<?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: First Solar Begins Operation of Largest Thin-Film PV Plant in California</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/18/first-solar-begins-operation-of-largest-thin-film-pv-plant-in-california/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/18/first-solar-begins-operation-of-largest-thin-film-pv-plant-in-california/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:46:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: ECD Fan</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/18/first-solar-begins-operation-of-largest-thin-film-pv-plant-in-california/#comment-8597</link>
		<dc:creator>ECD Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:53:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4495#comment-8597</guid>
		<description>Susan:



You can take a look at &quot;COMPARISON OF DEGRADATION RATES OF INDIVIDUAL MODULES HELD AT MAXIMUM POWER&quot; from C.R. Osterwald, J. Adelstein, J.A. del Cueto, B. Kroposki, D. Trudell, and T. Moriarty,  National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO 80401



http://www.photonenergysys.com/osterwald%20wcpec.pdf

(specifically, the tables on the last page).



While I disagree with some of their results, they do show that CdTe degrades 1.3% a year (8 years of exposure) or, in the second table, 1.84% a year (10 years of exposure).  Amorphous silicon thin-film&#039;s degradation is generally about 1% or higher as well (more recent results for Unisolar, for example, from the same studies show 1.24% degradation under STC). Crystalline (x-Si or poly-Si) degradation is generally 0.5% a year.



&lt;em&gt;[SK: great: thanks]&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Susan:</p>
<p>You can take a look at &#8220;COMPARISON OF DEGRADATION RATES OF INDIVIDUAL MODULES HELD AT MAXIMUM POWER&#8221; from C.R. Osterwald, J. Adelstein, J.A. del Cueto, B. Kroposki, D. Trudell, and T. Moriarty,  National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO 80401</p>
<p><a href="http://www.photonenergysys.com/osterwald%20wcpec.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.photonenergysys.com/osterwald%20wcpec.pdf</a></p>
<p>(specifically, the tables on the last page).</p>
<p>While I disagree with some of their results, they do show that CdTe degrades 1.3% a year (8 years of exposure) or, in the second table, 1.84% a year (10 years of exposure).  Amorphous silicon thin-film&#8217;s degradation is generally about 1% or higher as well (more recent results for Unisolar, for example, from the same studies show 1.24% degradation under STC). Crystalline (x-Si or poly-Si) degradation is generally 0.5% a year.</p>
<p><em>[SK: great: thanks]</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ECD Fan</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/18/first-solar-begins-operation-of-largest-thin-film-pv-plant-in-california/#comment-25888</link>
		<dc:creator>ECD Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4495#comment-25888</guid>
		<description>Susan:



You can take a look at &quot;COMPARISON OF DEGRADATION RATES OF INDIVIDUAL MODULES HELD AT MAXIMUM POWER&quot; from C.R. Osterwald, J. Adelstein, J.A. del Cueto, B. Kroposki, D. Trudell, and T. Moriarty,  National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO 80401



http://www.photonenergysys.com/osterwald%20wcpec.pdf

(specifically, the tables on the last page).



While I disagree with some of their results, they do show that CdTe degrades 1.3% a year (8 years of exposure) or, in the second table, 1.84% a year (10 years of exposure).  Amorphous silicon thin-film&#039;s degradation is generally about 1% or higher as well (more recent results for Unisolar, for example, from the same studies show 1.24% degradation under STC). Crystalline (x-Si or poly-Si) degradation is generally 0.5% a year.



&lt;em&gt;[SK: great: thanks]&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Susan:</p>
<p>You can take a look at &#8220;COMPARISON OF DEGRADATION RATES OF INDIVIDUAL MODULES HELD AT MAXIMUM POWER&#8221; from C.R. Osterwald, J. Adelstein, J.A. del Cueto, B. Kroposki, D. Trudell, and T. Moriarty,  National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO 80401</p>
<p><a href="http://www.photonenergysys.com/osterwald%20wcpec.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.photonenergysys.com/osterwald%20wcpec.pdf</a></p>
<p>(specifically, the tables on the last page).</p>
<p>While I disagree with some of their results, they do show that CdTe degrades 1.3% a year (8 years of exposure) or, in the second table, 1.84% a year (10 years of exposure).  Amorphous silicon thin-film&#8217;s degradation is generally about 1% or higher as well (more recent results for Unisolar, for example, from the same studies show 1.24% degradation under STC). Crystalline (x-Si or poly-Si) degradation is generally 0.5% a year.</p>
<p><em>[SK: great: thanks]</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Susan Kraemer</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/18/first-solar-begins-operation-of-largest-thin-film-pv-plant-in-california/#comment-8596</link>
		<dc:creator>Susan Kraemer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:34:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4495#comment-8596</guid>
		<description>So I guess I got what I paid for at PEC!



Do you have a link to the NREL research? I will fix the post if that is wrong. These posts bounce around the internet forever, and I certainly don&#039;t want to spread around an incorrect statement.

Yeah, you are right about the extra labor for thin-film - at least on roofing. You have to practically install it in a lab to keep grit and dust from getting between the thin-film and the roof.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So I guess I got what I paid for at PEC!</p>
<p>Do you have a link to the NREL research? I will fix the post if that is wrong. These posts bounce around the internet forever, and I certainly don&#8217;t want to spread around an incorrect statement.</p>
<p>Yeah, you are right about the extra labor for thin-film &#8211; at least on roofing. You have to practically install it in a lab to keep grit and dust from getting between the thin-film and the roof.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Susan Kraemer</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/18/first-solar-begins-operation-of-largest-thin-film-pv-plant-in-california/#comment-25887</link>
		<dc:creator>Susan Kraemer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4495#comment-25887</guid>
		<description>So I guess I got what I paid for at PEC!



Do you have a link to the NREL research? I will fix the post if that is wrong. These posts bounce around the internet forever, and I certainly don&#039;t want to spread around an incorrect statement.

Yeah, you are right about the extra labor for thin-film - at least on roofing. You have to practically install it in a lab to keep grit and dust from getting between the thin-film and the roof.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So I guess I got what I paid for at PEC!</p>
<p>Do you have a link to the NREL research? I will fix the post if that is wrong. These posts bounce around the internet forever, and I certainly don&#8217;t want to spread around an incorrect statement.</p>
<p>Yeah, you are right about the extra labor for thin-film &#8211; at least on roofing. You have to practically install it in a lab to keep grit and dust from getting between the thin-film and the roof.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ECD Fan</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/18/first-solar-begins-operation-of-largest-thin-film-pv-plant-in-california/#comment-8595</link>
		<dc:creator>ECD Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:01:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4495#comment-8595</guid>
		<description>Dear Ms. Kraemer:



Your statement that lower &quot;efficiency&quot; of thin-film tends to go along with lower degradation over time is plain false.  Numerous studies, including ones done by NREL and European research insititutions, have documented that.  For example, Tucson Electric&#039;s data have shown that First Solar&#039;s module degrade over 1.5% a year, while crystalline modules degrade about 0.5% a year.  And First Solar&#039;s modules are one of the least-degrading thin-film modules.



Also, yes, thin-film PV modules are cheap, but system costs per Watt are comparable to those of regular crystalline modules.  It is not just the larger area required by the thin-film modules - it is also numerous other balance-of-system costs that are higher for thin-film, such as wiring, mounting solution, installation labor, etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Ms. Kraemer:</p>
<p>Your statement that lower &#8220;efficiency&#8221; of thin-film tends to go along with lower degradation over time is plain false.  Numerous studies, including ones done by NREL and European research insititutions, have documented that.  For example, Tucson Electric&#8217;s data have shown that First Solar&#8217;s module degrade over 1.5% a year, while crystalline modules degrade about 0.5% a year.  And First Solar&#8217;s modules are one of the least-degrading thin-film modules.</p>
<p>Also, yes, thin-film PV modules are cheap, but system costs per Watt are comparable to those of regular crystalline modules.  It is not just the larger area required by the thin-film modules &#8211; it is also numerous other balance-of-system costs that are higher for thin-film, such as wiring, mounting solution, installation labor, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ECD Fan</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/18/first-solar-begins-operation-of-largest-thin-film-pv-plant-in-california/#comment-25886</link>
		<dc:creator>ECD Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4495#comment-25886</guid>
		<description>Dear Ms. Kraemer:



Your statement that lower &quot;efficiency&quot; of thin-film tends to go along with lower degradation over time is plain false.  Numerous studies, including ones done by NREL and European research insititutions, have documented that.  For example, Tucson Electric&#039;s data have shown that First Solar&#039;s module degrade over 1.5% a year, while crystalline modules degrade about 0.5% a year.  And First Solar&#039;s modules are one of the least-degrading thin-film modules.



Also, yes, thin-film PV modules are cheap, but system costs per Watt are comparable to those of regular crystalline modules.  It is not just the larger area required by the thin-film modules - it is also numerous other balance-of-system costs that are higher for thin-film, such as wiring, mounting solution, installation labor, etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Ms. Kraemer:</p>
<p>Your statement that lower &#8220;efficiency&#8221; of thin-film tends to go along with lower degradation over time is plain false.  Numerous studies, including ones done by NREL and European research insititutions, have documented that.  For example, Tucson Electric&#8217;s data have shown that First Solar&#8217;s module degrade over 1.5% a year, while crystalline modules degrade about 0.5% a year.  And First Solar&#8217;s modules are one of the least-degrading thin-film modules.</p>
<p>Also, yes, thin-film PV modules are cheap, but system costs per Watt are comparable to those of regular crystalline modules.  It is not just the larger area required by the thin-film modules &#8211; it is also numerous other balance-of-system costs that are higher for thin-film, such as wiring, mounting solution, installation labor, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rich EE</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/18/first-solar-begins-operation-of-largest-thin-film-pv-plant-in-california/#comment-8594</link>
		<dc:creator>rich EE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:28:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4495#comment-8594</guid>
		<description>&quot; lower “efficiency” of thin-film tends to go along with lower degradation over time as well, &quot;



Does this only apply to  cadmium telluride or is it for all thin film products ?

Also , what is your source for this longevity info ?

&lt;em&gt;

[SK: I&#039;m pretty sure it applies to thin film generally. My source: last Fall I took the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pge.com/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/solar/solareducation/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;solar classes run by PG&amp;E at the Pacific Energy Center&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; which I highly recommend. They are actually free and super concentrated and very comprehensive.]&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8221; lower “efficiency” of thin-film tends to go along with lower degradation over time as well, &#8221;</p>
<p>Does this only apply to  cadmium telluride or is it for all thin film products ?</p>
<p>Also , what is your source for this longevity info ?</p>
<p><em></p>
<p>[SK: I'm pretty sure it applies to thin film generally. My source: last Fall I took the <a href="http://www.pge.com/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/solar/solareducation/" rel="nofollow"><strong>solar classes run by PG&amp;E at the Pacific Energy Center</strong></a> which I highly recommend. They are actually free and super concentrated and very comprehensive.]</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rich EE</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/18/first-solar-begins-operation-of-largest-thin-film-pv-plant-in-california/#comment-25885</link>
		<dc:creator>rich EE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4495#comment-25885</guid>
		<description>&quot; lower “efficiency” of thin-film tends to go along with lower degradation over time as well, &quot;



Does this only apply to  cadmium telluride or is it for all thin film products ?

Also , what is your source for this longevity info ?

&lt;em&gt;

[SK: I&#039;m pretty sure it applies to thin film generally. My source: last Fall I took the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pge.com/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/solar/solareducation/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;solar classes run by PG&amp;E at the Pacific Energy Center&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; which I highly recommend. They are actually free and super concentrated and very comprehensive.]&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8221; lower “efficiency” of thin-film tends to go along with lower degradation over time as well, &#8221;</p>
<p>Does this only apply to  cadmium telluride or is it for all thin film products ?</p>
<p>Also , what is your source for this longevity info ?</p>
<p><em></p>
<p>[SK: I'm pretty sure it applies to thin film generally. My source: last Fall I took the <a href="http://www.pge.com/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/solar/solareducation/" rel="nofollow"><strong>solar classes run by PG&amp;E at the Pacific Energy Center</strong></a> which I highly recommend. They are actually free and super concentrated and very comprehensive.]</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/18/first-solar-begins-operation-of-largest-thin-film-pv-plant-in-california/#comment-8593</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:44:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4495#comment-8593</guid>
		<description>Hi - as I understand it, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, (EISA) requires over 20% reduction in energy consumption.  This is equivalent to all of our coal or natural gas consumption.  This makes me believe that regulatory direction &quot;Reduce your consumption&quot; creates motivation which creates technology.  I founded www.Tintbuyer.com to educate people on the actual ENVIRONMENTAL and FINANCIAL benefits of solar control window film on a building and get into this discussion with my customers frequently.  People are attracted to &#039;big&#039; solutions rather than the existing because at their core they feel the &#039;big&#039; solution may or may not happen and, in a way, may not ever have to change.  The solution is found not in creating new industries and $100B for photovoltaic GENERATING capacity but rather changing the way we think about CONSERVATION.  If every home installed compact fluorescent, increased attic insulation,  installed clear heat control window film, and increase the t-stat 1 degree we would reduce CONSUMPTION far more (and far more quickly) than building new generating capacity.  It&#039;s like putting more horsepower in a car to make it go faster but ignoring excess unnecessary weight of the car.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi &#8211; as I understand it, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, (EISA) requires over 20% reduction in energy consumption.  This is equivalent to all of our coal or natural gas consumption.  This makes me believe that regulatory direction &#8220;Reduce your consumption&#8221; creates motivation which creates technology.  I founded <a href="http://www.Tintbuyer.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.Tintbuyer.com</a> to educate people on the actual ENVIRONMENTAL and FINANCIAL benefits of solar control window film on a building and get into this discussion with my customers frequently.  People are attracted to &#8216;big&#8217; solutions rather than the existing because at their core they feel the &#8216;big&#8217; solution may or may not happen and, in a way, may not ever have to change.  The solution is found not in creating new industries and $100B for photovoltaic GENERATING capacity but rather changing the way we think about CONSERVATION.  If every home installed compact fluorescent, increased attic insulation,  installed clear heat control window film, and increase the t-stat 1 degree we would reduce CONSUMPTION far more (and far more quickly) than building new generating capacity.  It&#8217;s like putting more horsepower in a car to make it go faster but ignoring excess unnecessary weight of the car.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/18/first-solar-begins-operation-of-largest-thin-film-pv-plant-in-california/#comment-25884</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=4495#comment-25884</guid>
		<description>Hi - as I understand it, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, (EISA) requires over 20% reduction in energy consumption.  This is equivalent to all of our coal or natural gas consumption.  This makes me believe that regulatory direction &quot;Reduce your consumption&quot; creates motivation which creates technology.  I founded www.Tintbuyer.com to educate people on the actual ENVIRONMENTAL and FINANCIAL benefits of solar control window film on a building and get into this discussion with my customers frequently.  People are attracted to &#039;big&#039; solutions rather than the existing because at their core they feel the &#039;big&#039; solution may or may not happen and, in a way, may not ever have to change.  The solution is found not in creating new industries and $100B for photovoltaic GENERATING capacity but rather changing the way we think about CONSERVATION.  If every home installed compact fluorescent, increased attic insulation,  installed clear heat control window film, and increase the t-stat 1 degree we would reduce CONSUMPTION far more (and far more quickly) than building new generating capacity.  It&#039;s like putting more horsepower in a car to make it go faster but ignoring excess unnecessary weight of the car.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi &#8211; as I understand it, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, (EISA) requires over 20% reduction in energy consumption.  This is equivalent to all of our coal or natural gas consumption.  This makes me believe that regulatory direction &#8220;Reduce your consumption&#8221; creates motivation which creates technology.  I founded <a href="http://www.Tintbuyer.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.Tintbuyer.com</a> to educate people on the actual ENVIRONMENTAL and FINANCIAL benefits of solar control window film on a building and get into this discussion with my customers frequently.  People are attracted to &#8216;big&#8217; solutions rather than the existing because at their core they feel the &#8216;big&#8217; solution may or may not happen and, in a way, may not ever have to change.  The solution is found not in creating new industries and $100B for photovoltaic GENERATING capacity but rather changing the way we think about CONSERVATION.  If every home installed compact fluorescent, increased attic insulation,  installed clear heat control window film, and increase the t-stat 1 degree we would reduce CONSUMPTION far more (and far more quickly) than building new generating capacity.  It&#8217;s like putting more horsepower in a car to make it go faster but ignoring excess unnecessary weight of the car.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

