Facebook
< Prev [1] 2 Next >
November 16th, 2011 at 11:33 am

 

New innovations and technologies will be necessary for solar PV-based energy to flourish and attract even more diverse implementations.  Based on print and internet research, solar manufacturing is indeed entering a very important transition in its way to lower real overall costs of solar celsl and in turn the solar modules.  True, module pricing has been declining rapidly but this has been based on declining revenues and over capacity in the global solar crystalline space rather than cost reducing innovations.
One of the keys to increasing competitiveness is to draw down the costs of production. The U.S. Energy Information Administration recently concluded that the ‘cost of generation’ (in US$/MWh) of solar PV will make it 2 times as expensive as wind, more than 3 times as expensive as nuclear, and slightly less than 4 times as expensive as conventional coal by 2016.
Taking into account only the solar cell itself, there are two main ways to lower the cost of energy generation: 1) make more efficient solar cells, or 2) lower the costs to produce them. As silicon is the largest cost in conventional solar cell production, (making up 50%-60% of the overall cost), it is pivotal that costs associated with its use be lowered.  Currently, solar cell wafers must be thick enough to survive the direct contact metallization processes. Industry standard solar cell manufacturing processes use screen printing equipment which directly contacts the wafer and can exert enough force to cause breakage for thin wafers. If metallization could be done without touching the wafer, it would allow for silicon solar cell wafers to be much thinner than they are today, which could reduce the overall costs of the device.
Applied Nanotech is pioneer in so called non-contact print techniques, where processes like inkjet, aerosol jet, and spray coating offers several important advantages over traditional manufacturing approaches. These techniques provide a route to realize thin-sillicon wafer, which directly transforms to lower module costs. Implementation of this technology is a good 2 to 3 years away. Let’s see if it makes it into a solar cell near you….
November 1st, 2011 at 3:42 pm

                  All contemporary modules utilize silver as a conductor in manufacturing solar cells. It is less resistive than copper, which directly translates to better efficiency but unfortunately, it increases module prices significantly. In order to decrease the price of the module, researchers in Germany began investigating where copper can be an alternative to silver. If the project is successful, the affiliated companies expect to be able to cut the costs of solar cell manufacturing by around 10%.

Another improvement in increasing efficiency of solar cells comes by way of Las Vegas. No, not sin city but what is dubbed “LasVeGas”. It is a German acronym standing for:”long-term stable front – side metallization on the basis of environment-friendly galvanic layers”. Both projects are still in theoretical phase, thus it will be a few more years before practical implementation will see the day light. In first phase, researchers will study the depositing of copper on existing cell structures and secondly, interconnection of the new cells into modules. This will entail transferring the results into actual production. A grant of 1.8 million Euros  was set up by German Federal Research Ministry, which will be used by joint venture of the companies Schott Solar, Rena GmbH and CiS Research Institute.
July 12th, 2011 at 2:57 pm

         The average installed cost of a photovoltaic (PV) system has declined substantially since 1998 — by almost 30 percent. Early indications show that the rate of decline accelerated in 2010. This historical trend suggests that PV policies have achieved some success in fostering competition within the solar industry and have satisfied a key goal: encouraging cost reductions over time.


           An annual report identifying trends in the installed cost of grid-connected PV systems in the United States - “Tracking the Sun III” confirms that the installed cost of PV systems declined substantially since 1998. Roughly 75 percent of this cost reduction was associated with a decline in non-module costs; these may include inverters and mounting hardware, and also labor, permitting and fees, shipping, overhead, taxes and installer profit. Starting in 2005, cost reductions began to stall, as the supply-chain and delivery infrastructure struggled to keep pace with rapidly expanding global demand.

 

Installed Cost Trends over Time for Customer-Sited PV

 

 

                  Over the past year, consumers in the United States finally started to reap the benefits of declines in module prices. Based on preliminary data, average installed costs fell dramatically in 2010. “Tracking the Sun III” presents partial-year cost data for systems installed during 2010 in California and New Jersey, the two largest markets in the United States (figure 2). For systems installed through the California Solar Initiative program during the first 10 months of 2010, average installed costs were $1 per watt below the 2009 average. Similarly, in New Jersey, average costs through June 2010 were down $1.20 per watt from 2009 levels.

 

The report also finds that PV systems demonstrate economies of scale. Systems smaller than 2 kilowatts (kW) that were installed in 2009 averaged $9.90 per watt, while systems larger than 1,000 kW averaged $7 per watt, or about 29 percent less. Additionally it shows that installed costs for residential systems declined significantly when the PV systems were installed on new structures. Among residential systems in the 1–kW to 3–kW range funded through two California incentive programs (the New Solar Home Partnership Program and the California Solar Initiative) and installed in 2009, PV systems installed on new residential structures cost $1.60 watt less than comparably sized residential retrofit systems (or $1.90 per watt less for rack-mounted systems).

The report also describes trends in PV incentive levels and the net installed cost paid by system owners after receipt of such incentives. The combined post-tax value of all levels of incentive — state/utility cash incentives plus state/federal income tax credits — averaged $3.90 per watt for both residential and commercial PV systems installed in 2009. This translates into an average net installed cost of $4.10 per watt for residential PV and $4.00 per watt for commercial PV. For commercial PV, this represents virtually no change from 2008, as the average incentive and pre-incentive cost remained relatively flat. However, for residential PV, the average net installed cost in 2009 represented a historic low, having declined $1.30 per watt, or 24 percent, in only one year. This trend is largely a consequence of lifting the $2,000 cap on the federal investment tax credit for residential PV systems beginning in 2009.

Trend toward declining installed costs, along with the narrowing of cost distributions, suggests that PV deployment policies have achieved some success in fostering competition within the industry. In other words, overall prices declined and  improved PV delivery considerably. The fact that states with the largest PV markets have somewhat lower average costs than states with smaller markets lends credence to the premise that state and utility PV deployment policies can affect local costs. However, installed costs in Japan and Germany are significantly lower than in the United States, suggesting that deeper near-term cost reductions may be possible here. Indeed, further cost reductions will be necessary if the PV industry is to continue expanding in the customer-sited market, given some policymakers’ desire to further ratchet down the financial support offered to PV installations.

 

 

By Konrad Gornicki
June 15th, 2011 at 6:00 pm

Roughly two and a half ago, photovoltaic panels cost about US$3.50 a watt. Today they hover around US$2 a watt, and by sometime in 2012 they're predicted to be less than US$1 a watt.

 

Last July, the Chinese government stated it would subsidize 50% of investments for solar power projects. Between now and 2015, the administration plans to more than double its “environmental protection” spending to as much as $454 billion. This will result in mandates for using renewable energy generation sources, including solar. They're so low that European and Japanese suppliers can't compete with the low cost of Chinese products. Only the best equipment is used in China. The Chinese solar panel quality is as good as or better than the top brands in Europe or Japan. One of the most labor intensive elements of solar panel manufacturing is the final assembly. Despite China's greatest advantage being its low cost of labor and output, Chinese companies are beginning to do final assembly in the United States in order to sell into municipal and government projects through the ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) requirements. 

 

A good example of Chinese solar entrepreneurship is Yingli Green Energy. With global demand up, Yingli doubled production capacity and ran its factories 365 days a year, 24/7. The company claims that they sold everything, and Europe seems to be the largest market since they provide generous subsidies for solar-energy producers, for instance 60 percent of Yingli's revenues last year came from Germany. Yingli plans to expand production another 70 percent this year, and it isn't alone: Other Chinese solar companies, including Suntech Power Holdings and LDK Solar, plan double-digit production boosts in 2011. Suntech is expanding U.S. market; the company opened an 117,000-square-foot panel plant in Arizona last year and is doubling its U.S. head count to 150 people. "All of the major Chinese producers are engaged in massive, very aggressive capacity-expansion programs," says Paul Leming, an analyst with Soleil Securities in New York. Tellingly, Chinese-based Suntech Power Holdings will become the second-largest supplier of photovoltaic (PV) cells in the world this year behind Arizona-based First Solar, Inc. Our purchasing department has seen an increased amount of newer Chinese manufacturers looking to stock and list their modules on our website. Our decision to list modules on our website includes reviewing the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany to determine if they have experience evaluating these lesser known brands. Second, we speak to our European customer base and have them give us testimonials on certain name brands new to the North American scene. The selections are daunting, however having Aten Solar as a source for information and reviews allows installers or “do it your selfers” a level of comfort and assurance when deploying their next solar array.
May 17th, 2011 at 5:02 pm

The global market this year will be dramatically different than 2010. Rapid production expansion in 2010 and sluggish demand in Germany and Italy in 2011 has led to a build-up of module inventory globally. We estimate there are more than 500 companies manufacturing modules at the moment. In the global market place, Aten alone has designed and sold products from 22 different brands last year. 2011 will see many new module brands appearing on the US market as manufacturers who had focused on the European market shift towards the US. Some manufacturers will go to market based on containerized orders (over 500 modules per order) while others will sell pallet quantities of 20.  Aten Solar plans on being the go-to source for sorting through this increasingly complex and volatile market.

 
May 10th, 2011 at 6:32 pm

Dear friends and dealers,

I got a first-hand look at the M215 with some hands-on demonstrations in NJ. Here's a quick rundown of M215 info that I've got:

*  recommended DC input is up to 260W - while module right-sizing for the M190 continues to be 125% of inverter rating, on the M215 it's 120% because...
*  the M215 is more efficient than the M190 - CEC weighted efficiency at 96.5%, and beta tests are looking even higher
*  the M215 is both smaller and lighter than the M190, has a single mounting point, and has improved communications software
*  it is made for 60-cell panels only
*  S22 for MC4 (rather than S12) and S23 for Tyco (rather than S13)
*  string configurations are 26 panels for 208V, or 17 panels for 240V
*  like the D380, the inverter is phase-agnostic; the cable determines the phase
*  using the 20A breaker

There is no longer an AC interconnect or an Enphase extension cable in the M215 world.  Instead, cable will be sold in spools or rolls that can be cut to length to fit your installation, with drops spaced evenly apart.  Cables are available for both portrait and landscape installations (where the drops in landscape are further apart).  This cable will be run through a strain relief and into a J-box (acting as the AC interconnect).  It can also have drops capped off to act as an extension cable between rows.  This will cut down on the number of parts that need to be ordered.  Cable will be available in several lengths, including a 240 drop "bulk roll," and smaller 30 and 40 drop rolls.

I've attached a cut sheet for the M215 here, and if you are looking for an Enphase Road Show to get to, check this link:  http://enphase.com/next-gen/

 

 

Product Details
April 29th, 2011 at 5:12 pm

The Enecsys micro-inverter represents a breakthrough in inverter design for residential and commercial solar photovoltaic (PV) installations. Its patented technology has, for the first time, eliminated components that limit inverter life, namely electrolytic capacitors and opto-couplers.  Originally developed at Cambridge University, UK, the Enecsys micro-inverter enables solar PV systems to harvest between 5% and 20% more energy over their lifetime. The electrical components of Enecsys design are also worth mentioning since electrolytic capacitors were replaced by their much more reliable ceramic counterparts, significantly prolonging the life of the micro-inverter. Shading caused by clouds or obstructions have minimal impact on overall system performance because power is harvested from each module individually, rather than from groups of modules strung together. This also means that installations can mix and match different modules and do not need to be on the same roof plane, multiple planes can be used to harvest more energy and systems are scalable. A potential single point of failure – the central inverter – is eliminated and dangerous high-voltage DC is not produced.The Enecsys micro-inverter is the only product of its kind, available in both Europe and North America that matches the operating life of solar modules (more than 25 years), operates from -40 to +85 degrees C and and has a warranty for 20 years. Enecsys micro-inverters are installed on the rack behind solar modules, either one inverter per solar module, or one for every two modules.

The following is sample systems applying two competitive micro-inverter technology and regular string size inverter.

1)       Enphase system:  20 x REC 230W , 20 micro-inverters  M190-72 with Envoy;  total  $15,350 plus mounting and other BOS.

2)      Enecsys system: 20 x REC 230W – $9154.00, 20 micro-inverters  Enecsys SMI-S240W -72 plus;  total $16,343 plus mounting and other BOS

3)      Kaco with Watchdog :   20 x REC 230W – $9154.00, Kaco 5002i inverter;  total $14,161 plus

Mounting and other BOS.

 

At first regular string inverter seems to be the most economical. It will harvest the least amount of power though, since shading and other factors will have effect on the whole system, so the price per kilo watt/hr is actually higher than other two systems. The micro-inverter technology allows Enphase and Enecsys work more independent from mentioned factors since power is harvested at each and every module. It seems that Enphase has Enecsys beat in terms of  pricing, but during days when maximum power output can be expected i.e. 230W per module, the Enecsys has upper hand because it can gather all energy from modules, while Enphase will cut of at 190W. It is worth mentioning that Enphase is not easily available and potential clients have to wait several weeks before they can implement the system. Enecsys on the other hand is available with no delays. So therefore buyers finally have options when it comes to their micro inverters pv projects. We predict this is just the start of an explosive sub market.

 

Written by

 

Konrad Gornicki

 

 

 
April 1st, 2011 at 3:50 pm

 

 

Over the past year, there has been an explosion in the popularity of solar inverter solutions with MPPT tracking for each module. This technology has significant benefits in output, reliability, and flexibility over standard centralized inverter options, especially in partially shaded environments. Of course, there is a cost drawback to every new and complex entry into the market, but cost-benefit analysis will show that in some cases the extra investment will pay for itself handily.

            There are three types of MPPT-per-module systems on the market: standalone MPPT controllers such as Tigo products, per-module microinverters like Enphase, and the SolarEdge system, which has a central inverter connected to MPPT trackers per module. The most popular of these by far is Enphase, and for good reason: the flexibility is unparalleled. Enphase sells microinverters in single-phase and three-phase configurations with power levels at 190W and 210W and with MC4 or Tyco connectors. Modules can be mixed and matched, and the inverters are inexpensive to replace if they fail out of warranty. Unfortunately, availability is still extremely tight, so if you are an installer or a homeowner who is looking for Enphase, you better get in line.

            Let’s see what happens when we implement Enphase and Tigo solutions on a typical 4 kWp system located in central NJ with a 30˚ pitched roof and partial (50%) shading on two modules on one string and one module on another for 3 hours during the peak of the day:

 

            1) Enphase system parts: 18x Gloria Solar 230W, 18x Enphase M190 with Envoy and cabling: approx. $13,500 plus mounting and other BOS.

            2) Tigo system parts: 18x Gloria 230W, 18x Tigo ES050V, Tigo monitor, Kaco 3502xi: approx. $13,100 plus mounting and other BOS.

3) Control system parts: 18x Gloria 230W, Kaco 3502xi: approx. $11,700 plus mounting and other BOS.

 

            The Enphase output will only decrease by the lack of energy going out from the three shaded modules, or approximately 1.08 kWh per day at 3.9h insolation and an 80% derating factor. The Tigo system will operate slightly differently—because the output is stil DC, it will regulate the voltage and current on the affected modules until the string is uniform. Tigo calls the technology “impedance matching” since it observes and matches impedance seen at each energy maximizer connection, but the current in the string does not need to stay uniform since the maximizer will bypass current around modules as suited. As a result, the system will lose 1.08 kWh plus impedance matching losses. Unfortunately, the exact losses are rather difficult to calculate, especially since Tigo’s algorithm is proprietary. The control system, without any MPPT per module device, will lose approximately 6.5 kWh per day, or about 50% of the maximum without shading.

In this sense, both Enphase and Tigo systems are both winners because they give significantly lower costs per kWh even if costs per peak kW are slightly higher. In fact, with SREC prices at $500 per 1000 kWh, the Enphase system will pay for itself over the control system in about two years. If you or your clients have significant shading, please consider investing in one of these solutions—your mileage may vary, but in the end, you will benefit.
January 22nd, 2011 at 5:20 pm

 

  
    Transformerless PV inverters have been available in ROW markets for several years now, but a change to the NEC guidelines for PV has allowed these units to be produced for use with the 60 Hz grid in the US and Canada. They are significantly lighter than their galvanically isolated counterparts and can offer a wider range of operating voltages than traditional inverters because of their advanced switching circuitry. However, there has been reluctance among installers to implement these units, mostly due to lack of necessity and perceived safety concerns. This article will explain the differences between galvanically isolated and transformerless inverters to better inform the installer.
 
       The idea behind transformerless switching has existed long before the PV market was even developed. Device engineers have known that a pair of field-effect transistors operates most efficiently in a complete ON or OFF state, when no current flows through them, and they dissipate no power. Thus, amplifying an ideal square wave would theoretically be 100% efficient. If a signal is modulated by a much higher-frequency square wave, the result is pulse width modulation (PWM), and the corresponding circuit is called Class D. In this manner, it is possible to convert DC to DC, or efficiently switch DC to AC. For solar inverters, the technology was not available in the past because of the high cost of the switching MOSFETs and IGBTs. These, however, are getting cheaper and faster every year, so the technology has become more cost-effective than analog switching into large masses of copper and iron. The same technology is making electric cars feasible.
 
        The downside of not having galvanic isolation is the possibility of a ground fault destroying the inverter and causing an electrical fire. With a transformer, if the secondary is shorted, then all of the current will flow through the primary and will (hopefully) be stopped by a thermal disconnect once the transformer overheats. Without one, if no protection exists or if the protection fails to detect the ground fault and trip, the large MOSFETs or IGBTs will immediately fail in a rather catastrophic manner. Fortunately, the likelihood of such an event occurring is extremely remote, and all such inverters are required to have ground fault protection as per UL 1741 requirements. The burden, however, remains on the installer to insure that backfeed current in the case of an undetected ground fault is taken into account when sizing combiner and disconnect fuses.
 
         Thus, provided that the correct simple calculations are performed, there are few downsides and numerous benefits to transformerless inverters. Crews will certainly notice the reduced weight and size of these new inverters, and home and business owners will see increased yields over traditional designs due to increased efficiencies and wider operating voltage ranges. In short, there are always early adopters of new technologies, as well as holdouts who refuse to let go of their horse buggies when the rest of the world is already driving cars. Here, the cars are well proven.

 
January 22nd, 2011 at 2:17 pm

 

 On December 7, the solar industry was granted our first wish: the extension of the tax package that includes a one-year extension of the Department of Treasury's Section 1603 program.  As of November 22, the Treasury had shelled out a grand total of $416,184,641 in grants for solar energy projects in the U.S., according to data from the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).  The corresponding minimum total investment (the basis upon which the grants were claimed) reached $1,387,282,137.  The government’s investment has launched, and with the latest extension, will be sure to continue, the successful creation of jobs and opportunity in all 50 states for construction workers, electricians, plumbers and contractors that have struggled during the difficult economic climate. 

 
    Our second wish is for the Department of Energy to practically and efficiently divest funds for its loan guarantee program so that the average tax payer can reap the advantages of his initiatives.  Just last month, three White House advisers expressed concern about the DOE loan guarantee program in three areas.  First, there is the potential for some funds to be lost if such funds are not obligated to projects by the deadline.  Second, the officials noted a risk that the program would be criticized for slow implementation.  And third, they highlighted the potential for funds to be committed to projects that would have happened anyway, without government assistance. 
 
   Our third wish is for PV module prices to decrease starting from Q2 2011, setting the stage for grid parity and a broader acceptance of grid tie PV.  Beginning in 2008 and continuing into 2010, wholesale module prices began a steep downwards trajectory, in response to expanded manufacturing capacity and the global financial crisis.  Due to strong investments from the Chinese to boost total capacity of cells, ingots and module assembly operations, more capacity than ever before will be available for export to familiar markets.   At present, the majority of production is dependent on exports, accounting for up to 40-50%.  With photovoltaic cells, for example, China’s total output of 2008 2300MW (megawatts) comprised 97% of the Chinese products exported is relatively small.   Moreover, with exports totaling more than 10 billion US dollars, the Chinese domestic market for its production is underdeveloped.  Moreover, the halting or deep reductions to the Feed in Tariffs (FITS) in France, Spain, Italy and the 900 lb gorilla, Germany, will surely alter the pricing landscape next year.  Therefore, all the excess capacity should yield lower prices for the 2011 solar season.  
 
   In connection with our third wish, we would like to see a continued downward push towards lower installation costs.  Unfortunately, the reductions in module prices from 2008 did not translate into a noticeable reduction in average installed costs for PV systems in 2009, perhaps reflecting a natural lag between the time that PV system installation contracts are signed and the time that PV systems are installed.  Currently, a California PV installation costs USD$6.5/watt and a New Jersey PV installation costs USD$6.3/watt. Preliminary evidence does suggest, however, that the average costs for PV systems installed in 2010 will be substantially lower than in 2009. 
My last wish places the onus on the elected officials to continue their important work of ratifying aggressive RPS, and fair grid tie standards in their respective operating areas.  Getting all the foundation work completed on the more than 3,273 traditional electric utilities in the United States will set the stage for a larger market for PV and not regional markets confined to 10 solar consuming states.
 
    One wish has been granted; if the other wishes come true this will undoubtedly ensure another 30% annual growth rate for our industry. 
< Prev [1] 2 Next >
© 2011 Aten Solar. All rights reserved.
ecommerce web site design