Whither Thin Film?

It is true that “thin-film modules have a tendency to degrade more and at a faster rate than c-Si modules,” just look at the warranties of thin-film vs c-Si modules. Unisolar, of course, is one of the worst offenders. NREL has documented 1.22% average annual linear degradation for its current triple junction product (see page 9 at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/review_meeting/pdfs/exp_5_osterwald_nrel.pdf ), meaning that even Unisolar’s puny 20-year, 80%-rated-power warranty is not likely to hold.  This European performance study may also be of interest:  http://ecdfan.blogspot.com/2009/05/kwhkw-myth-part-iv.html
At least First Solar has a 25-year warranty.

There are several European thin-film producers, of course. Sunfilm AG comes to mind, for example.

And Flexcell, of course, a division of Qcells.

If German banks have a risk aversion to thin-film, why not go with high quality Chinese c-Si? Your last paragraph addresses this tangentially but your title throws a mixed message. Is this strictly a technology issue or are German banks looking out for German producers? I’d suspect the latter… Have for a while now…

What’s the word on the pace of installations in Germany? Will they fall above or below their 1 - 1.5GW corridor?

EU buyers favoring domestic producers?  Udderly shocking, unless you’d done a shred of business in any EU country, in which case you’d know they always do business this way.  According to Danny boy I guess First Solar will show zero sales in the EU this quarter.  Umm yea.

Agreed absolutely! My friend in Italy work for the pv as a senior finance’s ,recently
talk about these issues with us.
http://www.orientalsolar.cn/pronouncement.html  said

85000 modules on 1 rooftop in Spain means somebody has been convinced of the commercial viability of USO product. That being said, it was the “gold rush” in Spain and perhaps pre contract diligence was less than adequate.  Regardless, someone opened up the vaults to fund this almost 12mWp rooftop project.

One reason for the EU-Banks decision could be, if TF module manufacturer are not cost competitive against CSi modules,  Today, how can they survive midterm – only First Solar has a real chance.
The risk for an investor is to by a cheap TF module plant today, but what does this help
if the manufacturer disappears due to losses he will make?  What will happen if
the modules fail later (warranty issue)? So i think the most European anks are aware about this risk!

rooferguy:  Which SCE “presentation at SP 2008” are you referring to?  I am aware of the initial application to the CPUC (and subsequent docket filings), but I wasn’t aware of a separate presentation ...

All-in system costs for large commercial rooftop projects for Unisolar appear to be over $6 per Watt (with possible exception of one SunEdison installation, at $5 per Watt)

http://ecdfan.blogspot.com/2009/05/is-350-per-watt-all-in-reality.html

European banks favoring European manufacturers?  How unfair!
Here in the US, our motto is, “Buy European.”  Or something like that.

European business has normally been a group process - many get a slice of the pie which keeps costs high and everyone alive if not fat.

Can’t blame banks on avoiding startups as the failure rate has to be well above 95%. New processes are not even a dime a dozen - and normally worth just about as much. The rare ‘new’ process actually makes it to the commercial stage.

Thin film PV is on shaky ground for a number of reasons - reliability, rarity of the materials used, toxicity, marginal (if any) cost advantage, low throughput, etc.  It only made recent gains because of the temporary Si feedstock shortage.  It is good to see that Europe is being rational and focusing on PV technology that can carry through for the long term.  One can only hope that the US will be equally diligent in it’s future investments in PV technology and not be swayed by the excessive thin-film hype out there.

FYI!
Liebe Grüsse
HG

I’m not qualified to comment on the technical aspects of solar film, though I like the fundamental *idea* of it—in principle. I do understand that thin film (like any product) has to meet material costs goals, as well as having enough value to generate profits, which in this case is partly affected by material costs and, for that matter, manufacturing costs. I hope someone can come up with a film that is cheap, material wise; easy to make, which would make it less expensive to make than a product requiring a complex manufacturing process; and efficient enough to meet or exceed parity.

I need sugestion - In case we are thinking of a solar power plant,which type of solar plant is better. Is it PV based OR solar thermal.This is with respect to-
1. Intial investment
2. Number of useful years of power production
3. Efficency of the plant

The numbers could go either way depending on which plants you compare.

1. The recently completed Andasol 1 plant cost about $6/watt but the costs for Andasol 2/3 should be lower. The cheapest PV plant that I could find a cost for (Brandis) was $4.5/Watt… PV costs have been falling rapidly this year so cheaper plants are probably in the works.
2. The life of the PV plant will depend on the technology you use. Same goes for the Solar Thermal plant. With the solar thermal plant you’d have to figure for the possibility of refurbishment extending the life of the plant if the economics justify the investment.
3. Solar thermal plants will generally be much more efficient.
Note 1. You need direct sunlight for solar thermal plants. This restricts the siting of CSP.
Note 2. You need power lines for centralized plants. PV can potentially be used on-site so you can bypass some wires - this equates to a savings of about 4 cents per kWh.
Note 3. The most important metric is the delivered costs of electricity.

JoeJoe:  You’re way off target on PV plant capex; many PV plants are constructed under $2/watt

Under $2/Watt eh? Are you from the future Steve?