<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Thin Film Process Takes Solar Another Step to Affordability</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/20/new-thin-film-process-takes-solar-another-step-to-affordability/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/20/new-thin-film-process-takes-solar-another-step-to-affordability/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 22:41:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tunison</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/20/new-thin-film-process-takes-solar-another-step-to-affordability/#comment-5292</link>
		<dc:creator>Tunison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:54:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2364#comment-5292</guid>
		<description>One problem with thin-film solar that is never mentioned in articles about its promise is how much more space it requires to generate the same amount of power as old-school silicon wafers solar cells.

   You need almost twice as much space to generate the same power.

There is only so much unshaded, south-facing room on your roof, and only so much unused land that would be wise to dedicate to ground-mounted solar panels. (The land might be better used for growing crops, as wildlife habitat, or simply to avoid public backlash against the impact of renewable energy technologies in their communities.)

   Also, the mounting hardware and wiring costs of hooking up panels is a significant portion of total installed system cost.

    Using thin-film on consumer items to replace or supplement batteries is a nice idea for price and durability reasons. But having to dedicate twice as much space to the solar panels does not pan out in almost all applications.  Consumer electronics - people want small, not large. Think about panels on the roof of a hybrid car -- there are very few square feet of space there to use.



So there is a hidden cost to thin-film that folks should consider.



(I have three thin-film panels on my house or in my yard. I was worried about durability in case of hail. In hindsight I should have bought polycrystalline or single crystal panels.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One problem with thin-film solar that is never mentioned in articles about its promise is how much more space it requires to generate the same amount of power as old-school silicon wafers solar cells.</p>
<p>   You need almost twice as much space to generate the same power.</p>
<p>There is only so much unshaded, south-facing room on your roof, and only so much unused land that would be wise to dedicate to ground-mounted solar panels. (The land might be better used for growing crops, as wildlife habitat, or simply to avoid public backlash against the impact of renewable energy technologies in their communities.)</p>
<p>   Also, the mounting hardware and wiring costs of hooking up panels is a significant portion of total installed system cost.</p>
<p>    Using thin-film on consumer items to replace or supplement batteries is a nice idea for price and durability reasons. But having to dedicate twice as much space to the solar panels does not pan out in almost all applications.  Consumer electronics &#8211; people want small, not large. Think about panels on the roof of a hybrid car &#8212; there are very few square feet of space there to use.</p>
<p>So there is a hidden cost to thin-film that folks should consider.</p>
<p>(I have three thin-film panels on my house or in my yard. I was worried about durability in case of hail. In hindsight I should have bought polycrystalline or single crystal panels.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tunison</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/20/new-thin-film-process-takes-solar-another-step-to-affordability/#comment-22494</link>
		<dc:creator>Tunison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2364#comment-22494</guid>
		<description>One problem with thin-film solar that is never mentioned in articles about its promise is how much more space it requires to generate the same amount of power as old-school silicon wafers solar cells.

   You need almost twice as much space to generate the same power.

There is only so much unshaded, south-facing room on your roof, and only so much unused land that would be wise to dedicate to ground-mounted solar panels. (The land might be better used for growing crops, as wildlife habitat, or simply to avoid public backlash against the impact of renewable energy technologies in their communities.)

   Also, the mounting hardware and wiring costs of hooking up panels is a significant portion of total installed system cost.

    Using thin-film on consumer items to replace or supplement batteries is a nice idea for price and durability reasons. But having to dedicate twice as much space to the solar panels does not pan out in almost all applications.  Consumer electronics - people want small, not large. Think about panels on the roof of a hybrid car -- there are very few square feet of space there to use.



So there is a hidden cost to thin-film that folks should consider.



(I have three thin-film panels on my house or in my yard. I was worried about durability in case of hail. In hindsight I should have bought polycrystalline or single crystal panels.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One problem with thin-film solar that is never mentioned in articles about its promise is how much more space it requires to generate the same amount of power as old-school silicon wafers solar cells.</p>
<p>   You need almost twice as much space to generate the same power.</p>
<p>There is only so much unshaded, south-facing room on your roof, and only so much unused land that would be wise to dedicate to ground-mounted solar panels. (The land might be better used for growing crops, as wildlife habitat, or simply to avoid public backlash against the impact of renewable energy technologies in their communities.)</p>
<p>   Also, the mounting hardware and wiring costs of hooking up panels is a significant portion of total installed system cost.</p>
<p>    Using thin-film on consumer items to replace or supplement batteries is a nice idea for price and durability reasons. But having to dedicate twice as much space to the solar panels does not pan out in almost all applications.  Consumer electronics &#8211; people want small, not large. Think about panels on the roof of a hybrid car &#8212; there are very few square feet of space there to use.</p>
<p>So there is a hidden cost to thin-film that folks should consider.</p>
<p>(I have three thin-film panels on my house or in my yard. I was worried about durability in case of hail. In hindsight I should have bought polycrystalline or single crystal panels.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

