Laura Cozumeleno
Registered
No.
Even when we already have the highest power rates in whole Mexican Republic.
Anyway, this project had no intention to benefit Cozumel´s residents at all.
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
No.
Even when we already have the highest power rates in whole Mexican Republic.
Anyway, this project had no intention to benefit Cozumel´s residents at all.
Do you really think this is a "REAL" project? Do you know how many "projects" have been proposed for that area and fallen apart. There is an entire army of environmentalists ready to block it and they do have the "power". Why do you think the east side has had no electricity since 1988. There are many protected animals and habitats there that just cannot be compromised. If it is a real "project", which I doubt, the fight will have just begun.
Dave Dillehay
Aldora Divers
Dave Dillehay
Aldora Divers
No project is real until it gets built. That's why I thought it was a bit silly for folks to be arguing over whether or not the towers would survive a hurricane when they were not even designed yet.
OP
alexunderpressure
Registered
Anyway you cut it this thing was very real.
OP
alexunderpressure
Registered
Prop Joe
Contributor
- Messages
- 940
- Reaction score
- 580
- Location
- NW suburb of Chicago, Illinois USA
- # of dives
- I just don't log dives
Nylorac
Contributor
OP
alexunderpressure
Registered
Well, Nylorac, I thought (and many ppl were very positive) that spreading the word would bring some empathy tto this very real threat, if you read the documents posted on this thread, you´ll see this was no joke, or pipedrem project.
Many of the info and the researchers of SEMARNAT got, was from local marine biologists, check
German R. Mendez on facebook.
The rejection of the population played a key role.
SEMARNAT decided against the project, thankfully.
I think that as divers, and human beings, we want Cozumel to be prserved, enough damage is done already. We´re fed up with these guys.
http://www.lucesdelsiglo.mx/index.p...co-de-cozumel-esperan-actuacion-de-la-profepa
Cozumel deny Wind Farm, expected performance Profepa
The estate of 6000 acres where the project would be carried out was denied by SEMARNAT, Mexico should be returned by Power Group to State Heritage Institute (IEEP) of Quintana Roo.
By Isela Serrano
For inconsistencies and violations of Local Ecological Program (Poel), the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) refused permission Cozumel Wind Farm project which planned to install 114 wind turbines on the island.
"Nobody pushes Semarnat. We do not have any kind of commitment. Perhaps from the point of view of power generation, the project has been great, but from the environment was not, or could not be proved that in that sense could not be approved, "said Gabriela Lima Laurents delegate.
She explained that during the assessment made by the management of Environmental Impact and Risk, devolved from Semarnat, it was found that the impact area is regulated by the POEL prohibiting the installation of infrastructure to generate electricity and drive, plus it the program restricts cutting, cutting, burning and removal of natural vegetation, and had affected a Ramsar site, designated 1921, mangroves and wetlands.
This is compounded by the petitioner company did not provide the link of the Standard 022 TER with Article 60 of the General Law of Wildlife, and maintained that the aerogenerados not propitiate one or more species, including some in NOM-059, were declared in danger of extinction.
Also presented impressions and inconsistencies in the description that the environmental authority prevented the dimensions, location and extent of the wind farm.
The company clarified to lights that signature Century Mexico Power Group has a legitimate right to resubmit the Environmental Impact Assessment (MIA), however, the signature must be considered that the prohibitions of the orders are not possible to compensate.
"When there is a ban how can you do? You should say 'we will not withdraw or are going to do this or that way of structures'. If there is an express prohibition in that sense, it would have to deny (the authorization), "he said.
He mentioned that it is very important that the citizens of Quintana Roo know if a project does not mean that Semarnat authorized, but subject to assessment, he said.
"There were many statements, demonstrations, petitions and letters. It seemed that it was assumed that the wind farm is going to authorize Cozumel. Precisely dependency work is to determine whether or not feasible within the ordinances adopted by the municipality, "he said. He mentioned that the public can feel confident that the environmental authority act.
Start time of termination of the contract ...
Century Enlightenment revealed, edition 465, a usufruct contract concluded between Romanillos Claudia Villanueva, director general character IPAE and Messrs. John Douglas Barron Prock and Adolfo Gonzalez Espinosa, company representatives Mexico Power Group, who formed a variable capital corporation for the operation of the wind farm.
The document, signed on September 29, 2011, states that the company would start construction within a maximum period of 180 days from the date you obtain authorizations, however, given the refusal of SEMARNAT, starts the time of termination.
Thirteenth Clause. Termination clause (III) states: "The requirement to return possession of the property and the date by which you must do, not to exceed 60 calendar days from the demand to return to the usufructuary the supplier thereof ".
The paper, 24 sheets, provides that "within that period, regardless of the legal actions that could exert, consents and authorizes the IPAE into immediate possession thereof and expressly disclaims the exercise of any criminal, civil or of any other nature against IPAE, their representatives, agents, officers, servants and generally of any of its employees for such a situation. "
The Federal Environmental Protection (Profepa), led by Guy Adrian Herrera Piña, Quintana Roo delegate must respond to complaints filed against the company, which placed monitoring towers and roads opened without the appropriate permits and yes make changes in land use without permission, especially in the case of forest land with protected species.
Another controversial project
The delegate of SEMARNAT, stated on the draft Dragon Mart Cancun: "We have no knowledge of the subject. According to what has been said, the project would be carried out on an area of ​​sascabera, these are areas already impacted and as such, does not require authorization from the federal government, but the state government.
"The Chinese company has not consulted Semarnat" he said. Someone apparently knows where it will carry out the project site informed me, in that case, to be impacted areas, Semarnat would not interfere.
AIM: The delegate Gabriela Lima Laurents confirmed that the authorization of the Environmental Impact Assessment (MIA) for the approval of "wind farm in Cozumel" was discussed and rejected by the headquarters of the company dependence Mexico Power Group.
QUOTE: "There are private negotiations. We have no interference with them. Neither know. That is something that the company would have to do with the state government. We subject ourselves to the laws that the law requires us to take into account to make a resolute ": Gabriela Lima Lautents referring to the contract signed between Mexico Power Group with IPAE.
That's not at all what I meant. They were not designed yet, so it's silly to argue about their design.
If the project were to have been approved, there is no doubt in my mind that hurricanes would have been considered. As bad news as it would have been for folks on the island for a wind farm to catastrophically fail in a hurricane, it would have been much worse (financially) for the engineering firm who designed it, the ultimate owners of the hardware, and the underwriters of whatever entity insured it. To think that they would not have considered THAT and protected themselves by building the towers sufficiently robust is ludicrous.
If fraud is the concern, what I would be more suspicious of is that proper studies were not done to establish that the wind resource at the proposed location is sufficient to drive the turbines effectively. Since one cannot guarantee that the wind will blow, there is lots of room for fraudulence in that arena. IMO, it is far more likely that the thing would be built and then not produce than that it would be built and then get knocked over by the first hurricane strike.
FWIW, I am an engineer in commercial and utility scale renewable energy design (solar), and I am not a stranger to this stuff.
Similar threads
