<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<STYLE type=text/css>p { margin: 0; }</STYLE>
<STYLE type=text/css>body { font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000}</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16735" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=093322915-31102008>We have UniSolar on an East face and Kyocera on a West
face. UniSolar outperforms Kyocera in my opinion, but we will stick
to solid crystalline Si for residential/commercial work for space efficiency and
racking/mounting ease. Nothing scientific because it's not
side-by-side, but the lower energy early morning to mid-peak sun vs.
afternoon peak to dusk contest is about neck and neck.
16,625kwh (Uni-Solar) vs. 16,893 (Kyocera) this morning on the monitor
totals for both channels/systems.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma color=#000080 size=2><SPAN
class=093322915-31102008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT><SPAN class=093322915-31102008></SPAN></FONT><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: rgb(51,51,153); FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma"><SPAN
class=093322915-31102008><FONT color=#000080>Triple-junction thin-film is
awesome compared to 1-j or 2-j thin-film, but by mid-2009 the market will be
full of 1-J thin-film offerings going into 2-J production. Trying to
catch up they are -- to Stan. Sharp has some interesting news about
their exciting thin-film product for Europe this morning, but we won't
see that here in the US anytime soon apparently.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: rgb(51,51,153); FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma"><SPAN
class=093322915-31102008><FONT color=#000080></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: rgb(51,51,153); FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma"><SPAN
class=093322915-31102008><FONT color=#000080>However, the problem for me with
UniSolar is that all their claims would be perfectly ok with me if their one
dreamy promise of lower cost per watt also came
true.</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: rgb(51,51,153); FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma"><SPAN
class=093322915-31102008><FONT color=#000080></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: rgb(51,51,153); FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma"><SPAN
class=093322915-31102008><FONT color=#000080>PD</FONT></SPAN></SPAN>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> re-wrenches-bounces@lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces@lists.re-wrenches.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Geoff
Greenfield<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 31, 2008 8:09 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
RE-wrenches<BR><B>Subject:</B> [RE-wrenches] crystalline VS
uni-solar<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>As a follow up to my uni-solar post (and thanks to all who provided
feedback), I have a second request:</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Any references to recent side-by side "shoot-outs" between Unisolar and
conventional crystaline PV? Scientific studies? Your own wrench
thoughts?</P>
<P> </P>
<P>I am more and more often encountering confused customers that are considering
unisolar systems at zero-tilt (we are at 40 degrees N), with plenty of partial
shading, after getting a pitch about all sorts of advantages of Uni-Solar.
I think that this product has it's role and I occasionally sell it... But I am
frustrated when I truly believe I can deliver a better net energy production
with a tilted crystalline solution (avoiding the shaded areas). <BR></P>
<DIV>For a brighter energy future,<BR><BR>Geoff Greenfield<BR>Founder and
CEO<BR><FONT size=4><STRONG>Third Sun Solar & Wind Power
Ltd.<BR></STRONG></FONT>340 West State Street, Unit 25<BR>Athens, OH
45701<BR><BR>740.597.3111 Fax
740.597.1548<BR>www.Third-Sun.com<BR><BR><EM><FONT size=4>Clean Energy -
Expertly Installed<BR></FONT></EM><BR><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>