Featured Blog Posts All Blog Posts

Why I Believe in Thin Film

By Dana Blankenhorn
January 27, 2011 | 26 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Bookmark

When most people think of solar energy, they see flat panels on a roof.

They don't think about thin film. They don't see it.

This is one of the many advantages of CIGS and other thin film solar technologies. So what if its efficiency is half that of a panel? It conforms to the shape of the place where it lays.

Thin film can also be productized in ways no panel can. It can be turned into something retailers can sell or bloggers will drool over. Try doing that with a panel.

With the exception of the 800-pound Gorilla First Solar, it's true that we're still measuring the annual supply from these manufacturers in megawatts, figures utility companies can't (and often don't want to) hear, except as window-dressing or a source of subsidies. But changing that equation is as simple as getting the right product into mass production. (Skeptics should listen again to the words of former DEC CEO Ken Olsen. "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.")

Personally I think I've seen the future and it's thin.

Copper indium gallium (di)selenide is also not the only possible formula for a thin film. Sharp is looking at amorphous silicon, despite Applied Materials' failure with it. Maybe they will succeed, and maybe they'll fail too. The search for new materials will go on. (Like the man told Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate, "One word. Plastics.")

There is a ton of competition in this space. Analysts at Greentech Media recently wrote a list of just CIGS thin film companies for a story on one of them. Want to hear it? Solar Frontier, Qcells, Solyndra, SoloPower, MiaSolé, Wuerth Solar, Stion, GSP, Nanosolar. They can't all be wrong, can they?

And is that an exhaustive list? Far from it. Venture capitalists are funding more all the time, often on the promise of greater efficiency. While analysts at Greentech Media are very positive about companies like AQT Solar that can get into production fast and cheap, or SoloPower, with its claims of UL Labs approval, it's clear to me that this is the first mile of a corporate marathon.

Put it this way. How many PC makers from the late 1970s can you name? (Other than Apple.) In terms of this market, I don't even think we're at 1977 yet.

There are just so many directions in which improvement can happen with thin films. Efficiency, production cost, durability, materials cost, etc. It's true that the total power being supplied by CIGS right now looks pathetic next to standard panels, but the advantages are just too obvious.

That's why companies like Dow Chemical and (now) Intel are putting cash into the space. Dow likes the idea of solar systems that go on with the roof, that in fact are the roof. Intel likes Sulfurcell , a German company that claims (as others do) that thin films can be as efficient as panels.

The way to look at this is not through the eyes of current production, or short-term profits. It's about the technologies behind the curtain, the new materials and techniques that can get that to market. A good venture capitalist will invest in 10 plays knowing only three will ever bring him any return, but in hopes that 1 of those three will be huge. That's the right attitude to have.

What does it mean when every roof, every wall, every tent and bleach blanket can be delivering solar power to its owner? Remember, electronics and many electrical devices are requiring less-and-less power every year.

More to the point, what does it mean to an industry that depends on long-term contracts for construction of panel systems if the wall can deliver just as much power for the cost of wallpapering? Or painting? That's a silly question today, but one that the people in this business should probably start thinking about.

Green Power, Other, Solar Energy

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

26 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 26

belcat

January 27, 2011

I totally want to see solar panels or thin film as roof material. If you tell people their roof can cost 6k and do nothing for them, or 20k and give them money and be good for the environment, I think a number of them would find the extra 14k to do it, especially if the 30 year warranty wasn't prorated. Currently there are solar tiles, but they seem... complicated.

If thin film could be really cheap, it could replace siding, and (even more exotic) be a roadway surface (yes, someone is trying for this already).

Things like digital thermometers might be able to be built for cheaper than the cost of a battery... maybe not yet, but it is so close. Or a phone holster that captures solar energy and reduces the phone's need to be recharged.

Comment
2 of 26

paulmil

January 28, 2011

Thin film is lower efficiency but HIGHER Annual yield, in Hot climates.

That means it produces MORE Energy than Mono Crystalline. People are fooled into buying Crystalline PV on its laboratory efficiency, which is meaningless, unless you install your system in the Laboratory. Annual yield lights light bulbs, efficiency does not.

Comment
3 of 26

Nick-Cook-83037

January 28, 2011

paulmil "Thin film is lower efficiency but HIGHER Annual yield, in Hot climates."

How does this work?
What you appear to be saying is that thinfilm converts less incident solar energy into electricity yet produces more electricity than a cell that converts more incident solar energy into electricity.
Where is the energy for the extra electricity comming from?, or does thin film not obey the laws of energy conservation?

Is what you mean that; Thin gives greater energy yield per unit area because Crystaline uses a greater area for mounting hardware, or are you talking about energy return per unit of investment, e.g. Wh/$?.

Both economics and area yield need to be considered, if for aguments sake, taking a hypothetical situation, thin-PV was 1 cent a Watt but only 0.1% efficient you would probably be better off growing trees and burning them because you wold probably need to cover the whole of the USA with thin-PV just to light your light bulbs!
Any way, I would suggest that just as big a problem/challenge, is viable energy storage, presueably you will want to light your light bulbs when the Sun ain't shining!

Comment
4 of 26

jen-aitchison-169463

January 28, 2011

As the cost/watt decreases, we will likely start seeing thin film used directly on building materials and windows as it generally needs a much larger expanse than the crystalline panels, however is still in my opinion a viable option. There are many firms already experimenting with these things and including roofing tiles. The problem now is cost and efficiency. As technology advances, viability will only increase.

Comment
5 of 26

alok-misra-131510

January 28, 2011

First the Technology- In our experience what part of our body or even utensil that is thin gets hot faster.Clearly the hand or the head in our body and and in utencils the bottom round part It means that the shape of thin film is a factor in catching energy which is very true as can be seen by collectors in CSP.Now it utilizes only the UV part and not the infrared part of Energy.So the film must be designed to capture this Infrared part too. That is it must be multilayer film and water could circulate thru the space between the layers.This will increase the effeciency of the thin film as it is not only catching the UV radiation but also infrared perhaps producing electricity and hot water. Then its optimum shape needs to be evolved. True sun rays are all parallel but then the building shape is also a factor unless only roof is used.So lot of creative engineering is to be done to make it a success.

Comment
6 of 26

Andrew_W

January 28, 2011

When will it be $1/Watt. That may be a real reason for excitement. Until then, it's over-priced and under-performing.

Comment
7 of 26

Anonymous

January 28, 2011

On thin film, $1/watt retail is within reach (last I've heard, First Solar is at $0.88/watt manufacturing cost already). Efficient inverters need to come down in price (~ $4K for a 5KW unit is too much).

The HUGE problem in this industry remains the labor intensive installation, which increases the final price significantly.

Payback has to be within 5 years; most people do not know how long they'll be in a house. A longer payback period puts a large financial risk on the owner. For example (and ironically), in many of the sunbelt markets, one could price a home out of the competitive market by trying to recoup just a portion of the system cost in the selling price.

Comment
8 of 26

paulmil

January 29, 2011

You all missed the point. I said in Hot climates, or Hot summer weather, Thin Film will produce MORE Annual Yield. That is more Kilowatt hours per year, per watt peak. Not area, not efficiency.

This is because Mono Crystalline is badly affected by heat and loses 0.05% power, per degree C, above the 25C Laboratory test temperature. Thin film has no such loss. The laboratory test is done by 3 flashes of light for 1/10 second each flash. The Sun does NOT flash for 3 times only, it stays ON all day. This gives a very much different result when both panels are in the real Sun and not in a Laboratory. Note surface temperature of the panel is 25C above Air temperature.That is 50C surface temperature in a 25C Ambient area.

C-si has no shadow tolerance so loses power with any shading. Thin film is very shadow tolerant so loses little power with small areas of shading.

Thin Film works well in cloudy or diffuse lighting conditions where C-si does not.

Add all this together and you get 30% MORE annual yield per watt peak, from Thin Film, than from Crystalline, in HOT weather. IN cold weather, with no Sun, BOTH types give very little power so it does not matter.

I have some university studies on the comparison of all types of PV and ALL show Thin film is always the highest producer per watt peak in hot weather, no matter what brand.All major laboratories confirm these findings.

The studies are in *.pdf format but I can't attach them here. go to www.solarvoltaic.com and read them there, or e-mail me at paulmil@tm.net.my and I will send them.

Comment
9 of 26

jerry-cheesman-41023

January 29, 2011

I have heard that thin film on average surpassed Photo-voltaic panels in 2010 from a standpoint of cost/watt installed/efficiency. In May 2010, U.S.Solar was quoting 74 cents per watt installed cost. Possibly, something extra is going on here. Perhaps, we are seeing the integration of the photo-voltiac effect with several other effects which can also add to the total output of thinfilm. For example, where most of the solar energy is converted to heat upon contact with the thimfilm, it is possible to capture the free electrons released as they are excited into higher energy levels by the solar radiation. This capture precludes the loss of this energy and increases the output per square meter of aperture area. Further, it may be possible to include the pizo-electric phenominum, as another income stream for driving down the cost/watt.

Comment
10 of 26

paulmil

January 30, 2011

Clee,

People who have never used Thin film are always happy with their Crystalline panels. But Once they try Thin Film or have a nieghbour who uses thin film, then it is a very different story.

Only in Summer will you see the difference, as the difference is too small in winter to notice.Solar power is only really effective in countries with lots of Sun, that is Tropical climates.

You will get 130% of rated power, on a long string of hot Summer days, from the Thin Film modules.This is because its laboratory efficiency test, was done at STC, not at real conditions. Here in K.L. we have Air mass of 1 and higher watts per square metre.

I did test the Solarworld polycrystalline in Kuala Lumpur. It gave only 70% of its rated output.As you pointed out, you are not in Kuala Lumpur, so makes no difference to your system.

Because you get more energy from the Thin film modules, you need less of them, so they would have fitted on your limited roof area. There is little difference in using either type in cold climates. Thin film only has the big advantage in the hot climates.

Comment
11 of 26

paulmil

January 30, 2011

Clee,

The tropical output measurements are from several different sources, which all showed the same consistent results.

Some from Universities in Australia and Africa and then actual test measurements, of real Annual yield figures, from many systems, operating in Malaysia and South Africa.Then test results published by the major test Laboratories.

You can get these tropical measurement reports from many places.They all seem to show the same results.You don't have to use my results only.

Comment
12 of 26

paulmil

January 31, 2011

Clee,

You are right to stick with your crystalline panels in your area. They will give almost as much energy as Thin film over the year.

You have no idea what laboratory conversion efficiency means.That is why you are confused about the difference in Annual yield achieved.

Laboratory efficiency is the conversion efficiency of a Solar panel, at its very best, ONLY in the optimum laboratory conditions, in a laboratory."At its very best", means its Peak value, hence the term WATTS PEAK as the rated output.

This is only its MAXIMUM conversion efficiency INSIDE the laboratory, in artificial conditions, that do not occur outside, in the Sun, in the real World.

Look at the Solarworld panel. You will see that it specifies a temperature coefficient as a LOSS value. That means for every degree its surface temperature rises it loses power. Its efficiency becomes much less. So in fact its conversion efficiency drops when it gets warm. The efficiency drops in diffuse Sunlight. The efficiency drops if the Sun angle is not 90 degrees. The efficiency drops rapidly if there are leaves or a bird over just one single cell of the panel. So you can not claim it has 13% efficiency, when it is in the Sun in the real World. Its efficiency in the real World depends on its surface temperature, its angle of inclination, the Air mass above it,pollution, shadows and several other factors.13% is only INSIDE the laboratory and ONLY at its MAXIMUM output during the test, at perfect conditions.

So you can see that its laboratory efficiency is meaningless outside the laboratory.

In the real world, the only thing you can measure for sure, is the annual yield obtained, in Kilowatt hours, from a given watts peak.

Just look at any of the Thin Film installations in your area and check your received and paid for, Annual Yield, in kilowatt hours, against theirs.Who got the most per watt peak per year.

Ignore me, use your own measurements.

We only got 3 Sun hours per day in Kuala Lumpur.

Comment
13 of 26

paulmil

January 31, 2011

Clee,

Just out of interest, how many Kilowatt hours did you get, over the whole year, from your PV system at 4.89 Sun Hours per day?

I got 1,500 Kilowatt hours, per Kilowatt peak from my Thin Film systems. 4.7 Sun hours per day quoted but I live at the foothills, so I get rain every day and only see 3 Sun hours. I get 0.31 cents per kilowatt hour, for this power produced.This output shows absolutely no correlation to the laboratory efficiency you gave.

The STC conditions are for maxiumum output on Crystalline PV in the laboratory. They are NOT the peak conditions for thin film, so the efficiency shown at those conditions, is NOT accurate for Thin Film, which needs a completely different set of conditions to give its real watts peak.

Paul

Comment
14 of 26

ecdfan

February 1, 2011

An interesting discussion. But here are some facts:

1) No thin-film module maker (other than First Solar) is profitable, and most will close doors by the end of 2013. The reason: thin-film (other than First Solar) is not cost-competitive with crystalline on efficiency-adjusted basis. Meaning, an 11%-efficient module needs to be made at 77c per Watt today to be competitive with the 14%-efficient crystalline module made at less than $1.10 per Watt.

2) While thin-film can indeed deliver up to 5% better annual energy yield (kWhs per rated Watt) in certain climates and in certain installation designs, that happens only in the first 1-5 years. After that, the higher long-term degradation associated with thin-film takes over and thin-film starts underperforming crystalline.

3) PV solar is a long-term investment, yet no thin-film installation has survived 25 years in the field. I am still searching for even one thin-film installation that has survived 20 years in the field or even one thin-film installation that is still performing within warranted parameters after just 10 years in the field.

Comment
15 of 26

PVinstaller

February 1, 2011

Let me step in here and take the Rose Colored Glasses off of Paulmil... I hate to throw a wet blanket on these forever thin-film Pollyanna's, but thin film is destined to always be a poor second-class PV cousin to mono or crystalline PV substrates.

I have installed over 250+ solar PV systems in the last ten years and can personally testify that thin film has just too many things against it (blame it on physics basically...)

I don't even know where to start in pointing out the area inefficiency, the durability or life expectancy, the 20+ years of big promises of lower costs, the hundreds of failed marketing ventures, the thousands of brilliant minds trying to solve / out-think the laws of physics etc. The biggest problem is that they simply can't manufacture their laboratory experiments – nor make it last out in the sun for longer than 5 years.

I just chuckled at the first naive comments by "Belcat". It seems so funny to look at children who just wishes that he could just do something that they have no understandings about the complexity and non-realistic things that would need to happen before it could become a reality. Such as thin film becoming as good or better than the real thing.

Comment
16 of 26

FreeAsTheWind

February 1, 2011

Wow! I love it when engineers/techno-geeks fight! Not having the technical background that you guys seem to have, I have to admit that it's a bit confusing.

My gut level is that it's probably not going to be an all or nothing type of thing, but rather a situationally dependent one.

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell

Comment
17 of 26

aligatorhardt

February 1, 2011

I see no reason to make demands and impose time lines on thin film technology. It will progress in it's own time. The only thing that really matters is if the power it produces is enough to cover the investment. The use of thin film technology applied to building materials is one of the most intriguing aspects. I look foreword to seeing it's development.

Comment
18 of 26

paulmil

February 1, 2011

Free,

Thin film has LESS depreciation than C-si and in Hot climates actually INCREASES its output over time. There are a great many Thin Film installations over 25 years old still working and many of them, famous enough that you should know them. SMUD for example:-
http://www.nrel.gov/pv/thin_film/docs/osborn_ases_smud_asi_experience.pdf One of the earliest reports that Thin Film outlasts and out performs C-si. Modern Thin Film out performs all of these old Thin Film installations, which even then, out performed Crystalline.

In Hot weather it is the Crystalline PV that depreciates rapidly and drops typically 7% in 5 years. All this is well documented and you must have seen it.

If YOUR installations fail it is not because of the thin film. I have many Thin Film Installations over 10 years old in Malaysia. All working well and have less than 5% deterioration. My oldest one is 18 years old.

Look at Kanaka modules. They have installations many over 25 years old. How can you claim you have not seen them. You have not looked very far.

Solarex was installing large amounts of Thin Film all over the World, until they were taken over by AMOCO and then shut down without reason. If they had continued to sell, then Thin Film would have been the major PV in use. http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=2001268

Sharp is now making Thin Film modules, Q-cells is making Thin Film modules, 120 new Thin Film manufacturers opened up in China. Come into the 21st century.

Physics is on the side of Thin Film. It will always be able to outperform Crystalline because of its real World physical capabilities, not because of any unrealistic laboratory test result. A real World test should be used to give an indication of PV output.Output is measured in energy produced, that is Kilowatt hours per year. If you are buying PV, then you should look at the Annual yield and ignore all this crap about efficiency and depreciation and area. ALL you WANT is energy.

Comment
19 of 26

PVinstaller

February 2, 2011

Paulmil,
I have an installation 10 miles away from me, that we put up 1,650 watts of thin film UniSolar brand modules, and then an identical 1,650 watts of Sharp 165-watt modules and have them on separate, very accurate meters. We did this because the guy has UniSolar stock in the company...this was in 1990.

The two systems were somewhat close to each other in production the first year, then each and EVERY year the thin film loses the contest by more and more. Honestly, last year (2010) they only produced 73% of what the Sharp multi-crystalline identical sized solar array did. And they are only going to get worse. Just because they (the thin film) are "still working" doesn't give you a valid claim that thin film "works". That's a silly positive spin if you ask me.

And neither is the fact that there are a hundred more start-up companies in the past year stretching out for the mythical Holy Grail. Wishes and good intentions don't change things. Your arguments are hollow and factually pointless in my opinion.

Bottom line is this: Where is there any profitable thin film manufacturer on the earth – today – that is profitable? There is not a single one (that's still even in business, not bankrupt) that is not paying out huge warranty payments (for under performing their promises). First Solar is doomed financially– as are the rest of them.

Comment
20 of 26

paulmil

February 4, 2011

PV installer,

I believe Kanaka is very profitable and always has been. They make A-si. http://www.pv.kaneka.co.jp/why/index.html

First Solar is also very profitable. There are many others.

They don't advertise because they have more Thin Film orders than they can handle.

There is a glut of crystalline panels and in Malaysia, 4 crystalline plants shut down because they can not sell crystalline panels. Nothing to do with me or my thoughts on the subject.None of the Thin Film plants have closed, only crystalline plants.

I have no arguments, only facts. I look only at the many Thin Film installations over 15 years old and at the Kilowatt hours they produce per year. No Bullshit about efficiency or area or laboratory tests.I leave out the Bullshit.Check from the many PV monitoring agencies or just ask how much PV owners get in cash per year on BIPV systems. Thin Film always gives the highest returns per wp.Don't look at my figures go straight to the PV monitoring sites directly.

Very simple, Just look at Cost, per kilowatt hour produced, per year, over ten years.That is all you need to know.

You did not mention how many kilowatt hours per year, each of the systems you describe produced, or how you measured this or how many Kwp each system or the size of the Inverter or if you used MPPT, which all make a difference to the output.

You didn't mention that NO crystalline installation meets the rated output.Ask Clee, he DIDN"T get what he expected.No one ever gets what they expect from Crystalline PV.They do from Thin Film.

You didn't mention that most Thin Film manufacturers guarantee the generated output, in kilowatt hours, for 25 years.

You didn't read the SMUD report, which showed that the Thin Film A-si, very old, first generation modules, did NOT show any deterioration over the long term.We are now at 11th generation Thin Film, which has even LESS deterioration.

All these FACTS you don't see. Burying your head in the sand does not mean the rest of can't see

Comment
21 of 26

Anonymous

February 4, 2011

Funny how KWp is considered Bullshit, but KWh/KWp is the most important number. Sorry, but shit divided by Bullshit is still Bullshit. Garbage in, garbage out.

Comment
22 of 26

paulmil

February 6, 2011

What is KWp? It is a LABORATORY TEST MEASUREMENT. A measurement of the MAXIMUM power,(not energy), a cell produces, in laboratory conditions, from 3 flashes of simulated Sunlight, at an artificial temperature, in artificial conditions.It is NOT a measurement of the energy produced in real World conditions. It is NOT a measurement of energy at all. It is a measurement of instantaneous power from a 1/10 of a second simulated flash. It is a measurement used to confuse and cheat the consumer.You do NOT get paid for KWp. You can not run a light bulb on KWp.The consumer can't measure KWp.

What is KWh/KWp? Kilowatt hours IS a measurement of ENERGY. This IS the real energy PRODUCED by the PV cell at the house and available for use by the consumer. The power that the consumer has available and can be paid for or can use to power his equipment.The customer can measure this.

So if you want to cheat your customers you can give them KWP figures and KWP outputs and even give them a warranty on KWP. So even if they get nothing out of the panels in the real installation, you don't have to pay them under the warranty, because the KWp is still the same back in the laboratory.The consumer can't check it.The sucker has no chance to get his money back.

If you use KWh/KWp in the guarantee, then you have to make sure your system produces the energy guaranteed. Thin Film retailers will do this. Crystalline retailers know they can not do this, so they stick with KWp which the consumer can not measure.The consumer CAN measure the Kwh so he will make sure he gets what you promised him.

So if you only sell Crystalline panels, I guess you will only use the KWp and heap on a good serving of Bullshit.

If you sell both types then you will use KWh/KWp per Year and guarantee it.

Paul

Comment
23 of 26

Anonymous

February 9, 2011

From a neutral view, I was very interested in the technology, but when I started really looking to integrate, the unfortunate negative list got bigger and bigger.

I was installing a E-W metal roof, not perfect by any means, and so any watt ratings went out the window, as it is necessary to point South, and have an angle pointing to the sun. (Any rating is always at perfect angle & inclination)

Half the efficiency does Not mean even close to Half the Cost.
It would cost more to get far less than angled panels.

Window Wishing, the efficiency will be less than 1/2 the already low rating on a window thats on a wall 90degs, even less if its not pointing True South, and ther cost is astounding, if you can even get a cost.

This technology has been waiting for a breakthrough for what 30 years, there are several big companies getting big Fed $$$ for this breakthrough that were all waiting for. Some of these companys are also getting big $$$ from private investors, and one I know of is making big sales pitches for more, even though its on the verge of bankruptcy, actually I've heard they have already filed.

Here goes another Evergreen Solar, Take the money & run, don't for get to thank Pres, Osama boys.

The Price for all Solar will never come down to where everyone can afford it, for the same reason Gas prices will not go down & continue to go up "Because they Can,,, Most are owned by the Oil Co's and the same Stock holders, who just want to get richer.
Unfortunately the Big Oil Corporations bought up all the Solar PV Co's in the late 70's & 80's, and the "rich must get richer" it's "CORPORATE GREED" that were all fighting here... So lets stop fighting each other.

Solar Thermal is by far the more cost effective way to go.

Tim

Comment
24 of 26

paulmil

February 9, 2011

Tim,

At last a sensible answer. Yes Solar Thermal is much more cost effective.

Thin film has always been more cost effective than crystalline and still is, if you look at cost against Annual yield. Like you said, efficiency ratings go out the window, when you install in real life.

Paul

Comment
25 of 26

RobinV

February 25, 2011

Not every green technology works the same way in every place. Thin-film panels may benefit much more from the albedo effect, so could prove a better option for areas that get more snowfall.

A research project taking place at St. Lawrence College and Queen's University in Kingston is studying the complex relationship between snow and solar PV panels. I believe it's definitely something worth understanding. A preliminary Queen's study of how snow affects panel performance has already revealed some interesting data, and if this is true, I'll (try to) stop complaining about being buried deep in South Dakota:

"Snow effect increases albedo, which had a significant (positive) effect on the performance of panels," explained Adegboyega Babasola, lead researcher at St. Lawrence College's Sustainable Energy Applied Research Centre.

Interesting, yes?

P.S. I'm going outside to shovel my driveway now, and not at all upset about it like I usually am. ha! Don't count us out; keep those "Snow Studies" coming! ;)

Comment
26 of 26

jerry-cheesman-41023

February 26, 2011

Reflected (albedo) radiation will be a primary key to continued cost/watt reductions, especially when you consider we are entering a period of increased solar activity. The reflectors which can increase albedo gain, will also allow the instantaneous capture of free electron emission from the excited reflector surface materials as solar flares emitting photons, free electrons and protons impinge on the reflector and as excited electrons are emitted. It is easy to envision
how thin-film might be the ideal reflector from a total output standpoint, where the receiver might be a fresnel lense, stirling engine or an mhd coil. Another possability is a hybrid panel which includes thin film absorbor plate backed by a roll bonded hot water heater absorbor plate. The important thing here is how many solar megawatts or gigawatts capacity per day can we get on line before next year! In the same manner we need to integrate solar projects with wind energy and other renewable projects to increase the peak capacity, one of solars greatest advantages. JerryCheesman@yahoo.com

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Dana Blankenhorn

Add to my network

About: Dana Blankenhorn has covered business and technology since 1978. He covered the Houston oil boom of the 1970s, began making his living online in 1985, and launc... more »