• Two Year Investment
• Annual Interest 13.56%
• Quarterly Interest Payments
• World Class Team
• Government Backed Contracts

To take advantage of this unique opportunity register for information and find out more!

The Solar Trade Association (STA) said plans to slash support from 2 Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) per MWh until April 2015 to 1.5 ROCs/MWh next year for the technology are unfair and not in the public interest as they will hold back a cost-effective technology.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) released its consultation levels on banded support for solar PV under the RO – the government’s main financial mechanism for large-scale renewable electricity generation – on Friday (7 September) afternoon, citing a “cautious approach” to levels because the pace of falling solar PV costs had been “consistently underestimated.”

But the STA’s CEO Paul Barwell said the new levels – which are considerably lower than those set out in last October’s RO Banding Review – meant the industry was once again having the rug pulled from under it.

“The proposed 25 per cent cut is too big and too soon. We understand DECC have concerns about how solar will interact with other renewable technologies under the RO, and how it will influence the budget, but deliberately under-rewarding solar to curtail the industry is definitely not the solution,” he said.

“This is not a fair proposal and it is not in the public interest to constrain a cost-effective technology.”

The STA also expressed concern over DECC’s failure to decide whether to issue a separate consultation on plans to exclude solar PV projects below 5MW from the RO.

It said that it is “vital” that both consultations are considered together to ensure a “coherent and ambitious framework for solar.”

The Association is setting up a Large Scale PV Group which will include installers, developers and investors in order to provide detailed feedback to government on the consultation, but added it was particularly concerned by mid-sized schemes, a fledgling area of the sector.

Seb Berry, Head of Public Affairs at Solarcentury, said he objected to the consultation as it failed to provide certainty or confidence for solar PV developers.

“The sector will have to wait until the end of November for certainty on the ROC rate from April 2013 and beyond,” he told E2B Pulse. “With large-scale projects typically having a nine months lead time, DECC is already creating an entirely avoidable hiatus in the market for at least the first quarter of the next financial year, regardless of the outcome of the consultation.”

He added: “The proposed 1.5 rate flies in the face of all of the advice that we and other companies involved in the large-scale PV sector have given.  If DECC is serious about its 22GW ambition and serious about the role that solar parks and other large installations can play in delivering that, it makes no sense at all to propose the RO equivalent of a feed-in tariff rate that is of no interest to investors.”

The proposed changes would apply to projects accredited under the RO scheme on or after 1 April 2013, and responses to the consultation are open until 19 October.

By James Kershaw. Originally posted on E2B Pulse.

One consortium, led by Toshiba Westinghouse, includes State Nuclear Power Technology Corp of China, while a second consortium includes China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corp., the FT reported.

The website quoted a person familiar with deliberations in the U.K.’s energy department as saying “it has always been understood that the Chinese could not have more than 50%, for reasons of public acceptance and political acceptance.”

U.K. officials say the government doesn’t have a “fixed view” on the composition of the consortia, the FT reported.

Originally published on Fox Business.

Original article published on Financial Times.

The government will channel the money through Equitix and Sustainable Development Capital, two funds that will aim to attract foreign investment to nurture clean and renewable energy companies. Clegg will also welcome the creation of the world’s first food-grade plastic bottle recycling plant in east London and the expansion of Spain’s Grupotec Tecnologia Solar SL solar panel works in the west of the capital.

“We seek nothing less than a clean, green, low-carbon economy,” Clegg will say in a speech in London, according to remarks released by the government’s business department. “There is a global energy revolution under way. And the U.K. is not going to be left behind.”

Last month, the government granted tax relief for natural gas drillers and cut subsidies for renewable energy, signaling more reductions in the months ahead as it balances demand for cheaper power against a goal to lower pollution from fossil fuels. The Department of Energy and Climate Change cut subsidies for onshore wind by 10 percent, offered less financial support than expected for biomass and said it may cut solar further.

Drax Group Plc (DRX), owner of the U.K.’s largest power station and biomass consumer, fell by a record 15 percent on July 25 when the government published the plan. Gas drillers get a tax credit worth 500 million pounds.

Clegg will make the comments at an investment conference attended by company executives including Sam Laidlaw, chief executive of Centrica Plc (CNA), Steve Holliday, chief executive office of National Grid Plc (NG/) and Keith Howells, chairman of Mott MacDonald Ltd.

Originally published on Bloomberg.com

Tokelau comprises three atolls in the South Pacific. Photovoltaic arrays have currently been installed on one island, and the installation of another two systems are scheduled to be complete by this October. Overall, 4,032 modules, 392 inverters and 1,344 batteries will provide electricity supply for the island. The first system on the atoll Fakaofo will be switched on in two weeks.

New Zealand solar company, Powersmart is supplying and installing the project. Due to the island locations of the installations, they will have to be able to withstand cyclone force winds up to 230 km/h.

Previously Tokelau relied entirely on expensive diesel to provide electricity between 15 and 18 hours a day. The territory has a population of 1,500 people across a combined land area of 10 square kilometers. Around 200 liters of fuel were previously burned for electricity daily. This required around 2,000 barrels to be shipped from New Zealand at a cost of NZD1 million (US$810,000) a year.

Powersmart director, Mike Bassett-Smith said the solution on Tokelau can be an example across the South Pacific. “Energy costs underpin the economic and social development of these nations and making a positive impact on these issues is the single most important reason we started this business.”

The company claims the project is the largest off-grid solar power project in the world and the largest solar system in the South Pacific. Coconut-oil fired generators will provide backup capacity for cloudy days.

The Tokelau project has come at a cost of NZD7.5 million (US$6.11 million) and was funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Even at today’s diesel prices, the array will have paid for itself in less than a decade.

The change is being welcomed by the Tokelauan community. “It’s going to be an amazing change from using fossil fuel,” says Foua Toloa. “It avoids expenses, but also bringing them there, it’s dangerous and any spill will affect the environment.”

After testing is complete on Fakaofo, work will commence on the remaining atolls of Atafu and Nukunon.

Originally published on PV Magazine.

More than 170 green businesses signed a letter to the prime minister, drafted by the Renewable Energy Association, calling for a public declaration of support for green energy and a resolution of the uncertainty that surrounds government plans for renewable power subsidies.

The signatories include Frances O’Grady, deputy secretary general of the TUC, Sir Tim Smit of the Eden Project, and Penny Shepherd, chief executive of the Sustainable Investment and Finance Association of investors, as well as veteran green campaigners Jonathon Porritt and Tony Juniper, adviser to Prince Charles.

They are worried that recent government U-turns on support for renewables are putting off much-needed investment in the sector. They point to the recent decision on future subsidies, which was long delayed and left significant issues unresolved so creating uncertainty for investors. For instance, although offshore wind subsidies are now clear until 2017, those for onshore wind face another review, and solar subsidies are likely to be reviewed again next year. This was confusing and scaring off financial backers for renewable energy projects, they said.

The letter to Cameron invoked the Olympic spirit. It : “We urgently need you to deliver a united ‘Team GB’ effort to secure the UK’s place as a world leader in green skilled jobs and technology. Massive investment in renewable energy is taking place across Europe and Asia and the UK cannot afford to miss out – neither can we afford to miss our carbon targets.”

Martin Wright, chairman of the Renewable Energy Association, said: “Renewables must not be treated like a political football, kicked between the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Treasury. Government shouldn’t squander this once in a generation opportunity to transform our energy system into one fit for the future, with all the jobs and inward investment this will bring.”

The signatories also referred to recent high-profile rows within the cabinet over the future of renewables. Aides to chancellor George Osborne have been briefing heavily that he wants to see more investment in gas-fired power generation, even though it is a fossil fuel with a highly volatile price.

The high cost of gas has been the biggest factor behind energy price rises in recent years, according to the government’s analysis. But Osborne believes that potential investors in gas will be put off by support for renewables – even though more than 10GW of new gas-fired generation is already in the advanced stages of planning or, in some cases, construction.

In a speech to potential overseas investors in UK energy on Tuesday, the chancellor failed to mention green energy at all, but praised oil and gas, pledging that gas would continue to be the UK’s biggest source of energy into the 2020s and beyond. He said: “There is no better example of the significant contribution that [the energy] sector makes to our economy than the UK oil and gas industry. This has long been one of our great industrial success stories.”

Originally published on The Guardian.

You ever play that game Whac-a-Mole? That’s kind of how I’ve felt over the last few months when separating fact from fiction about the solar energy industry in the U.S. We keep knocking down myths about solar, but they just keep popping up somewhere else.

But an op-ed by T.J. Rodgers in the Wall Street Journal last week really took that dynamic to a whole new level.

First and foremost, what really struck me most was who wrote the article. After all, Mr. Rodgers himself found a great investment opportunity in the solar industry because the very incentives he criticizes helped open market opportunities for his company right here in the United States.

I’m not knocking him for that. The U.S. solar energy industry is now one of the fastest growing industries in the United States because of innovation by companies like those Rodgers found to be smart investments.

The solar investment tax credit that Rodgers references in his piece has done exactly what it was meant to do. It has opened new markets in states across the country, creating jobs and making solar more affordable for average consumers each and every year. In fact, the price of solar panels has fallen 40 percent since the beginning of the year.

Today, the solar energy industry employs more than 100,000 Americans at 5,000 businesses located in every state. Many of these are small businesses that are finding new opportunity for growth in the solar industry. It is leading to rapid innovation — across the spectrum from factory improvements to new financing and sales mechanisms that are allowing more and more Americans to go solar.

In fact, the third-party ownership model that Rodgers criticizes has made solar more accessible to homeowners and small businesses than ever before by eliminating what has always been the biggest barrier to adoption: the upfront cost. Solar energy is not a luxury item for the wealthy. Two-thirds of California home solar installations since 2009 have been in zip codes with median annual household incomes of less than $85,000 and not in the wealthiest areas of the state.

Rodgers is correct that buying a system outright is ultimately the most cost-effective option. But because you are essentially prepaying your electricity bills for the next 30 years, for most homeowners and small businesses, this is simply not an affordable option. This is no different from purchasing a new car: leases and loans enable more people to enjoy the benefits of owning a new vehicle. So flexibility in financing for homeowners has been a game changer that is saving homeowners money, allowing businesses to grow, and yes, being increasingly viewed as a profitable investment by Wall Street.

The notion that we are creating “employee-less corporations” is laughable. As I mentioned earlier, the solar industry in the U.S. employs 100,000 Americans, more than twice as many as in 2009. With the growth in popularity of these new financing mechanisms, small businesses across the country are finding that they need to hire skilled workers to meet increased demand. Roofers, electricians, plumbers and contractors — skilled labor professions that have been hit hard by rampant unemployment in recent years — are finding new opportunities to put their expertise to work in the solar industry.

It is true that the global solar manufacturing industry is experiencing a transition, with a global oversupply of PV panels and questions looming over Chinese trade practices which will be determined over the coming months. But Rodgers ignores the intricacies of the solar manufacturing supply-chain and oversimplifies a complex challenge for manufacturers — both in the U.S. and abroad.

Yes, solar energy products enter the U.S. from China. They also enter from Europe, South Korea, Japan, Mexico, Taiwan and dozens of other countries, just like thousands of other goods enjoyed by Americans every day. But this is unusual: the U.S. exports solar energy products as well. In fact, the U.S. was a $2 billion net exporter of solar energy products in 2010, even a net exporter to China. Solar energy projects also create significant value beyond the price of physical components. Factors such as site preparation, installation labor, permitting, financing and other soft costs account for a significant percentage of a U.S. solar energy project. These are factors that cannot be outsourced. In 2010, 75 percent of the direct value created by domestic solar energy projects accrued to the U.S.

Rodgers also spreads the myth that incentives for energy technologies are a new phenomenon in the U.S. The truth is, when it comes to our energy portfolio, free markets have never existed. The government has chosen for over a century to incentivize energy production because it is the heart of our economy. From 19th-century coal through 20th-century oil, natural gas and nuclear, all energy industries in the U.S. have received substantial, permanent subsidies from the federal government. It was right to invest in those industries to power our economy then; it is right to invest in solar to power our economy now.

With a combination of technological and financial innovation, market access, and effective federal incentives, the U.S. solar industry is driving down the cost of solar and rapidly scaling an industry key to America’s energy future. The ultimate beneficiary is American consumers. Homeowners, small businesses, retailers, churches, community centers, cities — all of these can benefit from cheaper, cleaner solar energy.

Rodgers is correct in one respect. Since its beginning in 2006, solar project developers found it difficult to actually use the investment tax credit. This is because most developers were either small businesses or startups that did not have the “tax appetite” to use the 30 percent credit. Put another way, they did not yet have the taxable profits necessary to use the full 30 percent credit on their returns.

This is where tax equity players came in as partners with project developers. These were large firms — like investment banks — that did have taxable income. Where Rodgers sees a scam, most people saw a win-win-win. Tax equity players found a solid investment, solar energy businesses were able to continue building projects and creating jobs, and consumers saw solar energy as an increasingly affordable energy choice.

But the financial crisis in 2008 decimated the availability of tax equity in the marketplace. Banks that were hanging by a thread no longer had the tax appetite necessary to continue investing in projects and developers suddenly faced an overwhelming shortage of available capital. Tax revenues across all sectors sank, shrinking the national pool of tax equity almost overnight. Meanwhile, thousands of parts of our economy who rely on tax policy still sought to use the shrinking pool, meaning demand far exceeded supply and little was left for solar. What was left was expensive to get.

Recognizing that the tax credit was not working as they intended, Congress passed the Section 1603 Treasury program as a temporary fix while tax equity markets recovered. The 1603 program allows flexibility in how project developers monetize the tax credit. Instead of writing off 30 percent of the cost on their tax return in April, which was impossible for businesses with small profit margins, developers could now opt for a direct upfront payment and solving the tax issue. The amount and cost to the Treasury was the same, but that critical change in timing made all the difference for energy project developers across the country.

This program has been a resounding success, not only for solar energy developers, but for developers in over a dozen energy technologies. The program has leveraged $23 billion in private sector investment for more than 22,000 energy projects located in all 50 states. And it’s not a new credit: the 1603 Treasury Program is merely a tweak to the tax code to allow what Congress intended to create — an incentive for energy technologies to help power our economy and increase national security by diversifying our energy resource mix.

The program is set to expire at the end of this year, despite the fact that the tax equity markets have not yet recovered to their pre-financial crisis strength. The U.S. Partnership for Renewable Energy Finance estimates that available financing for renewable energy projects will be cut in half if the 1603 program is allowed to expire. For solar energy in particular, they estimate that more than $10 billion worth of solar energy projects will not proceed if it expires on December 31.

This is why a broad coalition of more than 750 companies and business associations is calling on Congress to extend this program before the end of the year. An extension of the program would create 37,000 jobs and add 2,000 megawatts of additional capacity in just the solar industry alone. And that is just one of a dozen energy technologies affected by this program.

Make no mistake, if the program expires, we will start to see projects scrapped and jobs lost almost instantly in 2012.

You can help us make sure that the solar industry continues to create jobs and investment across the U.S. Call your Senators or send them a message and tell them not to let this job-creating program expire. There are only a few days left in the year and this is an all hands on deck effort for the solar energy industry and our allies in other energy sectors. If you want the U.S. to meet its potential as a powerhouse in renewable energy, this is one simple way you can help. Or we can let Congress do to renewables what this guy is doing to electronic moles.

Originally published on Huffington Post.

Rhone’s full biography and information about SEIA here.

Climate of the Nation 2012 measures Australian attitudes to climate change, related policies and solutions in mid-2012.

A couple of things are clear from the survey according to the Climate Institute: “Australians are sick of the politics and scared about rising costs of living”.

Clear also is Australians’ passion for solar energy. While solar was among the top three energy options for 81 per cent of respondents, wind was the second most preferred option with 59 per cent and hydro, 44 per cent.

Solar power was the most popular energy choice in all states, with the highest number of most preferred votes in Western Australia (88 per cent), followed by South Australia, Queensland and Victoria (each at 82 per cent), and New South Wales (75 per cent).

While  28 per cent placed gas within the top three most preferred sources, for 31 per cent it was slung in the three least preferred energy options.

Two-thirds placed coal in their least preferred three, just a whisker more than nuclear at 64 per cent.

76 per cent of respondents stated increasing the amount of renewable energy in Australia’s energy mix was the most effective greenhouse gas emission reduction policy.

“..Australians’ vision for a low-carbon future is one that taps into the nation’s abundant renewable energy resource,” said John Connor, CEO of The Climate Institute.

The Climate Institute has conducted comprehensive quantitative and qualitative research into Australian attitudes to climate change and its solutions since 2007.

The latest survey was carried out among 1,131 Australian adults.

Originally published on EcoBusiness.com.

“This major solar investment will make Sainsbury’s a greener grocer and gives a significant boost to the UK’s renewable energy sector.

“Firms across the UK are waking up to the business benefits of using clean British energy from the sun, wind and waves to reduce our reliance on increasingly expensive fossil fuels.

“It’s little surprise that 85 per cent of the public want the Government to force the energy companies to use more renewable energy and less fossil fuels – if we do this and cut waste it will bring down bills in the long term and create new UK industries and jobs.

“The Government must do more to reap the UK’s huge potential for renewable energy – their new Energy Bill must aim for a carbon-free electricity sector by 2030.”

“The Government has clearly listened to feedback, especially in regards to support for the community sector. However it’s clear from its comments that the Government understands there are issues still to be dealt with, primarily the difficulty faced in researching and developing projects due to the associated costs. Removing the requirement for achieving an EPC level D or above will certainly help community organisations to progress worthwhile projects with more certainty.

“Despite the increased level of administration, we also welcome the preliminary accreditation system as it will give confidence to project developers. However as this preliminary accreditation system will mainly benefit larger individual systems, it won’t entirely reverse the slow-down in the PV market because a large amount of the investment in this sector has come in the form of “funds” for multiple installations rather than one-off projects.

“We believe some of the available heat technologies would benefit from a similar preliminary accreditation system, and would like to see one introduced for the non-domestic RHI.”