Photo Credit: Conergy
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (13) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
May 18, 2009

Solar Shootout in the San Joaquin Valley

by Bob Haavind, Editor-at-large, Photovoltaics World
California, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

Side-by-side crystalline and thin-film photovoltaic installations at a water treatment plant in California's Central Valley should provide a clear indication of which provides the best energy production and cost benefit performance over varying climatic conditions within a year.

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.

The 1.6-MW solar array for the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) was installed in two phases by Denver-based Conergy Americas in Manteca, CA. Phase One includes 6720 Conergy 175-W crystalline modules mounted on a single-axis solar tracking system that can boost peak-time output by about 15% over fixed systems.

The Phase Two tracking system, which went active in late March, uses cadmium telluride (CdTe) modules from First Solar, chosen because they are expected to perform at a lower cost/watt than crystalline modules, according to David Vincent, Western U.S. project director for Conergy. They add 419 kW to the project, and it is believed to be the first commercial thin-film solar tracking system in the U.S.

Thin-film modules "can outperform monocrystalline in areas prone to hazy, overcast conditions or in industries that generate dust or high degrees of air particulates," according to Vincent. They are also superior when there is frequent fog, such as in coastal areas. The reason, he says, is the sensitivity of the thin-film cells to a broader span of the solar spectrum, including infrared and ultraviolet regions.

Thin-film cells also should perform better when dust covers the surface, he added. Another advantage of thin-film modules is that less interconnect is needed between cells, so that there is less rise in resistivity and heat loss on hot days, he explained.

Early indications, Vincent says, are that the output/DC kW of the thin-film modules is about 10% higher that of the monocrystalline.

The project, known as the Robert O. Schultz Solar Farm, will handle almost all of the power needs for a water treatment plant that provides 40 million gallons/day for 155,000 residents and businesses of four nearby communities, as well as irrigation water for 55,000 farm acres. The main goal of the project is to stabilize electrical costs, which can spike in summer months because of time-of-use metering, according to Don Battles, utility systems director for SSJID. Also, these are times when solar output is at a maximum.

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.

Power generation data for the crystalline and thin-film modules will be fed from equipment that Conergy installed on inverters to Fat Spaniel Technologies, a nearby monitoring and reporting company. The analysis is put online so that it can be tracked by SSJID's Battles and his team from offices located more than 20 miles from the solar arrays.

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. Battles indicates that the output at the water treatment tracking facility is typically 15%-18% ahead, even though he believes the sun is better at the Hanford location.

The irrigation district expects to save nearly $400,000 a year in utility costs due to the solar system, while getting millions of dollars in state incentives.

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.

The performance of thin-film modules under the hazy, often foggy conditions is attracting considerable interest in the California valley region, according to Vincent. For example, a 188-kW thin-film fixed solar array is being installed by Conergy in Hanford, CA, for Verdegaal Brothers, a fertilizer, warehousing and soil and water amendment supplier.

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. The facility is expected to offset Verdegaal's utility bills by 99%, cutting some $60,000 a year, while providing for 82% of the company's energy needs. Over the 25-year life of the system, which is scheduled to start up in July, emissions are expected to be reduced by 6,145 tons of CO2.

This article was originally published by Photovoltaics World and was reprinted with permission.

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (13)
 
No image available
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 1 of 13
No image available
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 2 of 13
No image available
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 3 of 13
No image available
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.
Comment 4 of 13
No image available
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 5 of 13
No image available
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 6 of 13
No image available
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 7 of 13
No image available
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 8 of 13
No image available
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 9 of 13
No image available
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 10 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 11 of 13
No image available
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.
Comment 12 of 13
No image available
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 ?
Comment 13 of 13
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
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Energy Storage Summit Prism Solar Technologies, Inc ExxonMobil Lubricants & Specialties Europe Suntech Power Holdings Interstate Renewable Energy Council Morningstar Corporation
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo