EXCELLENT NEWS!!!!! The wind park has been DENIED by SEMARNAT!!!! They may appeal it, but at least for now permission denied!!!!
A cry for help. Destruction of cozumel starting in 2013
- Thread starter alexunderpressure
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
OP
alexunderpressure
Registered
Did you like the blenny Mike?
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike
Contributor
It is wonderful. Good job!
That's a distraction; it's not how the grid works. Energy goes to where the demand is and I'm pretty sure that Cozumel is connected to the national grid by the underwater transmission lines that land at the lighthouse a mile or so south of San Miguel. If the proposed turbines are producing less than Cozumel is using at some point in time, all the energy is staying on the island. I'm not against you, truly, but if your argument is based on misconceptions, then your opposition will pick it apart.
OP
alexunderpressure
Registered
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=306676949429492&set=a.1070450027260 22.9955.100002615673578&type=1&theater
Semarnat Quintana Roo
PROJECT DISCLAIMS SEMARNAT "WIND FARM COZUMEL"
• Refuse permission for contravening the provisions of Articles 30, 35, section III, paragraphs a) and b) LGEEPA and 10, section I, 13, 44 and 45, section III of the REIA.
Semarnat reported that the Wind Farm Project Cozumel was rejected by the General Directorate of Environmental Impact and Risk due to inaccuracies and inconsistencies in his description that do not allow the dimensions, location and scope thereof.
The project is governed by the Local Ecological Program of the Municipality of Cozumel, Quintana Roo, which prohibits the installation of communication infrastructure and conduct electricity as well as those related to flora and fauna, which prohibit cutting, burning or removal natural vegetation.
The project would impact on the Ramsar site called 1921 Mangroves and Wetlands North of the Island of Cozumel, without showing the relationship of it with NOM-022-SEMARNAT-2003 and 60 B of the General Law on Wildlife.
The petitioner did not support the project that was not conducive to one or more species are declared as threatened or endangered, some of them included in the NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010.
The project was denied because it contravenes the provisions of Articles 30, 35, section III, paragraphs a) and b) LGEEPA and 10, section I, 13, 44 and 45, section III of the REIA.
Thanks for replying, as you can read above, the project was rejected. Cozumel would need 8 turbines, they wanted to erect 114 or 115.
I'm happy that the project failed to get the approval it needed to go forward, but I don't see where what you submitted refuted what I said. I have my doubts that 8 turbines would supply all the electrical needs of Cozumel (though it's not possible to go off grid with only wind power, anyway), but that's really beside the point; anyone who lives near a point of generation of grid electricity can accurately say that the energy being produced near them is mostly going somewhere else.
It sounds like the fears that the corrupt Mexican government would just plow under the concerns of folks worried about the flora and fauna of the island were unfounded. That's good news.
caseybird
Contributor
Would you guys accept 8 turbines on the East Side to power Cozumel? If it cut your electric bill?
OP
alexunderpressure
Registered
From what I´ve heard in the meetings, even with the mayor, ppl are not as concerned with the electric bill as much as how it can afect the island ecosystem
If the island, as an ecosystem, could take eight mills without damage ppl may say yes, but 114/115 as you read in the SEMARNAT statement, would damage Cozumel.
---------- Post Merged at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 04:23 PM ----------
YYEEEEEESSSSS!!!!
http://www.el-periodico.com.mx/noticias/dan-%E2%80%9Ctiro-de-gracia%E2%80%9D-al-parque-eolico/
The delegate of SEMARNAT in Quintana Roo, Gabriela Lima Laurents, clarified that there is no going back in the case of "wind farm in Cozumel", as the project was rejected in its entirety, without any time limit for editing.
While the petitioner-company-Mexico Power Group can present another evaluation project, would have to modify the main thing: Its location, combined with all the "serious deficiencies and inconsistencies" that presents.
"Anyone who says otherwise is mistaken or misinformed," said the official, with versions that circulated on the possible adjustment to the work, in terms of reducing the number of 115 wind turbines to be installed off the coast of Cozumel.
"No ... because it was rejected by the number of towers, but by their location, in an area where it is prohibited by the Local Ecological Program build electricity infrastructure," he explained.
A reading at resolving the Directorate General of Environmental Impact and Risk (DGIRA) of SEMARNAT, published yesterday, confirmed the finding of Lima Laurents and allows observing the number of reasons why the project was denied.
One of them, emanating from the same municipality of Cozumel and beyond the effect on birds. It turns out that the project is not necessary.
This was concluded and reported to Semarnat the Planning Committee for Municipal Development island (COPLADEMUN).
"No project size justifies the current and future energy needs of the community of Cozumel," the statement said.
In addition, the COPLADEMUN warned that "underestimated the impact on the aquifer, water quality and interference with undercurrents", not to mention that "not evaluated effectively direct impact on birds," as well as the impacts of noise on residents and tourists.
The opinion of COPLADEMUN Semarnat was referred to during the period in which the federal agency opened the public consultation process, at the request of the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (Cemda)
In that sense, the bulk of the technical opinions requested by SEMARNAT and offered by those who participated in the public consultation, agree adverse impacts that the work would result not only in the biodiversity of the area.
For example, the Ecosystems Research Center of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), accessed by SEMARNAT, ruled:
"The system and installation of access roads to the turbines is perhaps the greatest environmental impact Cozumel Wind Farm."
The institution explained that the 100 kilometers of roads with width of 12 meters occupy an area greater than that currently occupies the perimeter road on the island.
"These access roads and installation completely destroy natural vegetation (tropical forest, lowland forest, mangrove and tasistal) and internal gaps that exist in that area and they are roosting and nesting sites for waterfowl," is abundant .
Another of the most severe impacts have to do with the water resource and Mexico Power Group Company did not deliver a single study to measure.
The Ecosystems Research Centre of UNAM appointment to anchor each of the 115 wind towers should have been drilled cylinders of 10.27 meters and 5.21 meters in diameter, when the aquifer of the island lies a few meters the surface, "so it is very safe damage and contaminate the same"
"The sascaberas located in the eastern part of the island (which is intended to carry out the project) can not drill and extract material to more than five feet deep, otherwise reach the water table and flood water facilities," adds .
On August 15 DGIRA resolved to deny the environmental impact authorization because of "serious inaccuracies" in the MIA, Regional modality developed by the Spanish consulting, Melissa, and in contravention of article 35 of the General Law of Ecological Balance and Protection Environmental (LEGEEPA) and the Cozumel Poel.
Article 35 of the Mexican Environmental Law, in section III and paragraphs a) and b) provides that the agency must deny authorization when contravenes the provisions of this Act, the regulations, the official Mexican standards and other general provisions.
Also when the work or activity can promote assessed one or more species that are declared threatened or endangered, or when it affects one of these species.
DGIRA discovered during the evaluation, the company sought to hide or omitted to inform that the project would be in Environmental Management Units (UGA) that prevent the realization of this work.
The company said the site where the project would be located in the Environmental Management Unit (UGA A9), in the industrial north and the UGAs A8, A11, A12 and C4, in the industrial south.
However, it fails to mention it would also immersed in six UGAs: C2, C5, C6, C7, C9, and P1, with environmental protection policies and conservation, which makes it "incompatible with POEL", an argument with management General Environmental Policy and Regional Integration and Sectoral (DGPAIRS).
Similar threads
