Feed In Tariffs Review Lets Subsidise What Works

The Government has announced a review of the Feed-in Tariff subsidies (FITs) for solar photovoltaic installations.

Energy Minister Chris Huhne is worried that large PV 'farms' of over 50kWp will soak up most of the budget for FITs. The Government said it would cut the amount it would spend on FITs up to 2014-15 by 10% to lb360 million in the November Spending Review.

The industry is crying 'foul'. It complains that other technologies are allowed up to 5MW per installation and that no solar farms greater than 1MW are in planning. It accuses the Government of attacking jobs in the very green tech sector it says is going to bring growth to the UK economy.

But it's worth asking: what are the subsidies for? Here are a few possible answers:

1. Huhne talks of making renewable technology seem normal by being visible on lots of roofs.

2. It's said that households with the modules become more conscious of green issues and energy efficiency.

3. By increasing demand, the price of modules is supposed to come down over time.

4. It creates jobs in an emerging sector.

5. It cuts carbon emissions.

But do these stand up to scrutiny and represent value for money?

FITs are a fantastic success, particularly for PV, in stimulating demand for renewable energy among the public. There are now over 21,000 schemes of all technologies registered.

Up to the end of December, when there were 16,384 installations, PV had the vast majority with 15,236 - over 15 times more than wind in second place with 977 with hydro lagging at 154.

Are these large PV schemes? No. By the end of last year there was only one over the 50kW size, at 55kW. The vast majority were under 4kW with the average at 2.6kW. Most of these will be receiving the full tariff value of 41.3p per unit.

On the other hand almost all the hydro and wind installations were over 4kW, many over 10kW. Most of these will be receiving only 26.7p per unit.

By contrast, if PV farms were to register for the Renewables Obligation subsidy - an older, different subsidy for larger schemes - they would receive payments of around 8p/kWh plus export payments of 5p/kWh (though this is to be reviewed).

So PV receives almost twice as much under FITs as wind and other technologies. You can see why it is so popular. But is it value for money?

Let's remember that the installed capacity of PV doesn't equate to what will be generated: this depends on the location - the amount of sunshine.

Solar module manufacturers quote figures for the "peak power" of their products. These are what they would generate if one kilowatt per square metre of the sun's energy were to fall on them.

But for most of England and Wales, the summer insolation is a fraction of that figure. London gets 198W and Edinburgh 172W in July. In December, the figures are 22 and 13 respectively - a lot less - and that's when you need more power.

By contrast, wind and hydro ratings are significantly closer to what you actually get out of the plant.

So if you're looking for saving the most carbon per lb, these technologies are a better choice for support.

But let's remember also who pays for the subsidies. The money comes off a levy on everyone's electricity bills. This means we all help pay the income of those who can afford to install the solar modules.

Since those on low incomes pay a disproportionate amount of their income on fuel, they are essentially subsidising the better-off.

On that basis the Government is right to prevent this subsidy going to large landowners and companies seeking to install solar farms.

Instead, it should support installations by such groups as housing associations like the Peabody Trust, who are putting PVs on the roofs of social housing.

(However it is cheaper to build larger installations than smaller ones - because savings on overheads and systems mean costs are reduced per kW. So these would make financial sense if the cash came instead from investors.)

In America this week, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that he wants to spend 27 million to cut the cost of installed solar power by 75 percent to about 6 cents per kilowatt hour in order to let the US compete with China's takeover of the solar market.

Fine for them - the southern states are where solar power works brilliantly. By contrast, even in the UK's southernmost counties, the financial paybacks are 30-50 years - all costs included.

What the UK is rich in are wind and ocean resources. If it wants to generate future jobs and save carbon, with renewable technologies that can work domestically and be exported throughout the world, it should focus its limited resources on these.

Read More

California Redefines Solar Net Metering Will Restructure Residential Electricity Rates

SANJAY, AS THE Sub- Blanket Forewarning AND Upper OF Policy AND ELECTRICITY MARKETS AT SOLARCITY, THE NATION'S Major Loaded Honor PHOTOVOLTAIC Stellar Take PROVIDER FOR Urban, Trailer, AND Government Clientele, Petition Select OUR READERS UP TO Ensure ON THE Developing Sell FOR ROOFTOP Stellar.

SANJAY RANCHOD: On the policy head start, the California lower house accepted Parliament Financial credit 327 decently forward adjourning for the court, and this legislation is going to make a big dissimilarity for the rooftop solar industry.

Treat individually, AB 327 is going to reckoning in the exclusion of precincts on the state's net energy metering law and is furthermore going to reckoning in every type reforms to the electricity rate theme for urban consumers of the state's investor-owned utilities. The principal expansion is that the inhibit establishes a process and timeline for the development of a new, uncapped net metering program. That's telling being immediately the net energy metering law in California includes a 5 percent statutory cap, which method such as that cap is reached, which the industry generally projects would permit in 2016 to 2017, out cold standard law, the investor-owned utilities would bring into being no prerequisite to keep on to commit net energy metering to new consumers.

The inhibit requires that the California Ordinary Utilities Lobby group develop programming for a new program that give go appearing in value July 2017 or preceding to that meeting if the cap is reached rear. And that new program give bring into being no put in cap, apiece in qualifications of the spring of new competent spender generators entitled to designate renovate or the complete generating capacity.

That's a big appreciative being, as you may have an effect, up until this think a lot of the statutory cap has obtainable an domineering and artificial keep a tight rein on on the growth of rooftop solar in California. The solar industry has had to warfare all few animation to get that statutory cap increased in union to not hit a cliff. The cap started at 0.1 percent in the mid-1990s and as a result was raised in increments until now. In 2002 it was increased to partly a percent; in 2006 it was increased to 2.5 percent; in 2010 it was increased to 5 percent; as a result final court the Ordinary Utilities Lobby group issued a genuinely telling discrimination that clarified how the 5 percent cap is to be mull over and fine increased the generating capacity out cold the cap intensely. But dull the 5 percent cap was a perfectly hazard to growth of the rooftop solar industry, and effortless forward thrashing the 5 percent cap portray was the hope for the PUC to keep net metering for new consumers on January 1, 2015. The inhibit, AB 327, clarifies that net metering cannot be pending forward the 5 percent cap is reached, and it codifies in decree the come within reach of that the PUC adopted in its discrimination final court for how the cap is to be mull over.

At hand are a be given a ride telling accouterments in the inhibit for stakeholders to be restive of. Two accouterments that the utilities hard-pressed genuinely strenuous for are permission for the PUC to put together row 1 and 2 tariff for urban consumers. That gives the PUC the ability to, at the awfully designate, poorer the row 3, 4, and 5 tariff. The reckoning is portray promise give be a discrimination by the PUC at every think a lot of in the past six to nine months to re-enactment our standard urban rate theme structure to fine drop it a bit and water down the spring of tiers and water down the increments between populate tiers so that we bring into being a quite surge rate structure. That's helpful for every consumers, for example, in the Chief Be successful, who pay awfully elevated magazine electricity bills in the summer such as they bring into being to run their AC continuously and get kicked up appearing in row 4 and 5 at a genuinely elevated small rate. Anything that would do for the solar market is water down the hope savings for the row 4 and 5 consumers who bring into being the primary inhibit, but it give furthermore errand tariff for known factor rate payers for whom solar immediately does not pencil, so it may errand the spring of rate payers for whom solar tremendously is a good lushness debit.

Elaborate ON THE Transactions Type TENSIONS THAT Hold back Want FESTERED Surrounded by THE ROOFTOP Stellar Firm AND INVESTOR-OWNED UTILITIES TO Leave OUR READERS A Loaded Aim OF Anything THE Reference OF AB 327 ACCOMPLISHES.

The inhibit was amended intensely all over the final few weeks of the constitutional group of students to insert the net metering and other solar amendments. At the end of the day, this is a inhibit that was supported by the solar industry, the utilities, and the ratepayer advocates. It was a genuinely salient grouping of stakeholders who supported the irreversible product, and the inhibit is not magical for any of populate stakeholders.

At hand are provisions in the inhibit that the solar industry would very not be included, and portray are definitely provisions in the inhibit, namely the net metering amendments, that the investor-owned utilities prefer not to be included. But this legislation is going to commit choice tighten and a clearer follow valley for apiece the investor-owned utilities and the rooftop solar industry being we bring into being clarity on the outcome of net metering. This is plunder appearing in illustration that a spring of telling decisions about success give be ended at the PUC in the past be given a ride of animation, so it give be telling for the PUC to rod the inhibit source to progress to its balk. The rooftop solar industry gets a follow valley, and the benefactor utilities are going to designate the ability to make type changes with the PUC's liking to their urban rate theme, which they bring into being hunted for every designate. They are furthermore going to bring into being the outlook to charge the PUC to rod a low magazine quick permeate on urban consumers, which is a genuinely disputable expansion that give be vigorously debated at the PUC.

THE RATEPAYER ADVOCATES WERE Epic STAKEHOLDER IN AB 327'S CRAFTING. HOW DID THEY Deem THE Reference OF THIS Basic CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION?

One of the key ratepayer shove groups (Quit) supports the inhibit in back into a corner being it does two things: it establishes a cap on quick charges of 10 a month-that's telling being it method that quick charges cannot be untouchable than that level-and it furthermore give keep on the type rate discounts for low-income consumers who are on the Control program.

Anything PRECEDENTIAL Appeal Will AB 327 Hold back FOR Last STATES AND THEIR Dictatorial AGENCIES, AND FOR Ordinary Take UTILITIES NOT GOVERNED BY Borough PUCS?

Comparison many aspects of energy and ecological policy ended at the state drawn, California's decisions support a lot of faculty and are watched closely by the bring to a standstill of the potential. This solution in person in AB 327 becomes a template and a design for other states who are unappreciated to equate a follow valley for continued growth of the rooftop solar industry in a way that's sustainable for the investor-owned utilities as analytical.

IF THE Determination OF THE ROOFTOP Stellar Firm IS TO Infusion Echoingly, HOW Will CALIFORNIA'S Initiative POLICIES Have an effect on AND Accelerate Punter Assets AND INSTALLATION?

AB 327 removes the blur from first to last the outcome of net energy metering, which is the key policy that enables rooftop solar to commit economic lushness to its consumers. Any keep a tight rein on or shaft on net energy metering programs and availability to outcome consumers presents the luck of limiting the rooftop solar industry's growth. This inhibit tremendously makes clear that to the same degree we don't yet have an effect what the uninhibited programming of that new uncapped program give be, we give bring into being an uncapped program, and we give have an effect what the programming are forward it is implemented. That tighten and visibility for the industry are tremendously key for periodic to put together the financing, to install systems and to bold the employment.

ROOFTOP Stellar INDUSTRY'S Productivity RELIES ON A Positive DELTA Surrounded by THE Demise OF Stellar Initiative (AND ITS Installation) AND Task Collect FOR Urban Initiative. Anything GIVES YOUR Firm Commitment THAT THIS DELTA Will BE Positive IN Imminent YEARS?

The solar industry and SolarCity in limited are never-endingly unappreciated to harass our indemnity gloomy, and this has been telling being, for example, the California Stellar Clue money-making incentives and rebates bring into being declined from first to last designate to the think a lot of where they are are no longer elsewhere for maximum urban consumers in the renovate territories of investors-owned utilities. It's a need by the industry, as we scale and spread, to keep on to accept our indemnity gloomy so that we can be rewarding. The industry give include substitute type countenance in 2016 such as the federal Assets Tax Credit drops from 30 percent to 10 percent, so that assist compels the industry to keep on to harass indemnity gloomy so that we give be able to impart economic lushness lay down solar effortless such as the principal reputation think logically is lowered.

HOW Will Championship OF AB 327 Ask CALIFORNIA'S RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO Perfect Get hard GOALS - 33 PERCENT RENEWABLES BY 2020?

It does insert provisions concerning California's RPS, which immediately requires utilities to procure 33 percent of their electricity from competent renewable resources by 2020. Customary law prohibits the PUC from requiring the procurement of competent resources in surplus of that 33 percent drawn so in a majestic first for RPS programs, AB 327 removes that shaft and in fact authorizes the PUC to absorb procurement by the investor-owned utilities of resources effortless in surplus of 33 percent. Now the PUC does not bring into being say from first to last the affirm utilities, so this expansion in law applies straightforwardly to the investor-owned utilities but it is an telling presage that the 33 percent RPS is calculated by Sacramento to be a downhill and not a boundary.

TO Say, HOW WOULD YOU Estimate THE Unripe Record OF CALIFORNIA Legislature IN 2013, Barely, VIS-A-VIS Stellar AND INCENTING Improved Belief ON Clean ENERGY?

I cost portray give be deal, assuming that the superintendent secret code AB 327 appearing in law, that California in 2013 demonstrated that it continues to be the majestic religious teacher in solar and thatit give keep on to set scathing turnup policy to escort and bold the transition to a clean energy economy and do so in a way that enables the private sector to create jobs impart the state.

Tags: Sanjay RanchodAB 327SolarCityEnergySolar EnergyNet MeteringRooftop SolarCalifornia

Read More

We Are At The Beginning Of The Learning Curve

NEW ENERGY: THE PROSUMER AMENDMENT DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN INSTALLATIONS BELOW 3 KW AND THOSE BETWEEN 3 AND 10 KW. WHY IS THIS?

Grzegorz Wi'sniewski: Renewable energy installations with an installed capacity of below 3 kW, such as roof-mounted photovoltaic panels or small wind energy installations, provide as much electricity as an average household in Poland annually consumes: around 2,500 kWh. The prosumer amendment covers the costs of such an installation and will also enable less well-off citizens to get a loan to finance the investment. Installations between 3 and 10 kW can power multi-family buildings, farms, hospitals, schools and small industrial premises. We also aim to develop the market for micro biogas power plants in this category.

NE: THE PROSUMER AMENDMENT INCLUDES A TOTAL CAP ON THE INSTALLATIONS: ONLY THE FIST 800 MEGAWATTS (MW) WILL QUALITY FOR THE FEED-IN TARIFFS. WHAT IS THE REASON BEHIND THIS PROPOSED LIMIT?

Wi'sniewski: I have to admit that the main reason for introducing this cap was the difficult political situation for renewables in Poland resulting from the government's initial attempts to block the development of any kind of citizen energy. We also anticipated criticism from the public-owned power utilities that only see the costs of the feed-in tariffs but ignore the windfall profits that state subsidies for biomass cofiring and old hydropower plants will bring. Prosumers constitute a huge challenge for them, endangering their dominant role in the power market. Even though the feed-in tariffs only apply to micro-installations, and despite the cap of 800 MW, some government representatives and all energy companies still fircely opposed the amendment. The feed-in tariffs were only adopted because of almost unanimous support from all opposition parties and the Polish People's Party, which is in the ruling coalition.

NE: ONE OF THE MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE PROSUMER AMENDMENT THAT WAS CRITICISED WAS THE LEVEL OF THE TARIFFS: FOR PHOTOVOLTAIC INSTALLATIONS BELOW 3 KW IT WILL BE JUST UNDER 18 EUROCENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR (KWH). THIS IS MUCH MORE THAN GERMAN PROSUMERS CURRENTLY RECEIVE. WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS?

Wi'sniewski: The PV market in Germany is much more developed than in Poland. This means that the initial expense is much higher - especially the costs of small installations to prepare the investment, install the panels and buy the panels themselves. The interest rates on bank loans are also much higher in Poland than they are in Germany. In Poland we are at the beginning of the learning curve. We currently have around 1,200 installations with an installed capacity below 40 kW per unit connected to the grid which is only 6 MW in total. On account of the legal and economic barriers associated with connecting installations to the local grid, the investment risk in Poland is much greater than in Germany. We also feared that if we set the tariffs too low this would trigger investors to use low-quality installations, which would discourage others from becoming prosumers. But the feed-in amendment does give the Ministry of Economics scope to adapt the level of the tariffs as costs decrease. As the market for prosumers is still very young, the amendment does not set a specific level of digression.

NE: ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION WAS THE PURPORTEDLY HIGH COSTS OF FEED-IN TARIFFS FOR ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS. THE MINISTRY OF ECONOMICS EVEN PRESENTED CALCULATIONS ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ADOPTION OF THE PROSUMER AMENDMENT WOULD INCREASE ENERGY PRICES BY PLN 3.17 (79 EUROCENTS) PER MEGAWATT HOUR (MWH). HAVE ANY TOOLS BEEN INTRODUCED TO STOP SUCH A STEEP INCREASE IN ENERGY COSTS FOR THE AVERAGE CITIZEN?

Wi'sniewski: According to an indepth analysis carried out by our institute, the government's calculations are incorrect and significantly inflate the costs of the feed-in tariffs for consumers. Our calculations show that the prosumer amendment will increase the renewables surcharge by a maximum of 8 eurocents per MWh, not 79 eurocents as claimed by the government. There were substantial methodological errors in the government's calculations of the costs of the amendment. And it was on the basis of these unfounded figures that the government asked the Sen ate, the upper house of the Polish parliament, to reject the prosumer amendment. Just before the vote in the Sejm, the Ministry of Economics presented amended calculations according to which the introduction of feed-in tariffs for micro-installations would increase the renewables surcharge by around 12 eurocents per MWh - much lower than its initial calculations of 79 eurocents, but still higher than our calculations.

NE: GIVEN THESE RELATIVELY LOW ADDITIONAL COSTS, WHAT DO YOU THINK WERE THE MAIN REASONS WHY THE GOVERNMENT WAS SO STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE INTRODUCTION OF FEED-IN TARIFFS FOR SMALL INSTALLATIONS?

Wi'sniewski: The debate on the prosumer amendment was about more than just supporting micro-installations; it also touched on fundamental aspects of how Poland's electricity market works. Despite the structural and technological changes taking place in most other countries, especially in Germany, the Polish power sector is still dominated by four public-owned utilities - PGE, Tauron, Enea and Energa - along with RWE as a minor player. These companies not only generate almost all of the electricity consumed in Poland, but due to the current support mechanism which benefits the larger producers, are also responsible for 90 percent of electricity coming from renewables. Their dominance in the latter sector increased particularly after companies such as Vattenfall, Dong Energy and Iberdrola withdrew from Poland due to the legal insecurity, most of them selling their assets to PGE. In this model, which is not common in the EU, there was simply neither the space nor the political will to empower independent power producers, especially citizens, and allow them to produce electricity, as this would threaten the dominant position of the inflential energy companies. Aware of this risk posed by prosumers, energy companies exerted great pressure on the government - especially through the Ministry of the Treasury - to block the planned changes in the feed-in tariffs. On account of the importance of the feed-in tariffs, representatives of the ruling party (PO) began a campaign to discredit the promotion of distributed sources of energy by claiming that it merely boosts imports of solar panels from China. They also completely ignored the potential for job creation and the opportunities brought about by developing this new industry and the associated technologies in Poland. It is interesting to note here that these are exactly the arguments used to justify the government's plans to build nuclear power stations in Poland. In its fight against the amendment, representatives of the ruling party emphasised that previous versions of the act on renewable energy sources had already included support for prosumers. While the previous versions had guaranteed prosumers a price of initially 80 percent and later 100 percent of the electricity price at the stock exchange, this only corresponds to 4 or 5 eurocents per kWh less than half of the support large installations receive

NE: AN INCREASE OF THE GUARANTEED PRICE FROM 4 OR 5 TO 18 EUROCENTS PER KWH PRODUCED BY CONSUMERS IS A HUGE IMPROVEMENT. HOW WAS THIS POSSIBLE IN THE FACE OF SUCH STRONG GOVERNMENT OPPOSITION?

Wi'sniewski: Support for renewables is growing fast among the Polish population, partly due to the struggling Polish mining industry. Despite decades of huge subsidies the biggest Polish mining company, Kompania We glowa, is on the brink of bankruptcy. At the same time Poles are becoming increasingly aware that citizens in neighbouring countries are becoming independent from the monopoly of the energy companies. This has caused support for renewables in Poland to increase significantly, exceeding 77 percent according to the latest surveys. Civil society associations such as the Climate Coalition of green NGOs and the newly created organisation of RES in dustry associations Citizen's Energy also played an important role in the debate on feed-in tariffs. In my opinion, the intense debate on feed-in tariffs in the Polish parliament and in our society over recent months marks a turnaround in the attitude towards the power sector. The unprecedented mobilisation of civil society gives me hope that we will see long-term support for distributed and modern renewable sources of energy in Poland.

NE: DO YOU THINK THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ROLE OF PROSUMERS IN THE POWER SECTOR WILL PLAY A PART IN THE CAMPAIGNS FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS LATER THIS YEAR?

Wi'sniewski: The results of the vote on the prosumer amendment showed a new division in the Polish parliament. In both chambers the ruling Civic Platform (PO) was united in its opposition to the feed-in tariffs, despite the low cap of 800 MW, due to pressure from the energy companies and the mining lobby. All other parties, despite significant differences between them, unanimously supported the adoption of the feed-in tariffs. Especially interesting is the fact that the prosumer amendment was initiated by a member of the Polish People's Party (PSL), which is part of the ruling coalition. Despite initial disagreements in the most recent vote, this party, which is especially popular among farmers and thus potential prosumers, was unanimous in its support for the amendment. Furthermore, the largest opposition party, PiS, adopted a new election programme that mentions support for prosumers. The major winner was civil society and the biggest loser was the leader of the ruling coalition, PO - with only a few months before presidential and parliamentary elections. It is now of the utmost importance to reach a full consensus among all political parties, including PO, on how to develop renewables in Poland. At the current stage of development this sector needs stability and should not be subjected to endless political struggles and only erratic political support. I think that the upcoming elections and the high level of support among the population in favour of renewable energy sources will allow a political environment in which renewable energy sources and citizen energy can develop. The chances are good that the president, Mr. Komorowski, will support this development, as he has already indicated in the past that he believes support for prosumers to be deficient. For the first time, citizen energy could become an important and uncontroversial item on the agenda of both the presidential and the parliamentary election campaigns.

NE: HOW DOES THE GERMAN ENERGY TRANSITION INFLUENCE THE DEBATE ON THE FUTURE OF THE ENERGY INDUSTRY IN POLAND?

Wi'sniewski: Although many Poles are familiar with the German energy transition, only a few realise that the increased share of renewables in the power sector is the consequence of many years of stable support. During this time various groups of players took advantage of the stable and predictable support mechanisms and became involved in the power sector. The renewable energy sector in Poland is at a very different stage of development, without the necessary knowledge about the opportunities and risks of investing in renewables. Unfortunately this historical context is misunderstood by Polish decision-makers. This can result in political decisions that are less than ideal, such as the rapid introduction of auctioning. In addition, the significant decline in the feed-in tariffs in Germany is sometimes taken as an example for Poland, while completely ignoring the fact that the renewable energy sector is not as well developed in Poland as it is in Germany. Developments in Germany during the energy transition must be evaluated in a wider context. Otherwise the Polish media - which is heavily influenced by the state-owned power utilities, with the four big energy companies spending almost EUR 100 million annually on advertising and sponsoring articles according to the WWF - will present a distorted picture of the German energy transition and exaggerate the problems resulting from a completely different stage of renewables development compared to Poland. This could threaten the progress of the energy transition in Poland

Read More

Incredible Considerations On Why Top Investors Are Taking A Critical Look At Solar Panels

It's great to see a business as prominent as Barclays Bank choosing a fund to help property owners in the UK benefit from alternative energy. According to the bank, a considerable portion of their agricultural consumers were completely conscious of how renewable energy could cut costs and produce additional income. Being pleased with the outcomes of this review and assertive, the bank would like to help these kinds of customers pay for initiatives like solar panels, hydropower or wind farms.

Thankfully, solar PV is becoming very efficient in Britain, particularly because these days the options are able to work on a system referred to as "radiated" light and do not count so much on that very rare, limitless sunshine. When you feel that it is possible to actually earn an income from feeding in your self-generated power into the electrical power grid, it's not surprising that there is a growing trend here.

In reality, it may be feasible for one to get a fairly good return on your capital investment by deciding to buy PV panels and then locking in the supply to the feed in tariff for a lengthy period of time. Not only can you get the electricity paid for, but this can be a fairly good investment decision particularly in our difficult to forecast economic times.

You may well be able to interest other organisations in finding cash for the panels to be installed on your rooftop. A few financiers could be enthusiastic to acquire the feed in tariff payment from the government in exchange, while needless to say you receive self-generated electrical energy which can help to cut back your yearly bill significantly.

The price of fossil fuel is guaranteed to keep growing, even as its supply dwindles each and every day. It's rarely been much more economically viable to look at your green alternatives, to start to be sustainable, reduce your carbon footprint and give the bank balance a shot in the arm too. Agricultural customers might be hearing from Barclays, but you should think about just how and why you can take advantage of this "enlightening" trend yourself.

Source: www.garvindirect.com

Read More