Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Solar Shootout in the San Joaquin Valley

By Bob Haavind, Editor-at-large, Photovoltaics World
May 18, 2009   |   13 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
The data on the Fat Spaniel Web site also allows the group to compare the 1-MW Phase One solar-tracking system with a number of fixed installations, such as a 1-MW fixed-axis rooftop system at a fruit packing firm in Hanford, CA, a system that Conergy also installed.
13 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 13
Anonymous
May 18, 2009
The so-called expert reporting on these systems, David Vincent, seems clueless. Yes, the CdTe will perform better. But the reasons aren't as he stated. The reason is a better temperature coefficient (for high temperature perfomance is better in CdTe) and more resistivity in the CdTe interconnects, so that when there is less sunlight, the CdTe module efficiencies rise, creating more output than from a similarly rated c-Si module.

It's a very important experiment, still quite a bit dependent on the locality, but it's important that those involved bone up on the facts so they present it right.
Comment
2 of 13
May 18, 2009
Anonymous has made some excellent points but this does not detract from the fact that thin film seems to be proving itself in practice. I believe that the comparison of crystalline and thin film will further increase investment in thin film modules since the cost per watt is less and they produce well under conditions adverse to the crystalline cells. Anonymous is correct in emphasizing the importance of the locality because in an area of strong and steady sun conditions, the crystalline cells might have provided better output. It is my opinion that these studies are good in that they will be providing data for PV companies intending to set up large plants. There is no doubt that as other types of PV become available, there will be a better selection of PV modules for specific geographic/climatic locations.

I would be interested in the use of simple mirrors to enhance light gathering. I know that a greater area would be required but since tracking has already proven to increase energy production by 15%, it would be logical to assume that mirror enhancement to 1.5 or 2 suns should bring up power output even more in a cost effective manner.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment
3 of 13
May 18, 2009
In Haavind's article he writes: "Conergy's Vincent says that the side-by-side face-off between monocrystalline and thin-film systems is attracting worldwide attention, particularly in Europe where solar has advanced much further than in the U.S."

Is he saying that European solar technololgy is more advanced or is there just a greater number of solar installations. If European technology is more advanced, can somesome give me a few quick examples?

Thanks!
Comment
4 of 13
Patricia - It's no secret that Europe is ahead of the US with solar installations, particularly in Germany and Spain, but the US is catching up due largely to the incentives that forward-thinking state and federal legislators have put in place. There are many manufacturers of both crystalline and thin-film modules around the world, and technology differences between manufacturers are relatively minor with regard to output efficiency.

Based upon what is on the market and what is due to come out soon, my opinion is that the US and Asia are leading the advances in technology. There are some interesting technologies that European researchers are working on, but when you look at what Sanyo, First Solar, Evergreen, SunPower and Solyndra are doing now, I'd say my point is well supported.
No image available
Comment
5 of 13
Anonymous
May 20, 2009
Just to add one more minor point - the thin film in this case, CdTe, sees light above 1.5 eV - less light than x-Si (1.1 eV). Perhaps the expert thinks it is CIS, with a band gap of 1-1.1 eV. In any case, what I am very interestd in is the kWh/kW output and the economics of tracking Cdte, since that has never been done before. It will be interesting to see if the greater output outweighs the greater cost, and how much added tracker O&M there is. This is a beautiful experiment and may even define the path forward for CdTe, which would be a huge change..
Comment
6 of 13
May 20, 2009
The author states: To reduce long-term maintenance requirements for the thin-film tracking system, the number of drive motors had to be minimized. The challenge was to effectively drive more than 30 tons of modules and steel following the sun's trajectory with each 2hp motor. This was done by means of a 30-ton screw jack and engineered counter-balance.

It would be helpful to compare the installation requirements and associated costs of the two systems. Proponents of the CdTe technology often tout the systems lighter weight as a benefit. This article seems to be contradicting that claim.
Comment
7 of 13
May 20, 2009
I have been in the solar industry for about 30 years. Over that period of time I have seen the output of silicon based solar modules degrade to some extent, but the degradation of thin film has been disgraceful. Most of the systems can't produce enough power to justify their existence after less than 10 years.
I think the long term output of these systems will demonstrate if this is the case with CdTe.
Comment
8 of 13
May 20, 2009
This will be a good opportunity for a real-world comparison between the two technologies. I am very curious to see how thin-film compares to crystalline, both in terms of power output degradation (as Bruce mentions above), and total power output in the variable climatic conditions of the installation's site.

Adrian Akau brought up a point that I had never considered--has anyone done any research about using mirrors to increase the power output of thin-film modules? I know that crystalline modules don't fare well under such conditions--I reference the problems the Carizzo Plains ARCO modules had with EVA encapsulant browning when they were equipped with mirrors. How would a CdTe or CIGS-based module react to the same sort of treatment?
Comment
9 of 13
May 20, 2009
Brett, thanks. I've been looking for this type of comparison study for quite some time. Thanks to all, good discussion.
Comment
10 of 13
May 20, 2009
John, thanks for the link. Unfortunately, most of the companies listed are working with concentrator systems that deal with 50X suns or more, and require active cooling and special PV cells. Based on my admittedly quick scan, only one, Silicon Valley Solar, looks like they have a design that's close to what Adrian and I were talking about in our posts. Their design is a 2X flat-plate concentrator module. Unfortunately, they don't mention what type of PV material they are working with, and their updates on their company site have fallen quite a bit out of date...maybe not a good sign.

So the questions are these--would thin-film be able to deal with a low level of sun concentration--no more than 2X--better than would an EVA-encapsulated crystalline module? How much of an increase in output might be expected? And, would the power increase be worth the cost of the added hardware? Since I've never heard of anyone doing this sort of mirror setup with a thin-film module, I'm curious as to what people think about it...
Comment
11 of 13
May 21, 2009
EVERYONE- you need to read the fine print (or lack thereof) in the article. When it says CdTe outperformed Silicon, it is in reference to low light conditions. They sized these so at full light they produced the same Wattage at full light ... and that required the CdTe cells to take up and additional 15% of space ... why? Because CdTe is actually 15% less efficient in full light conditions so they need more space to provide the same level of power. So when they say it outperforms silicon by 15% in low light conditions, all it's really means is that the efficiency improves by 15% so it's about equal with silicon. The article is really misleading by not stating the facts this way.

Also Bruce is right. The article completely sidesteps CdTe's short lifespan. Silicon PV is generally warranted to not drop power over 20-25 years more than 10%. Thin films panels tend to drop 10% after only 10 years, after which it continues to drop at roughly that same rate. There is not enough data to prove how these latest CdTe cells will fare though.

So what's the advantage of CdTe? It's cheaper to make than Silicon PV per Watt. It will never replace Silicon PV (in fact as CdTe production increases the material will eventually become more scarce and will drive up costs). Silicon PV is getting much cheaper much faster, and provides the best hope for affordable higher efficiency cells in the near term. That means CdTe will most likely be best suited for utility-scale and large rooftop installations, and Silicon for residential and smaller rooftop use.

As far as concentration (CPV) is concerned (which some of you have mentioned) CdTe or any thin-films PV will likely never be a good choice because it's a lower efficiency to start with. Regarding CPV the higher efficiency of more expensive higher efficient PV cells make up for the additional cost because those efficiencies are multiplied by the concentration ratio. Also silicon handles the heat MUCH better.
Comment
12 of 13
May 21, 2009
Concentrating PV technologies utilizing more than 50 suns to generate power usually use non-silicon PV cells. Silicon doesn't handle heat well relative to non-silicon (triple junction) photovoltaic cells. Non-silicon cells are very very expensive relative to Si but they are also tiny- like 1 centimeter. CPV requires stringent tracking and planarity tolerances that mean that costly BOS is req'd to enable systems to generate power. With cell efficiencies over 35% , the added BOS cost is justified. Equivalent BOS costs for such inefficient cells as CdTe (8% !!!) would be a dealbreaker.
No image available
Comment
13 of 13
Anonymous
May 27, 2009
" ... Vincent said that the First Solar CdTe thin-film installation takes about 10%-15% more ground space, but provides more energy and is expected to cost 10%-15% less than a monocrystalline array...."

I thought that thin film was less efficient than mono/poly crystalline. Accordingly, for the same project footprint and nameplate MW rating, thin-film would be a cheaper installation but would produce less MWh than a crystalline project. Is this understanding correct ?
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!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

SolarNexus Total Energy USA ONTILITY Solar Training Westinghouse Solar Leybold Optics American Wind Energy Association Delta Rigging & Tools
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters