Renewable Energy Blog

The world needed a strong global strategy and concrete working plans, with more cohesion and fewer arguments if an agreeable solution to climate change was to be reached, a Chinese official told diplomats in Johannesburg on Wednesday.

China’s National Development and Reform Commission’s Institute for International Economic Research senior fellow and director Dr Haifeng Wang reiterated that for developing nations, the issue of climate change was one of the biggest developmental challenges facing countries, thus more cohesion on the matter was “urgently” needed.

Actions taken should be according to each country’s capacity and ability, and this would likely require a new ideology of global consensus, which was fair and balanced, based on morals and respect, and propelled the universal interest.

In determining different country responsibilities, he said it was important to look at a number of issues, namely: taking a historic perspective on accumulated emissions; taking congnisance of per capita emissions to get a fair perspective; making agreements binding for the rich, and voluntary for the poor; making technology transfer unconditional; and ensuring financial assistance in line with ability to do so.

Wang further explained that China’s domestic policy response on climate change was closely linked to the country’s five-year plans. The economic and social development plans set specific targets on pollutant emission and energy saving. The country aims to cut pollutant emissions by 10% per unit of GDP, and energy consumption by 20% per unit of GDP.

China had clear targets and projects related to climate change at the national, provincial and county level, and also compiled progress reports after mid-term assessments were conducted.

The South African Institute of International Affairs’ China in Africa project head Dr Chris Alden commended China on the institutionalisation of climate change policy at all levels, as well as the fact that the issue has been taken out of the purely environmental domain, and integrated into politics in a “serious way”.

With regard to international negotiations, China put forward a proposal under the Copenhagen Accord stating that it would cut between 40% and 45% of carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 2020.

Similarly, the government had set a 2020 target for non-fossil fuel in primary energy – including nuclear and renewable energy – whereby the country would aim for 30 GW of installed capacity, which equates to about 15% of the country’s primary energy consumption.

Wang stated that China was still in the very early stages of the development of its economy, and faced many significant constraints in terms of capacity, financially, and environmentally.

“I don’t pretend to say that China wont emit – we need to [in order to] develop, and we have the right to develop. We need advanced economies to act more responsibly, otherwise it is very difficult for poor nations,” Wang said.

Wang also voiced concern over China being labelled a “very strong emerging power”, and said that country’s role was over estimated in certain instances.

“China is not a major player like the US or the European Union. It still plays a role with developing countries.”

He added that while the Basic countries (Brasil, South Africa, India, China) were playing an increasingly important role, that role was still limited, and the Basic forum was largely to facilitate dialogue and communication between the countries and share experiences and lessons learned.

“Basic can play some roles, such as encouraging developing countries to address climate change, and to ensure that the countries understand each others strategies,” Wang noted.

Further, when questioned on the impact of climate change denialism and the Email scandal which erupted before the global climate change conference in Copenhagen, on Chinese climate change policy, Wang said that he felt that China would continue to implement domestic policy.

“China will do it no matter what happens, but we hope for collective actions,” he concluded.

The Japanese Embassy in South Africa has installed 410 solar panels to the value of R8-million in an effort to reduce its yearly carbon emissions.

It is estimated that around 90 t a year of carbon dioxide would be saved using the solar panels.

Japanese Ambassador Toshiro Ozawa said that the embassy had decided to switch to solar power generation, owing to South Africa’s solar friendly climate and to showcase its commitment in tackling the serious issues of climate change.

The new system is one of the largest solar power generation systems for office use in South Africa, and Ozawa noted that there were a number of other Japanese companies that were interested in contributing to the growth of the solar power industry in South Africa.

The panels, supplied by Sanyo, are able to produce 100 kW/h of electricity, which would cover between 80% and 90% of the Embassy’s power needs. Ozawa said that the Embassy would still be connected to State-utility Eskom’s power grid that would mainly be used at night.

Meanwhile, Ozawa commented that often the issues of economic development took precedence over climate change issues, especially in developing countries, which could lead to “disastrous consequences” in future.

At the Copenhagen conference in December 2009, the Japanese government committed $15-billion, over a three-year period, to assist developing countries with adaptation, mitigation and access to renewable energy.

Under the Copenhagen Accord, South Africa has committed to a 34% deviation below the ‘business as usual’ emission growth trajectory by 2020, but said that it would need financial assistance from developed countries to do so.

Ozawa said that Japan had recently signed a $5-million agreement with Lesotho for the adaptation and mitigation of the adverse effects of climate change. He noted that Japan was prepared to do more in the region, including in South Africa.

From: Creamer Media

Details of a R5,3-billion financial incentive, aimed at promoting energy efficiency among South African electricity consumers, was confirmed by Energy Minister Dipuo Peters on Tuesday.

The scheme, which would be known as the Standard Offer, would enable electricity consumers to claim a rebate in respect of the amount of energy they had saved from the electricity system.

Department of Energy director-general Nelisiwe Magubane told journalists at a media briefing in Cape Town that the incentive was linked to the new electricity tariffs and allowed for a rebate to be paid for every megawatt hour saved.

It was understood that the National Energy Regulator of South Africa would shortly hold public hearings on the Standard Offer initiative and it was anticipated that the standard offer would be operational before the end of May.

South Africa’s first large-scale solar-water heater project, whereby 200 000 solar geyser systems will be installed nationwide, will be launched next week, Department of Energy (DoE) acting deputy director-general Ompi Aphane said on Tuesday.

Speaking to journalists in Cape Town, Aphane elaborated that the project was an extension of State-owned enterprise Eskom’s solar water geyser installation programme, under which 3 000 solar water systems had been installed over the past three years.

The idea was to start “massifying” the roll-out, Aphane said, indicating that the 200 000 target had been set for the end of the current fiscal year.

The project was due to be formally launched by President Jacob Zuma in Winterveldt, north-west of Pretoria, on April 28, where 7 000 units would be installed.

Energy Minister Dipuo Peters told journalists that the DoE was working together with the South African Bureau of Standards to ensure that the technology, which had been flooding into the country over the past few years, was up to standard.

It was also stressed that the DOE was working with the Department of Trade and Industry to promote solar geyser local content.

“We believe that by next year we would have localised the solar water heater technology so that we do not have to import systems,” said Peters

The government has set the target of 10 000 GWh of renewable energy generation by 2013 and Eskom is expecting its Solar Water Heating Programme to contribute up to 23% of this target. According to Cedric Worthmann, the Solar Water Heating Programme manager at Eskom, the programme has delivered an average of 6.4 GWh per annum to date.

Worthmann says that the significant increase of the rebate was calculated in order to allow a five-year payback period. “This calculation is done taking into account the average cost of systems, average savings per system, average electricity tariff rate and cost of capital at prime interest rate per system size,” says Worthmann.

Solar by law?
James Shirley, General Manager at Kayema Energy Solutions, says that although the Eskom rebate increase has caused a significant increase in solar water heater sales, he doubts that the government’s target will be reached.

“The rebate is definitely helping the solar water heating industry, but I doubt that government will be able to achieve such significant market penetration,” says Shirley. “Eskom have raised the rebate in order to make solar water heating systems financially viable for the public, but unless government is going to make solar water heating systems compulsory for all new buildings, I don’t see how we will achieve 10 000 GWh of renewable energy generation by 2013.”

Barry Bredenkamp, operations manager at NEEA (National Energy Efficiency Agency), says that he doesn’t think it will be necessary or practical for government to make solar water heaters compulsory. “In some instances, solar water heaters are just not practical,” says Barry before explaining that if a building’s orientation doesn’t lend itself to the optimal use of the technology, or for example, where indigenous trees provide a natural barrier between the building and the sun and where an alternate technology, such as a heat pump, may provide a better solution for the application.

“However, with the rising price of electricity, the increase in subsidies and the reduction in the price of solar water heaters as more competitors enter the market, I believe we will see a natural evolution from conventional electrically-operated geysers to more efficient solar water heaters, without legislation being introduced,” says Bredenkamp.

Changing the rebate requirements
Shirley also says that the requirements that enabled consumers to qualify for a solar water heating rebate (i.e added cost of installed equipment) were too high, and offset the previous rebate amount, and the administrative work around claiming the rebate was laborious. “Eskom had a lot of prerequisites concerning not only the heating system, but also the installation, putting a lot of consumers off the process of installing these systems because, it was too difficult to claim the rebate,” says Shirley.

According to Shirley, there is a lot of paperwork involved in claiming your solar water heating rebate from Eskom, but it isn’t difficult. “You generally wait about eight weeks to get your money back. This is not an extremely long time, but I’m thinking that people are a bit strapped for cash when they are waiting for their claim to be processed, which is deterring them from getting a solar water heating system.”

“The new process for claiming is very simple: the reason people think it is difficult is that generally, people do not read instructions, and are being misled by suppliers that are not prepared to join the programme,” says Worthmann.

www.eskom.co.za/dsm states the rebate system is not in anyway exclusive. The current requirements of a supplier to sell systems that qualify for rebates are the following:
• Be able to offer a five year guarantee
• Submit documents, including public liability and company details
• Have system tested and passed at the SABS for the following:
o Safety
o Mechanical
o Thermal

The actual rebate claiming process
The ten step program on reclaiming a rebate (according to the Eskom-system), can be summed up as follows:
• Thoroughly research the solar water heating system.
• Call EEDSM Help or visit www.eskom.co.za/dsm to get an approved supplier.
• Get an Eskom approved installer to install the (Eskom approved) system.
• Make sure an (Eskom approved) timer is installed by an ECB registered electrician.
• Get your supplier, installer and electrician to fill out the relevant details on your claim form.
• Complete the rest of the details and attach the relevant documents (original invoice, copy of ID, copy of utility bill and/or electricity bills are listed as examples).
• Post the claim to the facilitating auditors (Deloitte) in a self addressed envelope or drop it off in a designated drop box within six months of installation.
• Wait for a SMS notification that a) the facilitating auditors have received your application and b) when your application is processed and queued for electronic funds transfer/your form is incomplete.
• Payment is made within eight weeks of receipt.
• Random technical audits will be carried out on some systems to ensure installation quality and operation.

Types of solar water heating systems
According to Shirley, there are two main types of solar water heating system; the closed loop and the open loop heating systems. “A closed loop system uses heat exchanger fluid and an open loop means that your actual drinking water goes through a tube through the solar panel.” Shirley says that South Africans have three general solar water heating categories to consider when choosing a system:
1. Thermo-siphon systems. This solar water heating system works like a heating suction where the tank sits above the solar panel of tubes. Water temperature and density are used to create the heat cycle of the system.
2. Pumped or split system. The tank of a pumped or split system is separate from the collector (the tank is usually in the roof in this case).
3. Retrofit. Although a bit of money will be saved when retrofitting an electric geyser to work as a solar water geyser, Shirley believes that this is not the correct way of installing a solar water heating system if the current geyser is more than three years old and an entirely new system should be installed instead of retrofitting an existing geyser.

Proven technology – the problem is money and public buy-in
The value of Eskom’s solar water heating rebate is based on the capability of the system to replace the use of electrical energy and all solar water heating systems included in the programme will have a SABS test conformity report rating their efficiency (www.eskom.co.za/dsm). Based on these test results, a system will qualify for a rebate ranging typically between ZAR1 500 and ZAR5 000.

www.eskom.co.za/dsm states that electrical geysers use between 30% and 50% of a household’s monthly electricity bill and replacing a conventional geyser with a solar powered system will reduce that percentage of electricity consumption by up to 70%.

“The technology is proven internationally and people now trust the technology in South Africa. The only problem is funding. Even though the solar water heating rebate has made the payback period more viable, the general public still has to be convinced to spend the initial capital on purchasing a system. The client then needs to recover the subsidy from a third party, which means that they are burdened with the administrative issues involved,” says Shirley.

The deadlines
“The important thing is that the rebate won’t last forever and it has been put in place to encourage people to switch now rather than later,” says Shirley.

Worthmann confirmed that there is in fact a deadline for Eskom’s programme. “The Solar Water Heating Programme will continue until 2014 as per an agreement with the Minister of Energy, or when the first million units are installed,” says Worthmann. “Eskom is engaging with various financial institutions and insurance companies, to increase the uptake of SWHs in the programme. People don’t want to spend money on replacing a system that is functioning, which is why we are engaging with the insurance companies to replace damaged geysers with solar. We are also focusing on working with the municipalities to assist them to help their consumers to convert. This rebate will be offered to all qualifying persons and installations as long as funds are available.”

Electrical geysers – who is losing?
“In the solar water heating industry, almost all geyser manufacturers have either completely switched to solar water heating systems or they are including solar ranges into their product offerings,” explains Shirley. “The industry knows that solar water heating is the future and everyone is adapting. I don’t think there are any suppliers who truly believe that selling only electrical geysers is a financially viable option – power is getting too expensive and that situation is not going to change. We need to change the way we heat water.”

Bredenkamp comments that although solar water heating systems are more widespread today, there are still people selling electrical geysers. “Like I’ve said before, there are certain applications where there is no choice but to install an electric geyser. Many solar water heaters are installed in parallel with an electric geyser, which serves as a back-up for when there are extended periods of inclement weather, so we can’t just do away with electrical geysers,” says Bredenkamp.

Solar water heating life cycle
Shirley says that, “the life cycle of electric geysers and solar water heating systems are more or less the same”.  “Electric geysers generally have a five year guarantee, some have a ten year guarantee, and the design lifetime of a good solar water heating system is around 20 years.

Although www.eskom.co.za/dsm states that most systems are guaranteed for five years, the expected life of the equipment is between ten and 15 years and that each piece of equipment has a different profile, which depends on various elements such as geographical area, water usage profile, number of users and the size of the system.

Bredenkamp explains that even if you had to replace a relatively more expensive solar water heating system approximately every ten years, the energy savings that one receives is still worth the more expensive initial costs.

“The energy savings will definitely make up for the initial costs of the system, but there are some instances where it would not be worth it, such as a holiday home that is only used for one month of the year. It is not really a good idea having a ‘un-utilised’ solar water heater installed, as the pressure build-up can lead to problems with various components of the system, such as the rubber seals,” says Bredenkamp.

“Although in principle, we would like to see as many solar water heaters on roofs as possible, one has to do a realistic assesment of the situation and a simple calculation, to determine the sheer economics of the specific application.”

Imports not designed for our climate or resources
www.eskom.co.za/dsm states that although solar water heating technology is not new to the industry in South Africa, it is still characterised by high manufacturing costs and low sales volumes.

“Although the market for solar water heating systems in South Africa is certainly growing, the biggest concern for local suppliers is reputable companies being bombarded by people overseas bringing back cheap goods,” says Shirley. “The problem is not only that overseas solar water heating suppliers don’t have a proper working knowledge of our national codes of practice or that they can not offer a back up service, the problem is that these products are not always designed for South Africa’s climate or resources. Our ambient temperature and solar radiation levels are not the same as many overseas countries, meaning that there needs to be corrective design at the factory level to ensure correct water temperature limits are met for imported systems.

Bredenkamp says that although there will always be the problem of cheap imports, South Africa has standards and procedures in place to protect consumers from the majority of poor quality solar water heaters.

“There will always be cases where opportunistic individuals see a business opportunity and start importing ‘cheap’ products from various countries abroad. We in South Africa are lucky in this respect, since all products that want to qualify for a subsidy, need to be tested and passed by the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS). There is a national standard with which the products need to comply and the SABS and the Tshwane University of Technology have the equipment to test products according to this standard,” says Bredenkamp.

“However, we must caution the public against purchasing solar water heaters that may initially appear to be cheaper (even without any subsidy), than those who have been tested by the SABS. In most cases, these products will not withstand the test of time and the supplier or distributor may not be around in future to honor any given guarantees. It is therefore imperative that the public insist on seeing a SABS test report of the specific product, before making a purchase decision.”

Engineering precision of commercial solutions
Shirley says that commercial solar water heating systems are very different from the types of solar water heating systems that home owners use. “Commercial solar water heating systems are an entirely different story,” says Shirley. “A lot of engineering work is involved and the costs are obviously higher. Instead of installing one or two panels, you may need over 100 panels with large storeage tanks in the case of a hospital or hotel where a lot of hot water is consumed. But even though this is expensive, the electricity savings does make it financially viable.”

According to Worthmann, Eskom will have a programme in place for commercial applications this year. “We are busy formalising a commercial sector solar programme which we hope to launch mid-year. There are many competent companies that can design and install these large systems, and have being doing so for many years,” says Worthmann.

“The way I see it, solar water heating systems for commercial applications are about reducing a company’s carbon footprint and lowering your operating costs. A solar water heater should be seen as an investment, not a product. When you buy a solar water heating system, you are buying hot water for the next 15 – 20 years and you are using a lot less energy for this hot water,” concludes Shirley

We are by far the highest carbon emitter per capita in Africa, in fact companies like SASOL are the most polluting operation to be found in the world, but paradoxically it is these companies (ESKOM) that are subsidising the implementation of Green Tech, like the solar geyser rebate system.

The installation of flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) technology at the Medupi coal-fired power station, the construction of which will be part funded by a $3,75-billion loan from the World Bank, has been confirmed as a loan-package condition.

The technology, which will reduce sulphur-dioxide emissions, would have to be retrofitted, owing to the fact that it had not been included in the plant’s original design. This would add to the project’s capital cost, and its water consumption.

The bank published its ‘Project Appraisal’ document for the controversial loan on Tuesday, which shows that Eskom will need to develop, adopt and thereafter implement a FGD programme across each of the plant’s six power generation units by no later than June 30, 2013.

It is also stipulated that FGD equipment for the first generation unit must commence on the later of either the sixth anniversary of the commissioning date, or by March 31, 2018. The FGD equipment for all six generation units would need to be installed and be fully operational by no later than December 31, 2021.

The FGD installation between 2018 and 2021 will be aligned to the scheduled operational maintenance programme of the Medupi units, which would be taken off-line for routine maintenance after six years of operation.

The bank notes that the sulphur content of the coal to be used at Medupi, which is calculated at 1,4% by weight, together with the large scale of the plant, some 4 800 MW, meant that sulphur-dioxide emissions could have a “significant adverse environmental impact”.

Therefore, sulphur-dioxide emissions would have to be removed using a “wet FGD” solution, or a gypsum process, using limestone located at Kraalhoek and Dwaalboom, some 180 km from the Lephalale site.

The process would increase the plant’s water consumption and the World Bank has, thus, flagged for possible concern the fact that sufficient water might not be available in time for the commissioning of the last three units or the FGD equipment.

“Progress on the project to supply the required amount of water is on schedule. Nevertheless, the Bank has requested evidence from the Department of Water Affairs to Eskom, committing to timely water supply,” the document states.

The water allocation is dependent on the availability of water from the Mokolo and Crocodile Water Augmentation project, which is not expected to become available until 2014 at the earliest.

The FGD system is expected to add at least $150/kW to the final capital cost, while yearly water consumption, including FGD, will rise to 12-million m³.

The total cost of Medupi is estimated at about $12,1-billion.

Uncertainty over a global treaty to cut carbon emissions has slowed investment in clean energy in South Africa, where only a handful of such projects have started compared to other emerging markets.

A senior official from South Africa’s agency for assessing domestic clean-energy projects told an African conference on biofuels on Monday the country, the continent’s worst emitter, has lagged global trends in launching such projects.

Under the Kyoto protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), countries are required to cut carbon emissions by 5,2% by 2012.

“One of the barriers to CDM projects in South Africa is the uncertainty around the post-2012 regime, on whether the accord will continue or not,” Ndiafhi Tuwani, the official at South Africa’s Designated National Authority (DNA) said.

“Some of the potential project developers are reluctant because of that …there is need for a new protocol or a new accord. The previous Copenhagen accord did not come up with a new protocol (beyond) 2012.”

According to Tuwani, South Africa has 17 CDM projects registered to date, of which only four have been issued with CERs. The top two nations in the scheme, according to UN figures, are China with 787 projects and India with 498.

The CDM is part of the Kyoto protocol climate pact whose first phase ends in 2012 and there is no decision yet to extend it or agree on a separate climate treaty.

Under the agreement, rich nations that invest in clean-energy projects in developing countries earn certified emissions reductions (CERs) that can in return be sold for profit or used by polluting firms to meet their mandatory emissions targets.

A UN meeting in Bonn, Germany on Sunday agreed to revive talks on a new deal to slow global warming after December’s Copenhagen summit fell short of a binding deal.

CDM Africa Technical Manager Marco Lotz was optimistic projects aimed at cutting emissions would continue beyond 2012.

“Protocols come and go but it is not the end of the world if the Kyoto (protocol) expires. There is a whole industry that has evolved,” said Lotz.

Reuters

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 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.

Here in South Africa we are about 10 – 20years behind the international trends taking place in first world regions with regards to renewable energy implementation. That stated, it seems that even in advanced countries, the legality around actual installation seems to be the bottle neck in the system. Just look what is happening in the area of massive skills shortages here and you will realise where the future problems lie for South Africa and its extremely ambitious million solar geyser target 2014. We need to re-kindle the apprenticeship system of training while on the job to massively increase our capacity to skill labour.

Massachusetts, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

“We want to make sure that the consumer has full trust in what we are doing.”

– Chris Kilfoyle, Berkshire Photovoltaic Services
Last year a new ruling came down from the State Board of Electrical Examiners that stated only Massachusetts licensed electricians and registered apprentices can perform any and all aspects of installing solar energy. Seasoned solar installation veterans, some of whom had been putting solar energy on homes and businesses for more than 20 years, were literally forced off the roof as a result of the ruling. Now, one year later, a battle is brewing in Boston over who should be allowed to perform solar installations in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

In the past solar integrators and electricians shared installation jobs, with electricians pulling the wire permits and completing all of the hard wiring on solar jobs. Wiring represents about 10-20% of a solar installation, according to estimates.

Under the new ruling, electricians must be on the job from start to finish and must perform (or help to perform) all aspects of the install, including pouring concrete for ground-mounted systems or putting up racking on the roof.

It’s an important issue in Massachusetts because of Governor Patrick’s interest in aggressively expanding solar energy in the state. His Commonwealth Solar Program has attracted numerous solar energy companies to set up shop in Massachusetts and analysts are predicting that with the state’s newly created SREC market, it will start to rival New Jersey, the second largest solar market in the U.S.

Companies like Borrego Solar, Alteris Renewables and Nexamp have seen solar sales increasing in the state, and electricians see the burgeoning solar industry as an opportunity to create new work.

With so many Americans unemployed right now, and the Massachusetts construction industry experiencing up to 25% unemployment since the recession started in 2008, it’s not surprising that Massachusetts’s electricians are looking to the solar industry.

“We’ve lost jobs just like all the other trades,” said Martin Aikens, a Business Agent of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 103, in a conference session during the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association’s (NESEA) Building Energy 10 conference in Boston. The conference session was entitled, “The Great Solar Certification Divide,” and included a panel of solar integrators and electricians.

In the conference session, Aikens explained that the issue is safety. He said that electricians go to school for four years and put in 8,000 hours of training before becoming licensed. “If you’re not qualified to install then you’re going to die. This is what it’s all about — licenses,” he said.

Chris Kilfoyle of Berkshire Photovoltaic Services (BPVS), a solar firm based in Adams, Massachusetts, doesn’t think it’s that cut and dry. He said that more than 11 MW of PV have been installed safely and properly under the Commonwealth Solar Program, which requires inspection and proper licensure in order for rebates to be doled out. Kilfoyle is not aware of any safety issues having occurred in the past.

“Certainly nothing that was brought to the attention of the state board of electrical examiners or to the Commonwealth Solar Program,” he said.

Before the new ruling, said Kilfoyle, safety was maintained by all the various trades involved in solar installations. “So, if you’re a general contractor, your workers will have been OSHEA certified, they are wearing proper safety gear when they are working on a roof.”

Building contractors — who are responsible for pulling building permits — would ensure that panels were mounted correctly and look at issues such as properly attached mounts, using the right screws and sealing them properly.

“Those all come under the purview of the building code,” he said.

Integrators like Kilfoyle and John Abrams, President and CEO of South Mountain Company, maintain that the new ruling now requires electricians to do some of the tasks that they are not trained to do. “They can’t stand going up on the roof,” said Abrams, who’s design/build firm is located on Martha’s Vineyard. But now electricians are helping with those tasks because that’s what the ruling dictates.

In addition, Kilfoyle pointed out that NABCEP certification, the industry standard for solar installers, is voluntary in Massachusetts. “But if you examine who the 30 NABCEP-certified installers are, they are not electricians,” he said. “NABCEP is the only course of study and the only credential that really covers both the mechanical/structural work involved in PV systems as well as the nuances of electrical work,” he said.

But if electricians haven’t been pulled onto job sites to make them safer, then what is the rationale behind the ruling? Neither the State Board of Electrical Examiners nor the IBEW was available for comment, but Kilfoyle believes the issue comes down to the economy. “It’s really an issue of a downturn in construction jobs and this particular electrical union saying ‘gosh, look at all this money coming into the state for renewable energy, we want it all,’” he said.

Enter HR4180

New legislation has been introduced in Massachusetts that solar integrators hope will resolve the problem.  HR4180 asks the state to create a new solar license classification that falls under a specialty construction supervisor license.

Under HR4180, solar licensees would have NABCEP expertise “for roof loading, snow loading, wind loading particular to Massachusetts, structural attachment and waterproofing,” said Kilfoyle. Job site organization, safety matters and issues related to system design, orientation, shading and production would also be required knowledge.

Supporters believe that HR4180 would send a clear signal to the organizers of green workforce training efforts underway at Massachusetts’s community colleges and technical schools, providing trainees with a career path they could pursue. While it might take someone 8,000 hours to become an electrician, pursuing a Solar PV license would be much faster, according to Kilfoyle.

If the legislation passes, Kilfoyle hopes the status quo in Massachusetts will be restored, with electricians pulling the wire permits and doing the hard wiring and solar integrators performing the remainder of the tasks.  He said that integrators are prepared to keep focused on the issue should the bill fail.

In the meantime, some solar companies are becoming electrical contracting companies in order to comply with the ruling. Others are fighting it on a case-by-case basis.

Kilfoyle encourages solar companies in other states to stay on top of their local electrician boards and urges them to work toward PV licensure. Installing PV “is a specialty technical skill,” and requiring a solar license is in everyone’s best interest in order to ensure it’s done correctly, he said.

“We want to make sure that the consumer has full trust in what we are doing,” he said.