.”

The Baltimore study concluded that phosphate and iron in sludge can increase the ability of soil to trap more harmful metals including lead, cadmium and zinc, causing the combination to pass safely through a child’s body if eaten.

It called the fertilizer “a simple low-cost” technology for parents and communities “to reduce risk to their children” who are in danger of lead contamination. The results were published in Science of the Total Environment, an international research journal, in 2005.

Another study investigating whether sludge might inhibit the “bioavailability” of lead — the rate it enters the bloodstream and circulates to organs and tissues — was conducted on a vacant lot in East St. Louis next to an elementary school, all of whose 300 students were black and almost entirely from low-income families.

In a newsletter, the EPA-funded Community Environmental Resource Program assured local residents it was all safe.

“Though the lot will be closed off to the public, if people — particularly children — get some of the lead contaminated dirt in their mouths, the lead will just pass through their bodies and not be absorbed,” the newsletter said. “Without this iron-phosphorus mix, lead poisoning would occur.”

Soil chemist Murray McBride, director of the Cornell Waste Management Institute, said he doesn’t doubt that sludge can bind lead in soil.

But when eaten, “it’s not at all clear that the sludge binding the lead will be preserved in the acidity of the stomach,” he said. “Actually thinking about a child ingesting this, there’s a very good chance that it’s not safe.”

McBride and others also questioned the choice of neighborhoods for the studies and why residents were not told about other, possibly harmful ingredients in sludge.

“If you’re not telling them what kinds of chemicals could be in there, how could they even make an informed decision. If you’re telling them it’s absolutely safe, then it’s not ethical,” McBride said. “In many relatively wealthy people’s neighborhoods, I would think that people would research this a little and see a problem and raise a red flag.”

The Baltimore study used a compost of sludge mixed with sawdust and wood chips packaged as “biosolids,” the term for sludge preferred by government and the waste industry.

“What we did was make the yards greener,” said Pat Tracey, a Johns Hopkins University community relations coordinator who recalled helping with the lawn work. “They were bald, bad yards. It was considered sterile fertilizer.”

Baltimore environmental activist Glenn Ross says choosing poor neighborhoods destined for demolition makes it hard to track a study’s participants. “If you wanted to do something very questionable, you would do it in a neighborhood that’s not going to be there in a few years,” he said.

HUD documents show the study’s lead author, Mark Farfel, has pursued several other studies of lead contamination including the risks of exposure from urban housing demolitions and the vacant lots left behind.

Farfel has since moved to New York, where he directs the World Trade Center Health Registry surveying tens of thousands of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. He denied repeated requests for interviews and referred questions to Baltimore’s Kennedy Krieger Institute, the children’s research facility that was the recipient of HUD grants with Farfel as project manager.

The institute referred questions to Joann Rodgers, a spokeswoman for Johns Hopkins. She said a review board within its medical school approved the study and the consent forms provided to families that participated. “The study did not test children or other family members living in the homes,” she said.

Some of Farfel’s previous research has been controversial.

In 2001, Maryland’s highest court chastised him, Kennedy Krieger and Johns Hopkins over a study bankrolled by EPA in which researchers testing low-cost ways to control lead hazards exposed more than 75 poor children to lead-based paint in partially renovated houses.

Families of two children alleged to have suffered elevated blood-lead levels and brain damage sued the institute and later settled for an undisclosed amount.

The Maryland Court of Appeals likened the study to Nazi medical research on concentration camp prisoners, the U.S. government’s 40-year Tuskegee study that denied treatment for syphilis to black men in order to study the illness and Japan’s use of “plague bombs” in World War II to infect and study entire villages.

“These programs were somewhat alike in the vulnerability of the subjects: uneducated African-American men, debilitated patients in a charity hospital, prisoners of war, inmates of concentration camps and others falling within the custody and control of the agencies conducting or approving the experiments,” the court said.

On the Net:
Baltimore study:
East St. Louis project:
Maryland lead lawsuit:
National Academy of Sciences’ report:

Global Warming or Pole Shifting?

from Polar Shift

Albert Einstein was “electrified” when he learned of Charles Hapgood’s theory in “Path of the Poles”, whereby ice build-up at the polar caps could eventually cause the crust to “slide” over the lava ocean until the centrifugal force of the spinning Earth brought those ice caps around to the equator. Geological evidence suggests that something like this has happened repeatedly during the “life” of the planet; the magnetic poles seem to have shifted at least 171 known times. In other words, a “critical mass” of ice, coupled with an extremely high lunar influence, may be all that is necessary to trigger the next polar shift in the Earth’s crust; leading to massive earth quakes, volcanos, and tsunamis beyond the scope of our present imaginations. The spinning earth core maintains its usual momentum, the magnetic poles remain in place, but there appears to be a polar/earth shift because the crust has slid over the magnetic poles! Charles Hapgood’s theory has never been disproven.

Much as we hear about the ice melt-down at the poles due to climate change and global warming (supposedly caused by the activities of mankind), this is not in fact reducing the ice masses residing on polar land. The ice shelves are breaking away rapidly, but these ice masses floating upon the ocean have never added to any polar imbalance, and cannot cause a polar shift. On the other hand, a rise of one degree in the polar air temperatures will actually increase snowfall in those polar land regions simply because warm air is capable of carrying and depositing more moisture than cold air. In other words, even as the ice shelves are melting away, the land based snow, water, and ice masses are building up even more rapidly in Antarctica and in the northern areas of Greenland. This may very well be a natural and reccurring phenomena. In fact, recent revelations seem to confirm that 2 miles thick of pack ice on Antarctica has built up in as little as 4000 years! For many years scientists thought Antarctica has been ice laden for hundreds of thousands of years. They reasoned that each repeating pattern of ice rings showing alternating packed snow and solid ice represented the annual seasons of winter and summer. In other words, one ring pattern equaled one year. And there are around 200,000 such rings in a 2 mile ice core sample. But recently that has been brought into question. It seems that those ring patterns simply represent snow/thaw/freeze cycles; cycles that can actually repeat themselves several times in a single day! So, if there are only 75 such cycles in a year, the entire 2 miles of ice and snow on Antarctica was deposited since 100 AD. It is probably more likely, however, that 30 or 40 such cycles occur each year placing the beginning of ice on Antarctica around 4000-5000 years ago. Interestingly enough, this would roughly corespond to the hypothesis of a polar shift occurring around that same time!

Gun Engine Explodes Fuel Efficiency

Bon Kulman interviews Kazimierz Holubowicz, inventor of the gun engine, which was designed with the objective of increasing engine efficiency from 20% to much more than that.

by Bon Kulman
for Pure Energy Systems News

Kazimierz Holubowicz shows the gun engine he invented.
Source: Robyn Stubbs; 24 hours; Canoe

MQ: I suppose we should start by first getting a little information on yourself. What is your background and what lead you to start developing the Gun-engine?

I’m a physicist skilled in QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) rather than in engines. Severely crippled, over sixty, I’ve been on social assistance since a stroke paralyzed my body over 8 years ago. Therefore I sit in an empty (subsidized) apartment, and instead of being depressed I try to save our planet earth, meaning that I think and invent.

One day, busy with trying to develop a theory of anti-gravity, I had been moved to Earth by my son Greg (I have three sons and a daughter). Greg challenged me to improve combustion engines, before completing my anti-gravity theory. He said that every engine is only 20% efficient and that was unbelievable. I said that if that is true, I would have no problem improving engines.

He insisted that it is true, so I accepted the challenge saying:
– “Three-phase electric motors are about 94 % efficient so it would be difficult to improve that;
– “Dear son any device that is only 20% efficient should be easy to improve;
– “It should be easy because the inefficiency must be caused by a very poor design, so it is only to change the principle of operation and the design.”

My son laughed!

I sat and wrote a plan to go ahead with a new challenge. 8 years later I received certificates of filing for patents from patent offices. (patent pending)

Q: How does the Gun-engine differ from standard automotive engines that are on the market? What makes your design better?

My gun-engine has many things in common with a traditional engine, (induction and exhaust evacuation valves, crankshaft, etc.) yet it is different since it explodes fuel; traditional engines cannot withstand the explosions. The key point of difference is that the explosions of fuel vapor pre-mixed with air (homogeneous fuel) do not act on the primary piston that produces work, but rather on an additional piston that floats on a compressible air pocket. This arrangement introduces certain delaying of pressure building over the primary piston that produces work. This provides the important opportunity to improve torque up to 70 to 90 times without fuel consumption increase.

Also, the arrangement changed torque vs. Speed, and power vs. speed characteristics. The torque is independent of speed, and power is in proportion to speed, which eliminates the need to use transmission or reduction gears. In addition, this new arrangement eliminates the need for advancing the ignition, which is responsible for related parasitic torque in every traditional engine. Therefore the arrangement also allows development of transmission-free gadgetry such as cars and trucks.

Every traditional engine is infested with causes of inefficiency; therefore, it is bad by design. I’ve eliminated most of the causes, so I believe my gun-engine is better by design. One of the most important causes of the inefficiency is the waste of heat by cooling through a radiator. Another not less important cause of the inefficiency is the release of hot, incompletely-expanded exhaust. I’ve replaced the radiator — the major cause of the inefficiency in every traditional engine — with an internal cooling that preserves heat, which could be converted into extra work.

I’ve integrated a gun with this engine, therefore the expansion of exhaust is to, or even below, the atmospheric pressure.

Traditional engines work in a four stroke cycle, (some in a two stroke cycle) yet my gun-engine uses a four-stroke cycle during starting and to reach the destined speed, upon which it switches automatically to a twelve-stroke cycle that converts all the energy released from fuel into work.

The twelve-stroke cycle comprises:
– an induction stroke to supply fuel vapor with air into explosion chamber;
– a compression stroke to initiate explosions trough the compression heat;
– primary power stroke similar to that in traditional engines and;
– up to four compression and four extra power strokes that convert this energy that is wasted in traditional engines into extra work.

The conversion does quadruple the efficiency over that of traditional engines, and in combination with elimination of transmission, allows construction of a vehicle capable of exceeding 220 mpg in mileage.

Q: How do you see your Gun-engine competing with the best of today’s engines in the market place? When do you see your engine entering the market?

To begin with, this engine is cheaper to produce due to elimination of some production processes and complexities. As the gun-engine can accept any fuel, including hydrogen, the owner of the vehicle could select the most economic fuel on the market. With the greatly-improved mileage of a transmission-free vehicle exceeding 220 mpg would naturally eliminate traditional engines from the market altogether.

In addition, if properly financed, the gun-engine should prevent the highly-advertised fuel cell from entering into market as its efficiency is much below that of my gun-engine. I do believe that Hydrogen should not be wasted as oil resources have been, so my advice is to rethink the fuel cell technology. It should be perfected prior to entering into mass production stage.

I also believe that the gun-engine which could use existing and futuristic fuel infrastructure is a much better alternative to highly financed, pretty expensive, yet not very reliable technology, the mass production of which does not exist. However, the existing production facilities and methods for traditional engines could easily be adapted to mass-produce the gun-engine.

I also think that a device that could accept many fuels or fuel blends is much better alternative to one which runs only on very pure Hydrogen.

Q: Can your Gun-engine be scaled down?

Indeed it can. I’ve even written a paper on the subject titled “Improving mileage” that I would distribute at the Arno Technology Fair in Hanover. The president of that fair granted me a free booth, so that I could present my technology as a better alternative to fuel cells there.

Q: With all the current claims about the hydrogen economy, what do you see happening if your engine was brought to market? Would it supplant or support it?

I do believe that a full-scale introduction of my engine into the market would cause a temporary disturbance of the oil market. It would certainly have the same impact as a sudden increase of oil production to an unimaginable level, like quadrupling the supply of oil. That would certainly eliminate imports of oil into North America.

Yet the most important would be the impact of savings of fuel reaching the stunning level of 90 % of fuel production. While part of the money could be used to increase the quality of life, most of that money could be reinvested into more profitable ventures. This would eliminate unemployment and move North America into a never-known golden age when everybody would have good income and medical care.

Yet the most visible impact would be on the environment, as this new efficient gun engine would have the same effect as taking out of our streets and roads up to 90% of vehicles. Indeed preservation of oil resources for generations to come would certainly prolong time needed to build the Hydrogen Infrastructure, which would ease transition to a hydrogen era. Yet the most important result is that the oil monopoly would not be replaced with a hydrogen monopoly, since every individual, farmer, logger or trucker would be able to fuel his vehicle or tractor with home-made fuel. Indeed the gun-engine supports existing as well as futuristic infrastructures.

Q: What is your vision for the next 5-10 years? Where do you see the global energy infrastructure going?

I do not think five or ten years from now would be different than today, because those in power rather care for their own career than for the country or the World. One voice of this inventor could not convince these that it is worthwhile to invest as little as, let’s say, $200,000 into this technology as a scientific grant. Professors at Universities would do their best to prevent that from happening and those at NRC do not have any knowledge nor will to do that. The changes could come when we are out of oil and have not yet developed any hydrogen infrastructure. My role as an inventor is to provide the opportunity.

Politicians decide if that is worth to try, but the new government in Canada, very much under the sway of the Bush administration, is leading that country away from supporting the Kyoto Accord. [Editor’s comment: It’s why the current Canadian Prime Minister’s election campaign was financed by Alberta and international oil interests; they knew they could count on him to put their agenda first. And he has complied by already canceling government programs designed to promote reducing emissions, and no doubt will also follow George Bush’s announced way of reducing oil pricing – by removing environmental controls!] You could predict on your own the chances of this project to succeed.

Q: Do you have any interested investors or companies looking at the gun-engine?

I had some but could not accept the conditions. As for today I am trying to convince a certain European engine manufacturer to produce a large marine version of the gun-engine as vessel’s thrust would be 200,000 Hp power at 100 RPM. I would meet in Germany with CEO of German Industry, but am not very optimistic. I’m not very optimistic since these companies want exclusive rights and I would want to preserve that universal right for myself, so would negotiate only one particular application and one particular power. I have three partners of my soon-to-be-registered enterprise that would be privately owned to reduce overhead. I’m obliged to keep it confidential so would not tell you what application we would try to introduce to market.

Q: How lightweight would a vehicle be that uses your engine? Does the gun-engine require expensive composites?

A vehicle that uses the gun-engine would be little less heavy, (elimination of transmission and lighter gun-engine) yet its production costs would be only a fraction of that of current engine, since many manufacturing processes could be eliminated and the gun-engine does not require difficult processes or not-yet-developed materials. In addition, only these parts exposed to explosions of fuel would need to be made out of metal. The rest could be made of mould-injected plastics, and this manufacturing process is less expensive than metal processing.

Q: Why has nobody thought of this concept before? Were they stuck in the “same old, same old” routine?

How could I know why nobody else has not thought about a concept like mine? I cannot answer this question, because I do not answer questions I do not know the answer to. But you could answer why haven’t you thought about similar concept. Could you?

# # #


* Email from Bon Kulman, April 30, 2006, covering his email interviews with Kazimierz Holubowicz from Feb. 19 – March 3, 2006.


* Edited by Mary-Sue Haliburton.

Abu Dhabi and the Masdar Initiative

Masdar City will be the world’s first zero-carbon, zero-waste, car-free city, meeting or exceeding a set of stringent sustainability goals established under the “One Planet Living” program established by WWF and environmental consultancy BioRegional.

Located just outside of Abu Dhabi, the six square kilometer city will be powered by solar energy. Electricity will be generated from photo-voltaic panels which will power everything from the city’s transportation system to its desalination plants.

Masdar City

Set to open in late 2009, the land surrounding Masdar will contain wind, photovoltaic farms, research fields and plantations, so that the city will be entirely self-sustaining, the architect said. All wastewater will be purified and recycled to grow plants that could be used for bio-fuels.

Masdar City will also be the home of the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, which backers hope will attract some of the best academics from the around the world. Also envisioned are research and development facilities from multinational companies and start-ups in the clean technology area.

One Planet Living

The One Planet Living Program is based on 10 unique principles of sustainability:

* ZERO CARBON 100 per cent of energy supplied by renewable energy — Photovoltaics, concentrated solar power, wind, waste to energy and other technologies

* ZERO WASTE 99 per cent diversion of waste from landfill (includes waste reduction measures, re-use of waste wherever possible, recycling, composting, waste to energy)

* SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT Zero carbon emissions from transport within the city; implementation of measures to reduce the carbon cost of journeys to the city boundaries (through facilitating and encouraging the use of public transport, vehicle sharing, supporting low emissions vehicle initiatives)

* SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS Specifying high recycled materials content within building products; tracking and encouraging the reduction of embodied energy within material sand throughout the construction process; specifying the use of sustainable materials such as Forest Stewardship Council certified timber, bamboo and other products

* SUSTAINABLE FOOD Retail outlets to meet targets for supplying organic food and sustainable and or fair trade products

* SUSTAINABLE WATER Per capita water consumption to be at least 50 per cent less than the national average; all waste water to be re-used

* HABITATS AND WILDLIFE All valuable species to be conserved or relocated with positive mitigation targets

* CULTURE AND HERITAGE Architecture to integrate local values.

* EQUITY AND FAIR TRADE Fair wages and working conditions for all workers (including construction) as defined by international labour standards

* HEALTH AND HAPPINESS Facilities and events for every demographic group

In June 2007, Masdar City received the first World Clean Energy Award from the Transatlantic21 Association in Basel, Switzerland. In September 2007, the city’s design was voted “Sustainable Region/ City of the Year” at Euromoney and Ernst & Young’s Global Renewable Energy Awards.

For high-resolution renderings of Masdar City please contact Laura Misselbrook ph: + 44 207 344 1285 e: or Kirstin McKellar ph: +44 207 344 1277 e: