Archive for April, 2010

Article from Creamer Media:

The South African government indicated on Wednesday that the proposed $3,75-billion World Bank loan for Eskom was a component of a larger $6-billion “funding window” with the bank, and that an additional $1,25-billion could flow to the State-owned power utility specifically for emission-reduction projects. This funding would be over and above the initial Eskom package, which was due to be voted upon in Washington DC on Thursday.

In a briefing note issued the day before the vote, the National Treasury reiterated that the Eskom application had been premised on the “fundamental belief that developing countries must be allowed to develop their energy security” in the “most cost effective and sustainable matter”.

It also indicated that it had not yet decided whether it would draw on the remaining $1-billion of the $6-billion on offer, saying only that this capital could be directed towards large infrastructure developments in the country.

The South African government would, however, resubmit a $250-million application to the World Bank-administered Clean Technology Fund (CTF) to help kick-start renewable energy programmes in the country.

The immediate focus, however, was on securing the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) loan for Eskom, which had drawn opposition from some environmental groups and politicians.

It was far from clear on Wednesday, whether some governments, including the US and the UK, would vote in favour of the Eskom loan, owing to the fact that the bulk of the proceeds ($3,05-billion) would flow to the 4 800-MW Medupi coal-fired power project, which is being developed in Limpopo province.

World Bank President Robert Zoellick defended the loan package in a letter to a group of US lawmakers who raised questions about the bank’s support for the coal project.

US Congressman Barney Frank and US Senators John Kerry and Patrick Leahy have reportedly sought assurances from the bank that Eskom will extend electricity to the poor; that the use of renewable energy will be increased; and that Eskom will retrofit its facilities with additional environmental safeguards.

In its note, the National Treasury insisted that Medupi had already been factored into its Copenhagen Accord commitments, while the project was employing “supercritical technology” that was akin to what would be pursued in developed economies. It also indicated that renewable energy would be pursued under the country’s long-term integrated resource plan and that government was still targeting to achieve universal electrification by 2014. Poor households, the National Treasury pointed out, already received free basic electricity of 50 kWh a month.

“Coal is still the least-cost, most viable, and technically feasible option for meeting the base-load power needs required by Africa’s largest economy,” Zoellick said in his letter, adding that the bank was balancing the development benefits of project with other environmental objectives.

“South Africa represents one-third of sub-Saharan Africa’s economy, so slowdowns precipitated by lack of energy will ripple throughout the continent,” Zoellick wrote.

A New York Times article indicated that international public financial institutions have invested $37-billion to help finance 88 coal plants over the past 15 years, many in Asia, quoting a 2009 report by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).

The EDF calculated that future annual carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from the financing of ongoing coal-generating capacity and additions would be some 791-million tons yearly – the equivalent to the emissions of France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Ireland combined, or 90% of the annual emissions of Germany, the European Union’s single largest source of CO₂.

WHAT ABOUT CHANCELLOR HOUSE?

The National Treasury also partly addressed concerns raised by South African opposition parties about the fact that some of the proceeds of the loan could flow directly into the coffers of the governing African National Congress (ANC), owing to the fact that Chancellor House (an ANC company) had a shareholding in Hitachi Africa, which is supplying Medupi with boilers.

“Regarding the Chancellor House-Hitachi contract, government is mindful of some of the concerns raised in this regard.

“Government is, and will continue to engage with all concerned stakeholders on this important question with a view to having a constructive dialogue.

“We will ensure that we have a transparent framework to deal with matters such as these,” the National Treasury said in its note.

Earlier, Energy Minister Dipuo Peters said that all enquiries with regard to Chancellor House, and whether it should be invested in Hitachi, should be directed to the Treasurer-General of the ANC, Mathews Phosa. However, she, like government, did not see the shareholding as an impediment to the granting of the World Bank loan.

But a report by Sake24 indicated that the World Bank, which supported the loan, was also sensitive to the matter. It quoted senior spokesperson Sarwat Hussain as saying that the planned loan would not be awarded to any contract in which Hitachi was involved.

The World Bank’s own review of the proposed loan and the underlying project indicated that some $3,05-billion would be directed to the Medupi project for the supply and installation of civil construction contracts for “the power plant and associated transmission lines”.

A further $260-million of the IBRD loan would be directed towards supporting the development and the 100-MW Sere wind farm and the 100-MW Upington concentrating solar power project, while $440-million would directed towards the Majuba Rail project.

In Hawaii, a power developer will soon find out if earth and sky mix.

Pacific Light & Power will build a 10-megawatt solar thermal plant that will combine a trough solar collector from Spain’s Albiasa with a turbine traditionally used in geothermal systems.

Why? Ten megawatts is unusually small for a solar thermal field. BrightSource Energy, by contrast, wants to build one in California that will produce 396 megawatts of power. Most solar thermal systems, however, collect heat from the sun to turn water into steam and then feed the steam into gigantic turbines. The heat requirements and the size of the solar thermal fields mean that solar thermal parks can only be built economically in places like North Africa or Arizona where the sun shines almost every day of the year, lots of empty land exists, and humidity remains almost nonexistent. Even the presence of a few clouds can depress the power output.

Geothermal turbines swap water and steam for organic fluids like butane, which turn to vapor at lower temperatures. Thus, geothermal turbines require less heat, which in turn allows for smaller solar fields in a wider range of climates and geographies. Like traditional solar thermal systems, excess heat can be stored and run through the system in the evening or when cloud cover descends.

Jesse Tippett, the managing director of Albiasa, likens it to thin-film solar panels. The underlying technology may not be as efficient but it can generate energy in a wider variety of circumstances.

When completed in 2011, the plant — located on the island of Kauai — will provide close to seven percent of the power needed on the island.

Alibasa and PLP describe it as a hybrid plant, but it’s more of an unusual concatenation. Generally, hybrid plants are power plants that combine renewable energy generation — like solar thermal systems or biogas burners — with gas turbines to provide more baseline-like power. Florida Power and Light and Abengoa are currently building hybrid plants.

Power from the plant will be “close to Hawaiian (grid) parity,” he said, which means expensive. Electric power in Hawaii costs around 25.78 cents a kilowatt hour, the highest rate in the U.S., according to the Energy Information Administration. Hawaii generates most of its power from diesel generators. But Albiasa will study ways to bring the cost down to make these systems feasible elsewhere.

DUBAI, Apr 4th, 2010: In one of the region s landmark sustainability initiatives, Burj Khalifa, the world s tallest building developed by Emaar Properties in Dubai, is tapping solar power for meeting a bulk of the water heating requirements of residents.

A perfect complement to the sustainable development initiatives spearheaded by the UAE, Burj Khalifa uses solar panels to heat 140,000 litres of water every day, which will be distributed to homes and commercial entities within the tower. The solar powered water brings energy savings equivalent to 3,200 kilo watts per day and 690MWh of energy per annum. The thermal energy initiative at Burj Khalifa highlights Emaar s commitment to partner in the Government s sustainable development goals, according Ahmad Al Matrooshi, Managing Director UAE, Emaar Properties. “Energy efficient measures, especially through use of renewable sources, are not an option but an imperative for sustainable growth. By leveraging solar power, Burj Khalifa is setting an example as well as creating a referral mark on how urban developments can effectively integrate energy-friendly initiatives,” he added. The solar heating system is installed and operated by SOLE UAE Solar Systems, the oldest solar thermal company in Europe. “Burj Khalifa presented us a remarkable opportunity to use solar energy to meet the water heating needs of residents in the tower. The significant benefits include cost savings on energy uses not only for the tower but the Government utility provider too as well as reduced pollution levels leading to a healthier environment,” said John Owen of SOLE UAE.

The solar panels of Burj Khalifa serve as solar collectors, as against photovoltaic electricity generation technology. Located on roof of The Offices, the annexure of Burj Khalifa, 378 collector panels, each 7ر2 sq m in area, can heat the entire 140,000 litres of water in approximately 7 hours of day time solar radiation. Among other key sustainable energy and water use measures, the condensate from all the air-conditioning equipment in Burj Khalifa is reclaimed to cool the potable water from Dubai Electricity & Water Authority. The condensate is then collected in an on-site irrigation tank and used for tower s landscaping. When operational, this system will provide about 15 million gallons of supplemental water per year. Within the confines of Burj Khalifa s architectural design that ofa tall building with a fully glazed fa ade and little solar shading – a concerted effort has been made in the design and construction to make it environment-friendly. To ensure energy efficiency, Fresh Air Handling Units have been fitted with thermal wheels and, wherever possible, economizer modes. Additionally, there is extensive use of variable speed drives on the air-handling and water-circulating equipment to also add to energy efficiency.

The air-conditioning and water systems also incorporate extensive energy saving control systems to reduce part load energy consumption. Burj Khalifa s cladding system is constructed to high standards with a high shading co-efficient and a low U-value to reduce the transfer of external heat gains. Additional energy use efficiency measures in place include automated solar shading at entrance pavilions. Burj Khalifa also features several measures to reduce water consumption /WC/ including water flow restrictors and low water volume WC installed in all public areas. Burj Khalifa is a mixed-use tower featuring luxurious residences, commercial suites and the world s first Armani Hotel and Armani Residences. The tower also has a rich array of luxurious amenities including four swimming pools, an exclusive residents lounge, health and wellness facilities, and At.mosphere, the world s highest fine dining restaurant at Level 122. At the Top, the world s highest observatory with an outdoor terrace, is already one of Dubai s most popular attractions. Burj Khalifa anchors Downtown Dubai, the 500-acre self-contained mega-development by Emaar Properties. Home-owner orientation is currently ongoing.

Copyright 2010 Emirates News Agency (WAM) – Emirates News Agency (WAM) All Rights Reserved Provided by Al Bawaba

Algae biofuels are often considered one of those technologies — like hydrogen fuel cells — that are always “ten years away.”  Well, one company says it might have just cracked the code and could be supplying lots of algae jet fuel and diesel in the coming years.

In the race for algae biofuel commercialization, people usually compare open ponds with photobioreactors.  Solazyme, however, bypasses photosynthesis (and conventional wisdom) by growing algae in dark fermentation tanks.

Grow algae in dark tanks?!  Isn’t that like putting solar panels on the dark side of the moon?!

Not really.

Most algae strains are photosynthetic and utilize the sun to transform C02 into useable energy.  Among the most productive and fastest growing organisms on the planet, algae can double in size daily and account for approximately 60% of the oxygen production on Earth.  Some strains comprise up to 50% of their body weight as a lipid (oil).

Excitement for algae in recent years has largely been driven by their superior yields.  For example, corn ethanol — the dominant feedstock for ethanol in the United States — yields the equivalence of 270 gallons of gasoline per acre per year.  Algae’s yields are somewhere between 1500-8000 gallons per acre per year — depending upon the strain’s genetics, growth method, access to key nutrients, and location.

In addition to superior yields, interest in algae has been driven by the fact that algae can thrive in wastewater, greywater, or salt water, can grow on marginal or desert land, consumes C02 as a feedstock, and could possible be used for wastewater remediation.

Algae also completely bypasses the “food vs. fuel” issues, Indirect Land Use Changes (seeInconvenient Truth: Biofuels Have a Carbon Footprint), downstream petroleum infrastructure incompatabilities, fresh water limitations, questionable energy and GHG emission balances, and all the other reasons why corn ethanol and most other First Generation biofuels are unsuitable candidates to ever wean us off our crack-like addiction to petroleum.

Although many of us believe in algae’s long-term prospects, its short-term viability has been limited by unfavorable economics — calling many to conclude that algae biofuels are all sizzle and little steak.

Although open ponds and photo-bioreactors (PBRs) have very different cap-ex and op-ex cost structures, both systems are defined by an algae lifecycle that goes something like this:

An algae strain must identified and/or optimized for maximum growth and potential to ward of invasive species.  The correct location must be found and as the algae grow, they need a constant supply of nutrients, C02, heat, and light which requires the consistent movement of water.  Once the algae grows to a sufficient mass, it must be harvested, dewatered, and dried before extraction of the oil can commence.  These steps are energy and capital intensive.

Once the oil is extracted, it is relatively simple to upgrade the fuel into jet fuel or diesel using traditional refinery techniques but still costs an additional $0.25-$0.40/gal.  Taken together, algae grown via open ponds and PBRs are estimated to currently cost $8-$30/gal. (see Biofuels 2010: Spotting the Next Wave).

While some companies like Synthetic Genomics are attempting to genetically modify algae strains to secrete the lipids as they grow (known as “wet extraction”) and others like OriginOil have developed a technology platform that reduces the aforementioned steps using fancy centrifuges and electromagnetic pulses, there are significant questions about the ability of these systems to scale.

Which brings us to Solazyme.

By growing their algae in dark vessels, the company does not incur the energy costs of providing the algae artificial light.  Heterotrophic fermentation requires a fraction of the amount of water as a PBR or open pond.  These strains of algae do not require C02 — which is widely accepted among algae experts as the one of the two largest logistical obstacle for photosynthetic algae commercialization. The other is removing the water, which isn’t an issue when growing it in dark vessels.

Solazyme will basically feed their algae sugar until they are large, round, and ready to explode with oil — kind of like Violet Beauregarde in Charlie in the Chocolate Factory.  The company has not disclosed its extraction method but claims that it will only cost several cents per gallon.

While Solazyme will need copious amounts of sugar to feed the algae which could catapult the company into the “food vs. fuel” debate — Solazyme has a supply agreement with second generation pioneer BlueFire Energy to obtain sugars derived from cellulosic (i.e. non-food) sources.

Given that the company is using fermentation — a well established technology used to make beer and ethanol—  creating and scaling facilities will not be as big of an impediment as the 150 or so other approaches that vacilliate from flooding the Arizona desert with seawater to extracting algae oil from live fish (see Live Fuels).

Still skeptical?

Solazyme has a few other tricks up its sleeve.

It is among the most well capitalized advanced biofuel companies raking in more than $100M since inception.  It recently received an additional $22M in DOE financing for its demonstration-scale facility to prove it is ready to scale to a commercial plant.

In the coming months, Solazyme will deliver 20,000 gallons of algae jet fuel to the U.S. Navy.  While 20,000 gallons will hardly scare the Saudis into turning Ghawar into an algae R&D lab, this number needs to be placed in the context of the fact that few — if any — other algae company has ever produced more than a few hundred gallons in their entire company’s operating history.

Additionally, Solazyme is already selling nutraceuticals, powered oils, and oleochemicals for $3-$10/lb.  The company anticipates that its total levelized costs will come down to $1.50-$2.00/gal by 2012.

We have even heard grumblings that the company is in the early stages of engineering on a 100 MGY commercial facility that would open in 2013.

Maybe algae isn’t ten years away afterall…

A slate roof can pose a serious problem for the installation of solar geysers. That’s why 90% of Greencon’s solar geysers installed on slate roves, have the geyser installed internally. We got some pictures to day from a team leader of an installation completed in Johannesburg.

Old flat plate solar geyser had served its 25yrs, it was time for a new solar geyser to be installed.

Notice, double story and quiet a mean pitch!

A new platform has to be built in the roof trusses for the new geyser, to be “housed”.

Using new Vacuum Tube technology. Great Job.

Among the murmurings surrounding the smart meter backlash in California and Texas, some have suggested that maybe those old meters weren’t so accurate in the first place.

It’s true, sort of. The mechanical meters that still adorn the sides of most homes in the U.S. are inaccurate slightly more often than smart meters, but it is not enough of a discrepancy to account for the wildly higher bills that have incensed customers.

Recent side-by-side testing by Oncor, the energy delivery company in Texas that has recently been battered with reports from irate customers, found mechanical and smart meter readings were somewhat close.

Oncor says it has not found a single smart meter to date that is inaccurate (except for about 1 percent that were installed incorrectly). However, about 5 percent of mechanical meters tested are usually found to be off.

Just how off is off? Oncor spokesman Chris Schein said nearly all of those meters were running slow, but generally they were only lagging behind by a few percent (mechanical meters are considered accurate within 2 percent). Thus, 5 percent of meters were lagging by a few percentage points.  Some utilities have reported instances of outright fraud, i.e., customers figuring out the schedule of meter readers in their areas and disabling the meters when they aren’t around. Fraud, though, is likely somewhat rare and isolated.

Itron, which formerly produced mechanical meters and now makes smart meters, said that older instruments generally have a lifespan of about 30 years before they start to slow down.

Even if nearly 150,000 of 3 million Oncor customers may be getting a break on their bills due to slow-paced meters, the aging infrastructure does not explain the extreme hike in bills with the switch to advanced metering.

“You’re not going to have that kind of spike,” Schein said. Pacific Gas & Electric spokesman Paul Moreno was also quick to point out that only a small percentage of analog meters were running slow when tested and are replaced afterwards.

Unseasonable temperatures, poor choices in home heating and cooling along with a lack of customer education are just some of the reasons utilities say people have seen a price increase with smart meters. Higher rates and temperatures could have occurred before the meters were installed, but the fact that the smart meters came in at the same time goes a long way toward explaining why many customers are clamoring for their old meters. Even though Oncor has done a small side-by-side testing of old versus new, it is obviously not enough to appease people who have seen their bills double or triple recently. Any reasoning for high bills by PG&E has also not instilled confidence in consumers.

Old-fashioned meters also come with built-in familiarity. They may not be perfect, but at least consumers have never had many reasons to question them.

Mentioning the slight inaccuracy of mechanical meters is only a disservice to customers who are obviously angry (and ill-informed in some cases) about what smart meters can do to help them take control of their energy usage. As of right now, it looks like there’s still an uphill battle to convince people that they should want to take control of their energy use in the first place, hence the recent announcement of a consumer group for smart grid.

If smart meter rollouts do not come with the demand pricing and software that allows people to better understand and tweak their home energy use from day one, accompanied by the education to allow people to embrace the technology, then it is easy to see why an aging mechanical meter looks as good as a smart meter.

In the race toward greener technologies, blue aims to be king.

Just weeks after announcements fromAutodesk that it would be taking its startup program across the Atlantic and from Veolia that its new incubator program would be looking to partner with cleantech startups around the world, IBM announced this morning its Global Entrepreneur Initiative, a program of such scale and depth that it almost seemed like Big Blue is trying to prove something.

The program takes what IBM did with its Solution Architecture for Energy and Utilities Framework (SAFE) rollout earlier this year and expands it to different industries and more startups. The SAFE program is an enterprise software made to be compatible on the one hand with any company’s smart grid application or service and on the other with any utility’s infrastructure. When it was released in September, IBM called the software the “glue” of the smart grid.

According to Drew Clark, director of strategy with IBM’s Venture Capital Group, the Global Entrepreneur Initiative takes that same idea — IBM as the infrastructure and thus the connector between new technologies and end users — and runs with it.

“The idea is not to just throw out some free software and assistance using it in the hopes that we’ll snag some startup that will accidentally hit on something we care about,” Clark says.

“This program is more of an onramp to help bridge the gap for smaller, early stage startups that have a difficult time engaging with customers. Take electric or water utilities. A small startup trying to have a meeting with the CIO of PG&E, for example, that wouldn’t happen, but we can make those connections.”

Open Door to Expertise, Connections

If that sounds like every venture capitalist’s dream come true, it’s not by accident.
Several years ago, when IBM was looking into launching its own venture fund, the venture capitalists it spoke with encouraged the company to instead create what is now the IBM Venture Capital Group, where Clark works. The division helps IBM stay on top of business and technology trends and find venture-backed companies with interesting technologies that might make good partners for the company.

While the Global Entrepreneur program does that as well, it goes further, providing startups with access to the company’s research community, as well as sales, marketing and technical skills. The program is focused primarily on early stage companies working on technologies that mesh with one of IBM’s Smarter Planet industries, which include energy and water.

Clark points out, not every startup that signs up for the program will wind up being an IBM partner:

“You have to play to win, as we say, so you have to think about how you combine your startup with IBM and the frameworks we’re supplying through this program will make that a lot easier. The second step is ensuring that your technology or service is something really special, something our customers will find appealing and useful.”

While IBM’s program, as Clark puts it, “goes way beyond just helping companies save a few bucks on software,” access to a variety of resources from various companies is proving hugely important to both cleantech startups and the companies that hope to either partner with them or, as is the case with some companies, turn them into clients. Autodesk’s Cleantech Partner Program, for example, provides software packages worth $150,000 to cleantech startups, and according to Susan Gladwin, Autodesk’s Cleantech Program manager, several of the 100 startups that have participated so far have used the company’s modeling software to streamline their products, thereby cutting costs.

Electric bike manufacturer Pi Mobility, for example, in the first three weeks that it had the software, created a digital prototype of its e-bike, was able to see that the diameter of the bike tube could be reduced by half an inch, and used that knowledge to shave $335,000 off its production costs.

By combining benefits like that with access to marketing, sales and research teams, as well as high-profile customers, IBM ensures that it will get first dibs on promising new technologies, and that’s exactly the position the company wants to be in.

“We’re all after the same thing, but I don’t see us as necessarily competing with companies like Veolia and Autodesk, both of which are to be commended for stepping up to this,” Clark says. “We’re operating in different markets, and Veolia is actually a customer of ours, so of course we want to help them find good technologies, too.

“We’re all out to find the next great innovations and to pull them through to our customers.”

Reaching Out to Startups Where They Live

In order to reach more early stage companies, IBM is also hosting a series of SmartCamps.

Hosted in various cities, the camps give early-stage companies the chance to get their ideas in front of IBM executives. The top five companies, selected after an online application process and short-list interviews of the top 20 companies, get a day-long mentoring session culminating with a pitch and Q&A session with industry experts and a cherry-picked audience of influencers and investors.

Also in the interest of reaching very early stage companies, IBM is partnering not only with venture capital firms but also with industry associations throughout the world, including the SD Forum, TiE Silicon Valley, Mass Tech Leadership Council, TiE Austin, MassInno and Dogpatch in the United States.

“To keep the deal flow going, it’s necessary for us to go out to where a lot of startups and entrepreneurs are, so partnering with organizations and consortia is important,” Clark says. “We plan to work closely with them so members of those organizations also become members of ours to get that crossover.”

Big Blue’s Universe

Once companies have been sufficiently vetted and groomed, they may well become part of IBM.

IBM acquired 63 companies last year, 35 of which were venture-backed startups, so clearly there’s potential for startups in the Global Entrepreneur program to be acquired. But Clark points out that for every company that’s acquired, there are hundreds or thousands more that find a partnership with the company, and those partnerships are valuable for both parties.

“IBM builds the infrastructure that allows all these ‘smart’ applications to run,” Clark says. “But we don’t create applications, for example, or sensors, so we need to partner with companies that do those things, and we need to be sure that we can continue to source those things, so there’s a real need for us to have a top-flight pool of innovation to draw from. That’s what underpins this whole proposition.”

As the cleantech universe continues to mature and the need for innovative green technologies increases, corporations will continue to seek out partnerships with startups. That’s good news for startups and their investors. Given that IPOs in the space are still infrequent and the road from concept to customer is long and bumpy, having a company like IBM take you down it makes the ride a whole lot smoother

In just days, the World Bank will vote on a proposed R29 billion loan to Eskom to build the fourth-largest coal plant in the world — a climate disaster. At the same time, Eskom plans to effectively double electricity rates over the next three years. Big polluters are getting cut-rate electricity while ratepayers would be left to pay back this disastrous loan.

But the loan is not a done deal. Some creditors are having second thoughts, with the US expected to abstain and several European delegates reportedly on the fence. And we can tip the balance — we just need one “no” vote to table the proposal since the Bank rarely proceeds with divisive votes!

While Eskom trumpets the plan, we can tell World Bank directors how we feel about coal. Let the Word Bank know that we don’t want its dirty loan – click below to sign the petition today:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_eskom_coal_loan/?vl

The Bank is right to recognize South Africa’s energy needs, but this loan would be putting money in the wrong place. Instead of dirty coal, South Africa needs energy efficiency and clean, renewable sources of power that people who most need it can actually afford. If this loan is approved, South Africans will pay for it several-fold — in meteoric electricity rates, missed clean energy investments, polluted air, destroyed land, and the warming earth on which we live.

Dozens of South African environmental, community, church, labour, academic and women’s organizations, representing a diverse, unified voice have mobilized to stop the loan. But every voice counts in these last days before the World Bank vote. Act now – sign the petition opposing the loan:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_eskom_coal_loan/?vl

With hope,

Ben, Paul, Graziela, David, Alice, Ricken, and the whole Avaaz team

More information –

NGO Response to the World Bank panel report and Fact Sheet
http://www.groundwork.org.za/Publications/EskomFinalDocs/ResponsetotheWorldBankpanelreportandFactSheet.pdf

Original World Bank Fact Sheet
http://www.groundwork.org.za/Publications/EskomFinalDocs/WBEskomloanfactsheet.pdf

Eskom Tariff Hikes Slammed
http://allafrica.com/stories/201002250561.html

World Bank to Consider $4 Billion Loan Application From Eskom
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601116&sid=aGkhG0hBKlrE

SAfrica grants Eskom 24.8 pct price rise for 2010/11
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEB199720100224?type=marketsNews

Support the Avaaz community! We’re entirely funded by donations and receive no money from governments or corporations. Our dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way – donate here.