DMSolar Blog

Product Description
Cadmium telluride (CdTe) photovoltaics describes a photovoltaic (PV) technology that is based on the use of cadmium telluride, a thin semiconductor layer designed to absorb and convert sunlight into electricity. CdTe PV is the only thin film technology with lower costs than conventional solar cells made of crystalline silicon in multi-kilowatt systems.

CdTe PV is a solution to key ecological issues including climate change, energy security, and water scarcity, across a range of application scenarios (e.g. commercial rooftop applications or large scale ground mount applications).

CdTe advantages:
*High Conversion Efficiency
Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) is a compound semiconductor with high absorption coefficient, 100 times higher than silicon. The energy gap width of cadmium telluride makes it the most suitable material for photovoltaic energy conversion, higher than silicon – with only one hundredth of thickness, the cadmium telluride can absorb same amount of light as silicon does.
*High Power Output
With the lower temperature coefficient, the better low-light effect and weak heat spot effect being provide in them, CdTe modules generate 10% more power than same rating modules made with crystalline silicon.
*Low Temperature Coefficient
The temperature coefficient of CdTe thin film solar module is only about -0.21%/K, make it much more heat resistant than crystalline solar modules.
*Excellent Low-light Effect – It works even indoor!
Cadmium telluride is a direct band gap material with high absorption for the full spectrum. Under lower-light condition, such as dawn, with dusk and diffuse light, the power generation capability of CdTe thin film solar module has been proven to be better than the crystalline silicon solar module which was made of indirect band gap material.
*Weak hot spot effect:
The structural features of CdTe thin film modules, help to avoid the hot spot effect on products. Thus, the safety, longevity, performance of CdTe panels have also greatly improved.
*Good stability
No intrinsic light-induced attenuation effects.
* UL and ISO 9001:2000 Certified
* Outperforms conventional crystalline silicon solar modules with equal power rating
* Industry-leading long-term reliability and durability
* 25-year power output warranty and 10-year materials and workmanship warranty

Spec:
* Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) thin film solar cell technology
* Cell Efficiency: 12%+
* Max Voltage: 1000V
* Pmax: 77W + 3W
* Vmp: 16.8V
* Imp: 4.58A
* Voc: 22.4V
* Isc: 4.89A
* Size: Frameless glass-to-glass laminate 47.24″(1200mm)x23.62″(600mm)x0.25″(6.8mm)
* Weight: 25.96lbs

Spec Sheet
DM 77W CdTe Thin Film

Over the last five years, about 40GW of solar manufacturing capacity has been built and almost all of it has been crystalline silicon (c-Si). Over that time, the alternative to silicon — called thin film — has gone from being “the next big thing” to “highly questionable.” With over 100 thin film companies either sold, merged or just dead, it is legitimate to ask: “Is thin film dead?”

The answer is no. Thin film is not dead; in fact, it will win in the end, and here are seven reasons why:

1. It’s Thin.

This is the reason thin film was attractive to begin with. Thin film materials have a property, called bandgap, which is superior to silicon. Funny as it sounds, silicon just doesn’t like to absorb light. First of all, it only wants to absorb low wavelength light (red and IR), rather than most of the light that comes from the sun. It has the wrong bandgap (which wavelength is absorbed), and it doesn’t even absorb that very well. It takes over 100 microns of material to absorb the light, where thin film takes only 1 micron. Thin film absorbs the right wavelengths, and does it with 100x less material. In an industry where materials cost is important, thinner is much better.

2. Through the Looking Glass.

Thin film uses a less expensive and easier to work with substrate (what the solar cell is built on). While silicon uses silicon (duh), most thin film uses glass. Silicon is more than 10 times more expensive, ($36/m2 vs. $3.60/m2). To repeat: materials costs are very important.

3. Easy as FPD.

Utilizing glass as a substrate allows for unrivaled scale. The flat panel display (FPD) industry, which allows us to watch HDTV at a reasonable price, has scaled glass processing tools to an amazing 50X higher throughput over the last few decades. All that know-how is available to anyone using glass substrates. A single thin film production line can achieve 300 MW output per year vs. the 25 MW standard for c-Si. This scaling advantage is huge when it comes to reducing those non-materials costs such as labor, overhead, and depreciation.

4. CapEx is Why.

High-capacity glass processing tools, beside the impact on cost, also have lower capital intensity. Solar is considered a capital-intensive business, measured by how much it costs to build a factory in $/watt. The “dollar” is the factory capital cost and the “watt” is the yearly output. Silicon factories are very capital intensive, with polysilicon, wafer, solar cell, and panel factories adding up to over $1.40/watt. Thin film, on the other hand, ranges from $0.50 to $1.00/watt, and the 300-MW factory mentioned above would only be $.33/watt, a 4x advantage in capital intensity. The graph below shows the CapEx difference if added capacity were either all c-Si or all thin film. To put the impact in perspective, if solar gets to just a 14 percent penetration of the energy industry, the CapEx difference would amount to over $5 trillion. That is not a typo. That is trillion with a “T.”

Capital intensity is not talked about much yet, but it may become the deciding factor in the growth of the solar industry. Low capital intensity is a huge advantage. Thin film can affordably scale to meet our energy needs.

5. Efficiency (Yes… Efficiency).

Thin film is no longer at an efficiency disadvantage vis-a-vis silicon. Throughout solar history c-Si has had better efficiency, but in late 2013, thin film (CIGS) beat multi-crystalline silicon in laboratory efficiency. This lab result hasn’t transferred to the production floor yet, but this should happen in just a few years. When thin film beats c-Si on performance, the inherent cost advantages will be magnified, and thin film will start its major comeback.

6. Manufacturing Mojo.

Combine these 100X, 10X and 4X cost advantages with high efficiency and you get the lowest manufacturing cost. As recently published (link), Siva Power outlined its thin film cost roadmap, showing CIGS getting to $0.28/watt within four years. That is an unheard-of number for c-Si technology.

7. Déjà Vu All Over Again.

Although silicon previously dominated the solar landscape, thin film leader First Solar emerged and was the first to $1/watt, the first to 1GW production capacity, and became the largest and most profitable solar company in the world. It was done before, and it can be done again. We just need First Solar 2.0. The company that leverages these thin film advantages can not only come back, but lead the solar industry within the decade.

Developments in the past six months indicate that thin film is not only experiencing a revival, it is positioning itself for a run at silicon. The world’s largest solar panel power plant? 290 MW of thin film. Solar charging stations for Tesla in China? Thin film. Record for the world’s highest efficiency solar panel? Thin film. Biggest solar project planned in Africa at 400 MW? Thin film.

Thin film’s best days are yet to come.

If Apple launched one of its gadgets with embedded solar cells, it could revolutionize the market for solar. Apple has been exploring how to use solar power to charge gadgets for some time, including looking into ways to embed solar cells in devices. But if Apple made the leap to an actual commercial launch, it could be a solar game changer.

Apple’s solar patents

First let’s look at Apple’s solar patent applications. The latest was granted last month (via Patently Apple), and is for a voltage converter and controller for charging a device with solar power. A good deal of this patent focuses on algorithms and devices that can monitor and control the way in which a portable device could most effectively be charged via solar, using both embedded solar cells and an attachable solar power source.

According to Patently Apple — which as the name connotes follows Apple’s patent applications like a hawk — Apple now has two solar-related patents granted, and five solar applications filed in total. The other solar patent granted was awarded in January 2011, and covers similar territory, including a way to monitor and control a charge from a solar source for a mobile device.

What Apple sees in solar

In all of these patents, Apple looks at solar as a way to enable its gadgets to be charged in locations when there is no grid available, and also as a way to generally extend the battery life of a device. Apple has long been willing to invest in ways to boost the battery life of its gadgets, including selling extra battery chargers that will still be able to hold 80 percent of its charge after a year.

Back in 2009, Apple launched a 17-inch MacBook Pro with a built-in battery. Lots of critics didn’t like the built-in aspect of the battery, but the lithium-polymer battery that Apple used could run for up to eight hours on a single charge and retain at least 80 percent of that capacity for up to 1,000 recharge cycles. Compare that with only about 300 recharges for Apple’s 13- and 15-inch models’ removable lithium-ion batteries. The longer life of the 17-inch model was also due to an adaptive charging mechanism — an embedded chip that monitors charge level, temperature, and helps manage the charging current.

But the reality is that batteries on an individual level aren’t making all that much progress in terms of capacity and cost. Boosting batteries in the short term will come from things like software for battery and energy management, and perhaps — if it proves to be economic — tapping micro sources of clean power like embedded solar cells. In an increasingly mobile life, the plug is one of the last true barriers to mobility.

Extending the time between plugging in is also another way to target new markets in areas where there’s less reliable grid power. Yes, Apple generally focuses on developed markets and high-end goods, but Apple is no stranger to the need for finding new markets and developing new strategies, and I could envision one day looking to sell its devices into developing markets with less reliable grid power.

Solar gadgets

Adding solar cells to gadgets has been a sort of novelty and in a nascent stage for awhile. The big barriers have been the price of solar cells as well as the tiny amount of solar power these tiny cells can usually generate. If you look at the variety of solar chargers for iPhones out there, the bulk of these chargers are made up by an extra lithium ion battery that is supplemented with a small amount of solar power from the embedded mini solar panel. In some of these cases the solar cell is more novelty than practical charging tool.

A startup called Konarka has been developing a next-gen solar plastic that could be a good fit for solar gadgets, and is meant to be embedded in materials (umbrellas and bags), devices, and buildings. However, Konarka has long been in a sort of research and development phase and the solar plastic also has a very low efficiency.

But as more gadget makers target developing markets, and devices themselves become more energy efficient, these solar-powered products are getting better. Recently Samsung launched a solar-powered netbook that can run for 15 hours, almost double the 8-hour standard laptop, and is meant for the Kenyan market. The solar netbook is also supposed to go onsale in Russia, the U.S., South Korea and Europe.

And one of the barriers to solar gadgets has been slowly getting solved: the price of solar cells. As you can see if you’ve been following the recent spate of bankruptcies in the solar industry (Solyndra, SpectraWatt, Evergreen Solar) the price of solar panels and cells has dropped dramatically in recent months and years, which is bad for some of the solar tech companies, but good for the overall solar market and solar consumers. The price of solar is pretty much the lowest it’s been in history.

Apple’s effect on solar

If Apple decided to launch a gadget with embedded solar, it could help bring down the prices of solar for gadgets even more. As Nat Bullard, an analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance, told me recently, Apple is “a fierce negotiator for components” and if it’s interested in solar it could lock up low cost supply deals for solar parts as it has with iPod and iPad components such as glass and memory.

Foxconn, Apple’s key supplier, has been looking into solar production and has been rumored to be investing in solar manufacturing, in various ways. And why not — solar is finally becoming a commodity, with low enough prices to justify the entrance of this type of low cost supplier.

Apple has also been a leader in embracing new technology, when Steve Jobs had deemed that the time was right. Then when Apple launches new tech into its cutting edge simple designs, the rest of the industry tends to follow. As Bullard put it to me:

If any company could reliably integrate PV into consumer portable electronics, it is Apple. Given its other devices, it would likely make the simplest, most elegant integration. It may sacrifice some nominal performance (and greater freedom of choice) for the sake of simplicity and robustness – as it has done time and again in the past decade.

Apple could be on track to sell 30 million iPhones globally in the fourth quarter of this year. Those kind of volumes could have a major effect on the solar industry, not just in the form of contracts, but also as a way to educate consumers about the existence and usefulness of solar as a power source.

NEW YORK (AP) — Google is investing $280 million to help private homeowners put solar panels on their rooftops. It’s Google’s latest — and largest — investment in clean energy.

The money will allow installer SolarCity to offer solar systems to homeowners for no money up front. In exchange, customers agree to pay a set price for the power produced by the panels.

Google earns a return on its investment by charging SolarCity interest to use its money and reaping the benefits of federal and local renewable energy tax credits.

“It allows us to put our capital to work in a way that is very important to the founders and to Google, and we found a good business model to support,” said Joel Conkling of Google’s Green Business Operations in an interview before the company announced the investment Tuesday.

Google co-founder and chief executive Larry Page wants Google’s operations to eventually produce no net greenhouse gas emissions. To this end, Google has invested in wind farms in North Dakota, California and Oregon, solar projects in California and Germany, and the early stages of a transmission system off the East coast meant to foster the construction of offshore wind farms.

This will be Google’s seventh green energy investment, totaling more than $680 million.

The money goes into a fund that SolarCity will use to pay for solar systems for residents. This type of fund is common in the residential solar industry, but this is the largest such fund ever created.

A typical rooftop solar system costs $25,000 to $30,000, too much for many homeowners to lay out. Instead, solar providers like SolarCity and competitors SunRun and Sungevity can pay for the system with money borrowed from a bank or a specially-designed fund. The resident then pays a set rate for the power generated. The rate is lower than or roughly the same as the local electricity price.

A typical 5-kilowatt system will generate about 7,000 kilowatt-hours of power in a year, or about 60 percent of the typical household’s annual use. The homeowner buys whatever remaining electric power he needs from the local utility. The homeowner typically enjoys lower overall power bills and is protected somewhat against potentially higher traditional electricity prices in the future.

Electricity prices have not risen in recent months, unlike gasoline and heating oil. But they’re expected to creep up in coming years as the cost of increasingly stringent clean-air regulations are passed on to customers.

These types of programs don’t work well in all states or for all homes. In order for both the solar company to make money and the homeowner to save money there must be some combination of high local electric rates, state and local subsidies, and low installation costs.

And, of course, sunshine. A home needs a roof, preferably facing south, that is not shaded by trees or structures.

Google’s $280 million is expected to pay for 10,000 rooftop systems that will be installed over the next 18 months. These types of programs originated in California, by far the nation’s largest solar market, because the state has offered generous incentives, power prices are high and there is ample sunlight.

In recent months, though, SolarCity and its competitors have announced expansions to other states, and the establishment of new funds to pay for new systems. SolarCity offers service in Arizona, California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington, D.C.

SolarCity established a $158 million fund in May while SunRun set up a $200 million fund, both with U.S. Bancorp. SolarCity has now raised $1.3 billion in total. Also last month, Sungevity announced it would offer services through Lowe’s stores in eight states.

Customers typically choose to finance their systems. SolarCity says of the 15,000 systems it has installed, 12,000 were financed.

Google’s investment generates returns three ways. Google gets a tax credit from the federal government of 30 percent of the cost of the solar projects, in this case $84 million. It also can write off the total value of the systems in the year they are built, an accounting benefit called accelerated depreciation. The value of state and local tax credits also flow to Google.

Finally, SolarCity pays Google interest for the use of the funds through the rates it charges customers, though neither company will say how much.

Google also declined to compare the return on its solar fund with the company’s overall profit margin. In 2010, Google earned $8.5 billion on $29.3 billion in sales, a profit margin of 29 percent.

Investors have raised questions about investments that have little to do with Google’s main Internet businesses and that may be potentially risky or generate lower returns. In a meeting with investors last month, Google CFO Patrick Pinchette said tax benefits of these projects can generate high returns.

“In order for us to invest in them they have to do very well from a returns perspective,” Pinchette said.

Nathaniel Bullard, a solar analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, estimates that these types of residential solar funds generate returns for the primary investor of well over 10 percent, and perhaps as high as 20 percent, including the value of the tax benefits.

Google — and solar installers — hope that this investment will inspire other corporations to establish similar funds.

“The number one constraint for the last few years has been the lack of project financing,” said Lyndon Rive, CEO of SolarCity. “Once corporations start entering this space it will bring more affordable solar to millions of homes.”

GLREA advocates and promotes policies, technologies, and practices that are environmentally and economically sustainable; while partnering with key stakeholders to increase the use of renewable energy. One of the main ways the GLREA reaches this goal is by holding the Michigan Energy Fair. The goal of this event is to allow those in the sustainable energy industry an opportunity to network with one another while also educating the public. Not only is this event a great learning experience it also is fun, with local food, fun activities and workshops, engaging speakers, and music thrown in for good measure. Join us June 24-26 in Ludington.

Consumers Energy’s amended renewable energy plan (REP) that reflects lower costs than originally forecast and expands its Experimental Advanced Renewable Program (EARP) has been approved by the MPSC. Consumers’ plan proposed 650 MW of new renewable capacity, consisting of 625 MW of wind energy. 350.8 MW Consumers plans to build and the remainder will come from power purchase agreements. The revenues needed for its renewable capacity is now estimated to be $3.1 billion, compared to $5.3 billion in the original REP. Actual costs are lower than expected. An expansion of the EARP will be approximately 3 MW of additional solar generation divided between small (up to 20 kilowatts (kW)) and large systems (up to 150 kW). Approximately $16.5 million will be spent. The REP also approves $1 million for research on off-shore wind energy development.

Coming Soon: FPL’s Solar Rebate Programs
Accepting Reservations June 21, 2011
Have you heard?
FPL and other electric utilities across Florida are beginning to offer rebates to customers who install solar systems in their homes and businesses. Rebates are available for new installations of photovoltaic (PV) systems, which convert sunlight directly into electricity, and solar water heating systems, which collect sunlight to heat water.

Starting June 21, FPL will offer cash rebates to customers who install solar water heating or photovoltaic (PV) systems in their homes and businesses. The rebates are part of a five-year pilot program approved by the Florida Public Service Commission. Funding is limited and will be offered on a first-come-first-served basis. So don’t delay! The best prepared customers will be in the best position to reserve a rebate.

The rebate programs are:

Residential Solar Water Heating – Customers may get a one-time rebate of $1,000 for installing a solar water heating system.
Residential PV – Customers may get a one-time rebate of $2 per watt of the DC rating of the solar panels, up to $20,000.
Business Solar Water Heating – Customers may get a variable one-time rebate based on the size of the system installed, up to a maximum of $50,000 per premise* during the life of the program. Customers with multiple locations can receive a maximum combined rebate for their locations of up to $150,000 per funding year.
Business Photovoltaic (PV) – Customers may get a variable one-time rebate depending on the DC rating of the solar panels, up to a maximum of $50,000 per premise* during the life of the program. Customers with multiple locations can receive a maximum combined rebate for their locations of up to $150,000 per funding year.

In addition, FPL will offer rebates for solar water heating installations in low-income housing through a separate process. FPL will also have a program to install solar PV arrays on public schools as both an energy-producing program for schools and educational program for kids.

3 Steps to Get Started
Customers interested in receiving a solar rebate reservation can take three steps to get started:

Get Informed.

Start looking into sources of information and doing your own research as needed.

Come back to this page on or after May 31 to review the program standards and download an application checklist.

Evaluate Your Options.

Identify one or more licensed contractors and schedule meetings to discuss options at your location.**

Get Ready.

Register for an account on FPL.com if you do not already have one. You will need to log-in to your account on FPL.com in order to apply for this program. Double-check and update your mailing and email addresses as necessary: All program notices will be sent to the addresses in your account profile.

Mark your calendar to go to www.FPL.com/solarrebates on June 21 to submit your application.

Any system components installed before FPL has approved a rebate application will not be eligible for a rebate.

*A premise is defined as a dwelling or business under the control of a single customer where electric utility service terminates. Separate buildings and adjoining buildings in a group of buildings, which have separate FPL electric service, and contain separate dwellings or businesses, are separate premises.

**FPL does not endorse or recommend any individual installers for any of its programs, nor does FPL bear any responsibility for the quality or performance of any products or contractors chosen or hired by the customer. Customers should choose products and contractors carefully, given the many variables involved. The decision to select, hire and the management of the contractor that will install the eligible products is the customer’s sole responsibility. FPL bears no responsibility for the quality or performance of any products or contractors chosen by the customer. There are many installers in Florida with varying levels of capability and experience. Please check to make sure the work performed by your contractor meets all applicable licensing and building code requirements.

A NextEra Energy Company | Investors | Terms | Privacy Policy | Safety Policy | FPL Blog | Newsletter | RSS | FPL Advertising | Email Updates
Copyright ©1996 – 2011, Florida Power & Light Company. All rights reserved.

Please click here to give us feedback.

* Smart grid to cost up to $24 bln a year to build

* Renewable & auto firms see smart grid benefits

May 24 (Reuters) – A planned modernization of the U.S. national power grid will cost up to $476 billion over the next 20 years but will provide up to $2 trillion in customer benefits over that time, according to industry experts.

The so-called “smart grid” will save energy, reduce costs and increase reliability by delivering electricity from suppliers to consumers using two-way communication that can control appliances, the charging of electric vehicles and the flow of power from renewable sources at customers’ homes.

“The implementation of the smart grid is a continuous process. As new technology is developed and becomes cost effective, it is being used to find the most effective way to meet supply and demand,” Matt Wakefield, smart grid program manager at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) said in a conference call on Tuesday.

To make the power system of the future a reality, EPRI, a non-profit electric research and development company, said power companies need to invest between $17 and $24 billion a year over the next two decades. Much of those costs will be passed onto consumers.

“We need to tell power customers there is going to be an improved power system that will result in reduced costs even if they do not see an immediate reduction in their bill,” said Clark Gellings an EPRI Fellow.

By the year 2050, EPRI estimated the average electric bill will probably go up by about 50 percent if the smart grid is deployed. If not, Gellings said, the average electric bill could go up by almost 400 percent.

Some of the biggest technology firms in the world are competing to supply the smart grid infrastructure, including International Business Machines (IBM.N), General Electric (GE.N), ABB (ABBN.VX), Siemens (SIEGn.DE), Google, Toshiba (6502.T), Cisco (CSCO.O) and Microsoft (MSFT.O).

Last week, Japanese multinational Toshiba agreed to buy Swiss smart grid company Landis+Gyr for $2.3 billion.

MEETING SUPPLY AND DEMAND

The giant technology firms want to manufacture the devices and software needed to enable generating facilities to communicate with the equipment that uses electricity.

In addition to the giant technology firms, all sorts of firms in the power, renewable, appliance and auto industries can use the smart grid to interact with their customers.

Power retailers, like NRG (NRG.N) and Consolidated Edison’s (ED.N) ConEdison Solutions, can use the smart grid to sell more demand response and other services.

Appliance manufacturers, like Whirlpool (WHR.N) and Haier Electronics (1169.HK), can sell more energy efficient appliances, and auto manufacturers, like Ford Motor (F.N) and General Motors (GM.N), can use the smart grid to power up their electric cars.

The nation’s current power grid was not designed to meet the needs of a restructured electric marketplace, the increasing demands of a digital society or the increased use of renewable power production.

The grid today primarily consists of large coal, nuclear and natural gas-fired generating stations connected to local distribution networks by a high voltage network. The power flows predominantly from the power plant to the consumer.

RENEWABLES ON THE RISE

The smart grid will continue to depend on large nuclear and fossil-fired power plants but also includes a substantial number of energy storage and renewable generating facilities.

Not surprisingly, the major technology companies like GE, Siemens and Toshiba, also dominate the renewable space. But there are plenty of other wind and solar companies that can benefit from the smart grid, including FirstSolar (FSLR.O), Sharp (6753.T) and Vestas Wind (VWS.CO).

Consumers want reliable and low cost power but increasingly they also want clean electricity.

In his State of the Union message in January, President Barack Obama set a goal of 80 percent clean energy by 2035 and even though he included nuclear power and clean coal in that goal, there is still a lot of room for more renewable sources.

The United States gets about 46 percent of its power from coal, 21 percent from natural gas and 20 percent from nuclear. Renewables, like wind and solar, generate less than 5 percent of the total, according to data from the federal government.

BOULDER, Colo.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–With zero up-front cost, the city of Broomfield, Colorado will save an estimated $450,000 over the next 20 years thanks to a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Lighthouse Finance. The arrangement is a promising glimpse into a new energy economy: cheaper electricity for building owners, profitability for investors, and clean, local energy production.

“Theyʼre making a safe, predictable return on their investment, and their only question is, ʻWhen can we finance more projects?ʼ”

“The big story is that the city paid nothing to get all the advantages of solar power,” explains Geoff Manchester, VP of Operations at Lighthouse Solar, “And now they can budget around a fixed electricity cost for the next 20 years.”

The PPA is a financial mechanism that closes the gap between dirty and clean energy systems. In a PPA, the financier owns the system and the building owner only pays for the electricity it produces. The argument is that solar panels are less efficient than a block of coal – that is only true at first. A decade later the solar panels are still producing energy at costs below grid rates, investors in the PPA are still reaping returns – and the block of coal is long gone.

“Investors are thrilled,” explains Scott Franklin, CEO of Lighthouse Solar, “Theyʼre making a safe, predictable return on their investment, and their only question is, ʻWhen can we finance more projects?ʼ”

The combined solar electricity production will be 588,720 kWh annually. Katie Allen, the Capital Improvement Program Manager for the City of Broomfield, coordinated the project and was pleased with how little impact the installation work had on daily operations. “Lighthouse was very sensitive to (our) schedules and created minimum disruption for the public.” she said.

Lighthouse Solar won the bid for the project in 2009 largely thanks to the bottomline advantage of being part of a vertically aligned trilogy of companies including Lumos Solar, the solar equipment value-leader, and Lighthouse Finance. With federal and state incentives for clean energy decreasing in Colorado, this integrated business model of installer, manufacturer and financier has become the industryʼs entrepreneurial answer to make clean energy profitable.

“People donʼt understand the PPA financial model,” explains Manchester, “They were telling the workers they didnʼt want to pay for that ʻsolar stuffʼ but they donʼt understand that they are only paying for the electricity, and that the taxpayers are actually saving money.”

http://www.dmsolar.com/

Westinghouse Solar, Inc. (Nasdaq:WEST) introduced the second generation of its AC-integrated photovoltaic modules at PV America in Philadelphia this week. The 235-watt modules differ from most other photovoltaic modules available on the market. They’re built with a micro-inverter and racking and mounting equipment integrated.

When the company introduced its first AC-integrated crystalline silicon solar module in 2009, it won the 2009 Popular Mechanics Breakthrough Award. This second generation module, which will be available in the second quarter of 2011, builds on that success.

“We realized that installing ordinary solar power systems was cumbersome and not terribly efficient for installers who needed to design a system rapidly and get on and off the roof quickly,” said Gary Mull, vice president of marketing at Westinghouse Solar. “What we were able to do through the integration was reduce the number of components [of a photovoltaic system] by 80 percent.”

Since everything is integrated into the panel, it also can halve installation time.

The second generation of the integrated module has updated features and components allowing it to be lighter and further reduce the need for additional equipment, according to Mull. With the inclusion of a micro-inverter, the AC current is produced at the module, reducing the danger of dealing with 600 volt DC power, Mull said.

The micro-inverters can also communicate production data back to the array owners and the installers.

“They’re wired in parallel so if one panel degrades, the whole string doesn’t degrade,” Mull said.

If there is a problem with a panel, the solar installer can be altered to it so they can come out and fix it.

The combination of technologies creates a module that offers 5 percent to 25 percent greater performance than from a regular DC module, according to Mull.

Earlier Westinghouse Solar modules cost more than most other photovoltaic panels, according to Mull. The additional components add cost, including the cost of the micro-inverters, which retail for about $200 each.

“Through improvements, we are now priced competitive, with the most price efficient panels in the industry today,” he said.

Mull would not offer production capacity figures for the modules.

“We have production scale up capabilities that allow us to produce to a variety of scenarios,” he said. “We are contract manufacturing. Capacity is not an issue here.”

http://www.dmsolar.com/