<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"
xmlns:ns0="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='WORD-WRAP: break-word;
webkit-nbsp-mode: space;webkit-line-break: after-white-space'>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal>Joel,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I’ve been either a participant or observer of the PV
field/industry as long as most greybeards in the field. And ever since my
entry in the RE biz in the 1970s, the promise from the touters of thin films
has been: 1) their product was going to revolutionize the industry, 2) their
product was going to dramatically lower the $/watt cost of PV and 3) their
product was going to replace that old fashioned and 1950s-vintage crystalline
silicon as the dominant semiconductor…in a few years, always in a few
years. And you know what? I’m still waiting for those
oft-repeated claims babbled ad nauseum to become reality. Yes, First
Solar is making great strides in establishing CdTe as a viable segment of the
market. And yes, UniSolar has carved a nice, and very small niche, in the
market as well. But if you look at the still near dominance of
crystalline (as in 85-90 percent) of the worldwide PV market, I still conclude
that when it comes to price, efficiency, dollars/watt installed, reliability,
longevity and unmatched operational time in the real world, this talk of thin
films being poised to take over is the same bunch of hooey that it was in the
1970s, 1980s, 1990s and now.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>My two aloha cents worth….<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>marco,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>ProVision, Hawai’i<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Hi
Jay,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>My
experience was the exact opposite with Unisolar triple-junction
structural standing seam systems in 1996 and megawatts of Unisolar from
2003 to 2007. My Unisolar tests and installations exceeded PVWATTS
kWh estimates by approx 5% (PVWATTS uses crystalline PV temperature
coefficient). PVWATTS is a reliable estimator for crystalline PV systems
when 0.65 dc-to-ac derate factor for battery based systems and 0.75 to 0.82 for
batteryless systems was used. See <a
href="http://www.uni-solar.com/uploadedFiles/0.4.2_white_paper_3.pdf">http://www.uni-solar.com/uploadedFiles/0.4.2_white_paper_3.pdf</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>a-Si
degradation is no mystery. See <a
href="http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/28333.pdf">http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/28333.pdf</a> NREL
on-going tests since 1997 validates Unisolar's 20-year 80% warranty claim.
It is interesting that the time of year Unisolar is deployed affects its light
induced degradation. See "Recovery of Light Induced Degradation in
Amorphous Silicon Solar Cells and Modules."</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I
think that Unisolar modules are suitable:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>when
high power density is not required</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>if
flexibility and/or conformability are wanted</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>if
partial shading is an issue</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>if
high cell temperature is an issue</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>if
building integration is wanted</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>if
no glass is wanted</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>if
its unique appearance is wanted.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The
"aluminum-frame-glass-module" monopoly has been broken. Unisolar's
persistence, First Solar's CdTe success, and the re-appearance of CIGS
(remember Arco/Siemens 1998 ST modules?) along with "see through" and
other flexible PV modules is changing PV. The lowest price per watt
(initial cost) is gradually giving way to lowest price per kilowatt-hour
(lifecycle cost). It's still a neck-n-neck which PV technology will
win, but there is no doubt that PV is winning almost everyone's heart and mind.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Best
regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Joel
Davidson<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>"Not
all change is for the better, but nothing gets better without change." So
vote for change!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>-----
Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='background:#E4E4E4'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <a href="mailto:jay@asis.com"
title="jay@asis.com">jay peltz</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>To:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <a
href="mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org"
title="re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org">RE-wrenches</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Sent:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> Friday, October 31,
2008 10:23 PM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Subject:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> Re: [RE-wrenches]
crystalline VS uni-solar<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Hi Joel, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>1. unisolar 64's and sharp single cystal<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>2. SMA inverters<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>3. Arcata California<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>4. exact, I mean side by side with no shading, same azimuth
( south) same tilt ( can't remember)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>5. As to the unisolar producing more, I must stress
that I have never seen the Unisolar produce more than SC, never.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>jay<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>peltz power<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:01 PM, Joel Davidson wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style='color:black'>Hello Jay,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p><span style='color:black'>Sounds like something is wrong other than Unisolar
vs. crystalline. All things being equal, the Unisolar should produce more kWh
per kW than crystalline. Questions:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style='color:black'>1. What modules and how many of each?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style='color:black'>2. What inverter or inverters?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style='color:black'>3. Geographic location?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style='color:black'>4. Array azimuth and tilt?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p><span style='color:black'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style='color:black'>Joel Davidson<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>----- Original Message ----<br>
From: jay peltz <<a href="mailto:jay@asis.com">jay@asis.com</a>><br>
To: RE-wrenches <<a href="mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org">re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org</a>><br>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 8:27:19 AM<br>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] crystalline VS uni-solar<br>
<br>
Hi Geoff, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>In regards to the performance
between Unisolar and crystalline, there is a side by side ( same watts,
batteryless intertie with metering) installation up here on the North coast of
California, and the the Unisolar is the constant under-performer. This
includes cloudy, sunny, warm, cold weather.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>I have seen nothing in the field
to support the Unisolar claims about better performance in low light etc.
That said, they do work better in very hot conditions, if thats what you
have.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>jay<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>peltz power<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>On Oct 31, 2008, at 8:08 AM, Geoff
Greenfield wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>As a follow up to my uni-solar
post (and thanks to all who provided feedback), I have a second request:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Any references to recent side-by
side "shoot-outs" between Unisolar and conventional crystaline
PV? Scientific studies? Your own wrench thoughts?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p style='margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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). <span
class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>For a
brighter energy future,<br>
<br>
Geoff Greenfield<br>
Founder and CEO<br>
</span><strong><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'>Third Sun Solar &
Wind Power Ltd.</span></strong><b><span style='font-size:13.5pt;color:black'><br>
</span></b><span style='color:black'>340 West State Street, Unit 25<br>
Athens, OH 45701<br>
<br>
740.597.3111 Fax 740.597.1548<br>
<a href="http://www.third-sun.com/" target="_blank">www.Third-Sun.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>