FSLR; The Betamax of Solar?

FSLR announced their earnings today. The results were great, particularly considering the overall economy.

I've given FSLR considerable thought in the last couple years, and I remain convinced that they have unspeakable future problems. On their investor relations page, they link to the pdf associated with their Q1 conference call. In it, they mention what they consider to be risks to their business, but nowhere do they mention the risk associated with availability of their critical Tellurium supply. Ok, so maybe they have it all figured out; but nobody's asking, and nobody's telling.

Ok, I don't know, but I want to get an idea of what kind of supply issue they're up against, so I've gathered some info.

Per Greentech Media, FSLR uses 6 grams of Tellurium per square meter. (See.)

Per First Solar, the FS-277 Module is .72m2 and has a peak power of 77.5W. (See.)

77.5W / .72m2 = 107.64W/m2

So, at 6 grams / m2, the amount of Tellurium required per Watt works out to be 6g / 107.64W = .056 g/W.

Well, we know that FSLR is aiming for a bit over a GW in annual production for '09 and '10, so rounding to 1GW gives roughly 55.7 Metric Tons of Tellurium required to produce that GW of modules.

The question, then, is how much Tellurium is out there, and what does it cost?

According to the USGS, the price has ranged from $41,800/MT in 2004 to
$82,000/MT in 2007. The World Supply of Tellurium according to US Geological Survey was 132MT in 2006.

Ah, no problem. If they're using 55MT to produce 1W worth of modules, and they're paying even the high price of $82,000/MT for their supply, then they're only paying a total of $4.5 Million for their entire yearly supply of Tellurium. That's less than a penny per Watt. In fact, during the CC, Jesse Peechel stated, quite possibly accurately, that First Solar's largest cost was glass.

Wait, a problem. Solar is big. A sensible look at the required future scale of Solar Energy puts the annual Global installation rate to be around 30GWp per year by just 2012. What if FSLR wants to maintain a significant share in this market?

Well, as it is today, it appears that over a third of the World's Tellurium supply is required for the production of a single Gigawatt of First Solar modules.
If FSLR were to take 10% of that market, they'd have to produce 3GW of modules, which by today's efficiencies would require 165MT of Tellurium, or more Tellurium than the World produced in 2006! Well, maybe the price of Tellurium is a pittance when the company is demanding only a third of the World supply of material, but I can guarantee that it won't remain so when that company is demanding 33MT MORE than the World's annual supply.

A big part of this problem is that there's no such thing as a Tellurium mine. Tellurium is only produced as a byproduct of mining other commodities, such as Copper. This means that it's very difficult to increase the World Supply independently of the supply of those other materials. If you were to mine Tellurium alone, the cost would be astronomical, and yet if you were to drive up the mining activity in Tellurium's sister elements, then you'd have the affect of driving down the prices of those materials, thus making them into less desirable targets for mining.

What about efficiency gains? Sure, if FSLR is able to pull off a tripling, or even just a doubling of their efficiency, then they could make do with dramatically less material. I can imagine several possible ways that they could do this, but I suspect that it will be a tough path. As it stands, per the CC pdf, FSLR has increased the conversion efficiency of their product by .3% since Q1 of '08. That's simply not going to cut it, particularly if you look out past 2012 when the market gets even larger.

I don't know. They have some very smart people there, and they're working hard in an exciting industry. The particular technology just doesn't seem to stack up to me, though, and like I said, nobody is asking questions and nobody is volunteering answers.

Ah well, in the short term, I'm quite certain that they are going to do great. Wall Street loves them, and they have excellent margins for the time being. They very well might be able to leverage some of that temporary financial advantage in order to open up new technologies to their benefit, so we'll see.

All that said, I'm not short FSLR, and I suspect that to go short FSLR would be a very bad plan.

Also, a final note, it's pretty obvious that I think that the strongest players at this time are out of China, but it's not that I don't like some US Companies. I really like Applied Materials, and Sunpower to name a couple of domestic players.

Good link.

Lots of good technical info here on Solar Cells & Modules

So, you want to buy a solar plant.

A Scenario.

Note: A follow-up scenario includes accounting for system degradation and inverter losses.

The cost of the install + Interest will equal some amount of money to be paid out per month. I'll call this Outgoing$Monthly.

Power generated per month will be sold on the market for some amount of money. I'll call this Incoming$Monthly.

Set Incoming$Monthly = Outgoing$Monthly.

This would be the point at which your investment broke even on a monthly basis (not including maintenance cost at the moment, this is just to include interest expense into the equation). It's not going to be quite right, because of seasonal variation, as mentioned below, but I'm not looking for anything exact, just a rough way to start gauging cost / benefits.

The end result will be a relationship between the Installation Cost per Watt, Interest Rate, and Required Sales Price of Energy produced in order to break even.

I'll skip to the chase, for those that don't want to read through the whole thing.

Cost/kWp ($/Wp) = Rate ($/kWh) * C2/C1

Note that the assumed interest rate (5%) for purposes of this post has been set and absorbed by C1, and the Insolation Ratio has been absorbed into C2.. Other assumptions are pointed out below.

To give an example of what this tries to point out, let's say you can sell the energy produced by the power plant for $.25/kWh (equal to the low range of this estimate of costs for future nuclear power plants).

Cost/kWp ($/Wp) = $.25/kWh * 146 Hours/Year / .0066 = $5,530/kWp, or $5.53/Wp.

So, if you can sell your power for $.25/kWh, then you break even (roughly) if you can complete the installation for $5.53/Wp or less. Note that the equations below DO NOT include the existing 30% Federal Tax Credit for Solar Installation. That's icing (of course, it also doesn't include lifetime performance degradation or inverter losses).

Fact: this is very much in the range of possibility in TODAY's market. Particularly in the case of mid-large scale installations.

The basis follows.

If there's one thing that I've learned being on the Internet this many years, it's that if you're wrong, somebody will point it out. Have at it with my thanks!

Here goes:



First, find the Monthly Payment required to make the loan payment for an installation of some total cost.


(1) Outgoing$Monthly = (Principle * i) / (1 - (1+ i)^-n) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization_calculator.

This is the Monthly Payment on the loan for the power plant with the below assumptions.

Principle = Total Original Loan amount used to finance the entire plant = the Total Peak Power of the plant * the overall Cost per Watt of the system.
i = periodic interest rate (Monthly. Assume 5% APR, so i = .05 / 12 = .0042).
n = total number of payments (Months. Assume 20 Year Loan, so n = 240).


(2) Principle = TotalPeakPower * Cost/Wp

The Principle is the amount of the loan, where the total cost of the installation is given by the Total Peak Power * Cost per Watt. Substituting for "Principle," from (2) into (1) gives:


(3) Outgoing$Monthly = (TotalPeakPower * Cost/Wp * i) / (1 - (1+ i)^-n)

For simplicity, and ease of double-checking results, I'm going to treat n and i as constants (they are part of the assumptions above), and will pull a constant out of the above equation (3):


(4) Set C1 = i / (1 - (1+ i)^-n) and substitute into (3).


(5) Outgoing$Monthly = TotalPeakPower * Cost/Wp * C1



Now, to figure out what's coming in every month on the sale of the Energy.


This doesn't include seasonal variations. On thinking about it, though, in an Energy market where consumers are paying based on momentary supply and demand, wintertime prices could actually go up based on decreased supply, and so help to balance out the annual cycle for the energy supplier. Then, in the summer where supplies were higher, the prices to the consumer would decrease to offset some winter costs.

In any case, following similar logic to my note on Insolation, the Annual Energy output of the plant can be written as below.


(6) Annual Energy (kWh) = TotalPeakPower (kW) * 20% * 8760 Hours/Year * 1 Year

Start by writing down an equation to relate the Installation's Total Peak Power, to it's Annual Energy Output. I'm plugging in an assumption of a 20% Insolation Ratio, which would include a broad swath of non-sunbelt States. The Insolation Ratio Assumption for this post applies to such shady states as Tennessee, Missouri, and even North Dakota.


(7) Incoming$Yearly = Annual Energy (kWh) * Rate ($/kWh)

Multiplying the Annual Energy Output by the Rate at which it sells for, gives the Total Income for the year. Divide by 12 (below) and you have the Average Monthly Income.


(8) Incoming$Monthly = Incoming$Yearly / 12 Months


(9) Set C2 = .2 * 365 * 24 / 12

Once again, I'm going to pull all of the Constants out of the equation (6) to come up with C2.


(10)Incoming$Monthly = TotalPeakPower (kW) * Rate ($/kWh) * C2


Ok, so now we have the Monthly Outlay required for loan payments, and we have the Monthly Income from energy sales.


To break even - let's set them equal to each other.


(11) Set Outgoing$Monthly = Incoming$Monthly


(12) TotalPeakPower (kW) * Cost/kWp * C1 = TotalPeakPower (kW) * Rate ($/kWh) * C2 (Hours/Year)


(13) Cost/kWp ($/kWp) * C1 = Rate ($/kWh) * C2


Canceling out TotalPeakPower (kW) from both sides of the equation, gives a very simple equation relating the Rate at which the energy is sold, to the Cost/kWp of the initial plant installation.

Neat.



Ok, so to an example and a factcheck.


First, Calculate out C1 and C2.

(14) C1 = i / (1 - (1+ i)^-n) = .0066 (i = .0042, n = 240)

(15) C2 = .20 * 8760 Hours/Year / 12 Months/Year = 146 Hours/Month

Then, pick a target Sale Price for the power that is produced by the Installation, and solve (13) for Cost/kWp. I'm using $.25 in this case, so:

(16) Cost/kWp = Rate * C2/C1 = $.25/kWh * 146 Hours/Month / .0066 = $5,530/kW

Now to check it, or at least check the Interest Calculations:

Since TotalPeakPower was canceled out of the above equation, I'll pick a value to use for the factcheck, say, 1000kW.

So, using (3), Outgoing$Monthly = (TotalPeakPower * Cost/Wp * i) / (1 - (1+ i)^-n) = 1000kW * $5,530/kW * .0042 / (1 - (1+ .0042)^-240) = $36,617/Month.

Then, using (6), Annual Energy (kWh) = TotalPeakPower (kW) * 20% * 8760 Hours/Year * 1 Year = 1,752,000kWh/Year and Dividing by 12 to get a monthly Energy Output, gives 146,000kWh/Month.

Multiplying this by $.25/kWh gives $36,500/Month

Pretty Close. Exponentials are subject to rounding errors. Another way to check would be to put the total cost, or Principle (in this case, $5,530,000) into any number of online mortgage calculators.


Fin

The Market - A Bucketshop.

So, a fellow on Bloomberg was talking about Bucketshops this morning.

We modernised ourselves into this ice age.

Wikipedia on the Bucketshop.

Basically, they were businesses on the sidelines that would play bets with customers on the stock market, but were not actually connected to the stock market. It's as if I were to bet someone $50 on LDK to go up, and vice versa, but neither of us would actually ever trade a share of LDK, and certainly we wouldn't be regulated as if we were actually trading in the market. It's very close to what has happened with Derivatives in the last 10 years. A great many of them, Trillions of Dollars had no fundamental basis in any physical ownership of ANYTHING whatsoever. They're side bets, pure and simple, and many of those making the wagers had no ability to pay up in the case of losses. The idea of running bucketshops didn't stop when they were outlawed... it was expressed later by those that led the US Government to deregulate via the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and it was implemented by the "Derivatives Desk."

Of course, the Bucketshop is illegal, but the insideous concept finds its way even into the regulated markets, by way of the DTCC. Is the DTCC just throwing your trades in a bucket in the back room? In some cases, at least, it certainly is; only, we the customers don't ever get to look behind the curtain to see for ourselves. Does the share that my brokerage claims on my account really represent a legitimate link to a physical asset? All I know is what my broker tells me. If my broker were a bucketshop, would it be obvious to me, the customer? Would they admit it?

The DTCC needs to get cracked open. Let's find out what's going on in there. The Investing Public has the RIGHT to know how the DTCC handles their PROPERTY.

Part II : Percentage Land Area required for 100% Replacement of 2006 Energy Demand.

Yesterday I posted a chart showing a rough estimate of how much land area would be required by each State in order for that State to replace 100% of its Energy Demand (per DOE numbers).

I posted it at DailyKos, and on the LDK board for comments.

Apsmith of DailyKos makes a good point that there are generator losses, etc., which should be used to reduce the overall total energy required to be replaced, and China_s2 of Yahoo agrees, and points out a different set of data, which is based on retail electricity use, so should closely represent actual electricity delivered, as opposed to total Energy Input.

So, I copied over the old data to a new sheet, plugged in the new data, and came up with a rough estimate of the total land are required to replace 100% of US 2007 Electricity demand.

Percentage Land Area required for 100% Replacement of 2006 Energy Demand.

The following chart represents the percentage of land for each State, and the USA as a whole (without Alaska), that would be required to replace 100% of that State's Annual Energy Demand.

Make no mistake, the numbers are huge. Then again, nobody is actually talking about 100% replacement by Solar, Ever. This is just to give an idea that it is physically possible, at all.

Assumptions and references follow.




here's the spreadsheet.


References:


State Energy Data.
State Land Area Data.
State Insolation Estimates.
Sunpower Power/Area Claim.


Assumptions / Notes:


The percentages reflected in the Graph are based on a Stationary system, though the value for Power/Area is based on a Sunpower claim related to their tracking system. This should be irrelevant, as Power is independent of whether the system tracks or not. Since these are Sunpower numbers, the Panel's Conversion Efficiency should be around 22%.

The Demand cited is irrespective of source, and so includes existing production of renewables such as Hydropower. Here's a very interesting page from the DOE giving detailed map-based information on US Energy sources. There's a "Select a State" dropdown that will take you to a close-up of the individual State including facts and demographics.

In order to work out an the Area, I used the equation:

Annual Energy Output = 1 Year * Power/UnitArea * Insolation Ratio * TotalSolarArea * 8760.

For more info, see A Note on Units of Energy and Insolation. Solve for TotalSolarArea, and divide by the State's Total Land Area, and you will get the percentage. Most of the trouble here is just in the conversion of units. On a political note, can we just all go metric please?

The Insolation values were eyeballed from the map. If anybody's got some better data on State Average Insolations, I'd love to see!

The base data does not seem to include Transportation Energy, though it didn't specify.

Of course, this assumes nice flat areas of land, on which to set up installations, and it also assumes that each state takes care of its own needs irrespective of local conditions or capacity. It's a brief look from 1000 miles up above. It's not exhaustive, but it's fun, and maybe interesting.

By all means, if my basic math is way off, let me know.

This post is followed by Part II, which calculates the same area percentage, but only for the replacement of Electricity End Use.

For the Survivalists: How much gasoline is one Solar Panel worth?

Ok, first, what is the Kilowatt*Hour equivalent of a gallon of gas?

A Gallon of gas contains 114,000 BTU/gallon per Wikipedia (and other sources).

So, 1kWh is ideally equal to 3412 BTU, but no Generator is ideal. The generator's conversion efficiency is measured by its "heat rate," and the common range seems to be centered around 8,000-11,000 BTU/kWh. For this estimation I took a very efficient generator and used 8000 BTU/kWh (about 43% Efficiency).

Using these numbers gives a Total Energy Output/Gallon of 114,000 BTU/Gallon * 1kWh/8000BTU, or 14.25 kWh/Gallon.

Cost: $2.50/Gallon. This gives Cost/kWh = $2.5/14.25kWh = $.18/kWh


Now, let's look at a single 200Wp Solar Panel over one year at a 17% Insolation location (like in Massachusetts).

200Wp * .17 * 1Year = 34W*Year = 34W*Year*365Days/Year*24Hours/Day = 297.8kWh
Cost: $800/Panel. This gives Cost / kWh = $800/297.8kWh = $2.68/kWh


Woah! Ok, so obviously the Solar System doesn't pay off in a year. Going out 25 years, though, (assuming 10% average degradation over that time) gives a total of 6700.5kWh produced over that time for a total 25 Year Cost/kWh of $0.12/kWh.
For another comparison, over 25 years this single solar panel will produce the equivalent of 470 Gallons of Gas, or at this rate, 19 Solar Panels (3800Wp) will produce the equivalent of a gallon of gas per day.


Of course, this isn't exhaustive. I didn't compare costs of the generator involved, or of the installation and inverter costs for the Solar (this will at least double the cost for Solar Energy, but Government Incentives will bring it back down quite a bit). The focus here is a comparison between energy output over time. The point being, it's a potentially valid hedge for those that might be worried about future disruptions in such things like the supply of gasoline for generators. Prior to such a time, there are choices to be made, and in the case of a very long term potential outage, Solar Panels will provide much more energy than a person could even safely store in the form of Gas for an extended period of time. I also didn't account for such things as Interest on debt, because a Survivalist isn't necessarily going to care about that. If the time comes that they are preparing for, they know that money just might not worth what it is at the moment, and a working light bulb may be worth alot more.

Of course, remember that if you're one of these people, the neighbors will know that you have Solar Panels (or a Generator), and they'll want in on it. Therefore, the best thing we can all do now, is to do everything possible to make sure that not just "we" have a system, but to make sure that as many of our neighbors have them, too. Desperate people are dangerous.

Converting Energy to Peak Watts.

I put this out on the LDK board today. I figured I'd keep it here for posterity.

The debate starts with a claim that a company's product can put out 500MWh / acre / year, and that this is a good thing.
Well, it may be a good thing, but I can't really compare it to anything without converting it to Peak Power. So, that's what I do.


500MWh is energy, not power. So, we need to convert to Peak Power in order to compare to other systems.

Energy = Power * Time, so Power = Energy / Time.

Average Power per Acre = 500,000kWh/Year/Acre / Time (1 Year) = 500,000kWh*1day/24h*1year/365days*1/acres*1/year.

Do some cancelling and division:

The Average Power required to produce 500,000kWh in a year per acre is 57kW/acre.

Ok, so the company didn't give any idea of what assumed insolation ratio they are using here, but if it were set up in, say Arizona, and was on a dual axis tracker, 33% insolation would be a reasonable guess.

Start with Peak Power * Insolation Ratio = Actual Average Power.

Solve for Peak Power = Actual Average Power / Insolation Ratio = 57kW / .33 = 173kWp

This is the Peak Power Rating of their 500MWh/acre/year system assuming dual axis tracking, and 33% Insolation Ratio.

Comparing to a real world scenario (see).

Per Sunpower Tracker Advertising, their system works out to 161kWp/acre, which is just slightly less peak power than this reflecting system, which makes sense if the reflecting system gets a 28% conversion efficiency.

Great article on Black Silicon.

http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2008/10/12/sionyx-brings-black-silicon-into-the-light-material-could-upend-solar-imaging-industries/


"Black silicon is between 100 and 500 times more sensitive to light than untreated silicon."


"The company won’t build semiconductors or even semiconductor fabrication equipment, but will instead work with as-yet-unnamed partners to develop specifications for machines that can treat isolated areas of silicon wafers to create black silicon."


They're either going to sell the capacity to produce black silicon to one, or to many companies. This will be fun to see.

Heck of a day today in Solar.

More Mathematical Mumbo Jumbo.

The other day I pointed out the diminishing retrurns of increasing a Module's Conversion Efficiency. The folks on Daily Kos nicely pointed out how trivial the results really were. Well, I can live with that. I think the post still serves to make very clear that the percentage change in output Energy is, in fact, proportional to the percentage change in Conversion Efficiency (I don't know, I guess I just had to see it for myself).

As usual, if there are errors, please let me have it; though please point out a specific or two rather than just saying "check your math."

So, turned into a simple equation, increasing a module's Conversion Efficiency increases the total energy panel output per unit time and per unit area by (Conversion_Efficiency_final / Conversion_Efficiency_initial - 1) * 100%.

For example, the percentage difference between the Annual Energy Output of a 16% Efficient Panel and a 20% Efficient Panel would be (20/16 - 1) * 100% = 25% (assuming constant Area).


Following from this, I'd like to get a few more bits of information from these variables.


Effects on Surface Area of Improving Conversion Efficiency:


It could be said that Power_Peak (W) = Insolation_Peak (W/m2) * Area (m2) * Conversion_Efficiency (%).

Setting Power_Peak and Insolation_Peak as Constants, then we can say that C = Area * Conversion_Efficiency.

Take two scenarios, say, Case 1 and Case 2.

C1 = Area1 * Conversion_Efficiency1.

C2 = Area2 * Conversion_Efficiency2.

C1 = C2

Area2 / Area1 = Conversion_Efficiency1/Conversion_Efficiency2

Let's imagine a Solar Manufacturer and set today's average Conversion Efficiency at 16%, and let's say that by 2012 the average Conversion Efficiency will be 22% for some company.

Area2 / Area1 = .16/.22 = .72 = 72%

So, in order to generate the same amount of Peak Power at 22% Conversion Efficiency vs. 16% Conversion Efficiency, the manufacturer need produce only 72% as much area of PV material. Nice.


I'm not sure how "deep" this thought is, but I'm putting it out here, at the very least as a future resource for myself.

How much is 1% in efficiency worth in Solar?

Ok, so say you start with a Solar Panel that's 15% efficient (like today's low-end Crystalline Silicon Panels). For simplicity's sake, lets say that the panel has an area of 1 M^2.

So, at 1000W/m^2 Insolation, the panel will produce 150W, so this would be called its Peak Power Rating.

Let's say that you set that panel in an area with an Insolation Ratio of 20%.

In one year, that panel will produce 30W*Year = 262.8kWh [150W * .20 * 1Year * 365 Days/Year * 24 Hours/Day]



Now, say that the solar panel is 16% efficient.

At 1000W/m^2, the panel will produce 160W, so this is its peak rating.

You set that panel in an area with an Insolation Ratio of 20%.

In one year, that panel will produce 32W*Year = 280.3kWh



What is the percentage difference in the Energy Produced by the two panels in one year?


280.3kWh/262.8kWh = 1.067, so the 16% efficient panel will produce 6.7% more energy in a year than a 15% efficient panel.



Now, say that the solar panel is 22% efficient.

At 1000W/m^2, the panel will produce 220W, so this is its peak rating.

You set that panel in an area with an Insolation Ratio of 20%.

In one year, that panel will produce 44W*Year = 385.44kWh

This panel prouces 46.7% more energy in a year than the 15% panel.


See http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pNlmSU6te4mhtvbGWKl6KCA for a Spreadsheet that shows the interesting, but maybe obvious results.


So, let's say I have a choice between a 14% Module and a 15% Module. Well, the 15% module produces 7.14% more Energy per year than the 14% one. So, I had better look at the prices, and if the 15% module is more that 7.14% more costly, then you're better off sticking with the 14% one. This is assuming that space, quality, etc, aren't factors, of course. This is "all things being the same."

What if I has a choice between a 45% module and a 46% module? Well, the 46% Efficient Panel will produce just 2.22% more Energy per year than the 45% Efficient one. So, once again assuming that space isn't a factor, the 46% efficient panel had better be no more than 2.22% more costly.


I'm thinking that this is something that manufacturers have to be thinking about, too. Of course, there could be marketing reasons why a panel of a higher percentage efficiency might sell for more, and there are certainly applications that put surface area at a premium, but from a basic cost perspective at the very least, if a manufacturer of 50% efficient modules thinks that they have some technology that will take that efficiency up to 51%, then they'd better be able to manufacture those panels for less than 2% more than it costs them to make their 50% Modules. If the additional materials and manufacturing operations are going to add more than 2% to the cost of manufacture, then they very well might not have gained anything by the "breakthough."


As usual, if my thinking is wrong, by all means, let me have it.

Does Solar Tracking make sense?

I want to know, so I'm going to try to work out a rough scenario.


Looking at Wattsun Tracker Datasheets, I've decided to use 12 175W Suntech Panels. See http://www.wattsun.com/prices/Wattsun_Tracker_Prices.pdf

Cost of Tracker Equipment: $6250.

Additional Installation Costs (Rough Guess): $3000-$4000 (lower costs if you can put together an out-of-work electrician, welder, and some laborers).

Panel Total cost at $4.50/W = $9450; Total Peak Watts: 2100W

Inverter Cost: $2500 (small inverter, for just this application).


Cost of Tracking System:

Using these rough estimates, the total cost of the Tracking System with Panels would range from $21,200 - $22,200. Just to assume the worst, I'll stick with $22,200, or $10.57/Watt.

The cost of JUST the Tracker and Installation ($4000), runs $10,250, or $4.88/Watt.


Cost of Stationary System:

Calculating a rough cost of an Installed Stationary System, I'll go with the above Panel Cost of $4.50/Watt, and using the Solarbuzz estimation, which suggests that the total installed cost of the system will be twice the cost of the panels (I believe that this would include the Inverter). So, for comparison purposes, I'll set the Installed Stationary system at a total of $18,900, or $9/Watt.


Insolation Comparison:

In a normal stationary scenario, the Installation would produce energy according to the usual local Insolation values. However, the fact that it's a tracker, leads to an INCREASE in the effective Insolation value. Using a US Government Insolation Reference, it looks safe to say that for at least a very large portion of the US, there's a 2 kWh/M2 difference in Annual Insolation between a "Flat Plate Tilted South at Latitude," and a "Two Axis Tracking Flat Plate." I know from previous calculations that 2 kWh/m2 is equivalent to an insolation ratio of 8.33%.

Let's put this percentage in terms of our original 2.1 kW System. Assume that the Stationary Installation is on a roof angled at latitude, in a region that recieves an average of 20% Insolation over the course of the year. In ideal conditions, this system will produce 2.1 kW*Year * 20% = 0.42 kW*Year = 3679kWh.

Now, let's put that same system on a tracker, thus increasing the effective Insolation Value by 8.33%. This system will produce 2.1 kW*Year * 28.33% = 0.59 kW*Year = 5212kWh.

We can see that an 8.33% increase of in the effective Insolation Ratio has increased the total Annual Energy Output by 29.5%!


Does the Tracker pay off?

To start out with, let's find out how much Energy each system will produce in 25 years. To be a bit more accurate to the real World, I'll take off 25% from each value to reflect Inverter losses, efficiency degredation over the 25 year lifespan, and variation from the Manufacturers Test Conditions that went into the initial rating of the Panels.

Stationary: 3679kWh/Year * 25 Years * .75 = 68,961kWh.

Tracking: 5212kWh/Year * 25 Years * .75 = 97,725kWh.

So, over the course of 25 Years, the Tracking System produces 28764kWh more than the Stationary System.

Since the Tracking System cost $3300 more than the Stationary System, this is our target to beat.

Taking the difference between the two outputs, and multiplying by a reasonable energy selling price ($.12/kWh) gives 28,764kWh * $.12/kWh = $3451, which, compared to the additional cost of the Tracking System ($3300) is a win over 25 Years, just barely.


Conclusion:

Yes, the tracker pays off slightly over 25 years, using rough estimations. Much would depend on the specific local conditions, and the Electricity Costs.


Final Comparison:

The Stationary Roof Installation had a Total Cost of $18900, or $9/Wp, and produced 68,961kWh over 25 Years.

$18900 / 68,961kWh = $.27 / kWh.

The Tracking Installation had a Total Cost of $22,200, or $10.57/Wp, and produced 97,725kWh over 25 Years.

$22,200 / 97,725kWh = $.23 / kWh.

From this, we can see quite clearly how, though the price per Peak Watt for a Tracking System is higher than for a Stationary System, the actual cost per unit of Energy of a Tracking System is lower.


Note:
Of course, there are many variables unaccounted for in these basic Calculations, including Government Subsidies, Interest on Loans, and Insurance Considerations. More detailed Calculations would have to be done on a specific case-by-case basis. I think this is good for a start.

Lots of good news Lately...

Check the left-hand sidebar. Lots of RSS Feeds there. Keep coming back, it's changing all the time.

In louisiana...

Louisiana has one of the better Solar Energy incentives. It's 50%, on top of the 30% provided by the Federal Government.

You could buy a 5KW system that originally will cost around $22,000 for a final price of $2000. It'll totally pay off in 5 years, then the energy is free for the life of the equipment (panels are usually warranteed to 25 years).

See: http://www.findsolar.com/index.php?page=rightforme

For my estimation above, I took the average power used per year (American Residential Rough) of 8000 kWh, converted to power used per month (666 kWh), selected "other" utility, zip code = 70822, and Electricity Offset = 50%.

Spread the word. Movement on these incentives will be beneficial to the local Economy, and Residents.

RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION STUDY.

Following my first Stimulus Post, here's one that's short and sweet. From the Stimulus Package. I'm presently in a class on "ITIL" which is a set of "Best Practices" for IT and Business. One of the basic tenents is "You can't manage what you can't measure." Well, here we see direction for the Energy Department to get some data on the real system that's out there. From this will be found Natural Priorities based on measured results, rather than on Politically Motivated Claims.

I like.

______________


SEC. 7005. RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION STUDY.

In completing the 2009 National Electric Transmission Congestion Study, the Secretary of Energy shall include—

(1) an analysis of the significant potential sources of renewable energy that are constrained in accessing appropriate market areas by lack of adequate transmission capacity;
(2) an analysis of the reasons for failure to develop the adequate transmission capacity; 20
(3) recommendations for achieving adequate transmission capacity;
(4) an analysis of the extent to which legal challenges filed at the State and Federal level are delaying the construction of transmission necessary to access renewable energy; and
(5) an explanation of assumptions and projections made in the Study, including—

(A) assumptions and projections relating to energy efficiency improvements in each load center;
(B) assumptions and projections regarding the location and type of projected new generation capacity; and 10
(C) assumptions and projections regarding projected deployment of distributed generation infrastructure.

Stimulus Bill - First Look - State Energy Grants.

There's alot to digest for Alt-Energy in this Stimulus Package. I looked it up and did some searching around. There are an incredible number of references, and I'm no Lawyer. I've decided that I'll take it a section at a time, and pull together references and resources as I find them. Skipping to the very end, leads me to the first section that I'm going to look at, or, SEC. 7006. ADDITIONAL STATE ENERGY GRANTS. At first look, I think I'd describe this as saying that if the State assures that they will move on setting the standards described in (1),(2), and (3), then they are eligible for direct grants by the Department of Energy for Renewable and Conservation Projects.

My interpretation of (1),(2), and (3) runs along the lines of "Decouple" the Utilities as has been done in California, Set Building Codes and other Standards, and prioritize Renewables and Conservation projects.

Sounds good to me!

My plan is to work on a letter to write to my State Congresspeople and Governor, to request that they begin this process of setting standards, and prepare to take full advantage of these Funds. In particular, I'd like to motivate people in the Southern States to start this process. These states are too often ignored, and yet they have excellent Solar Potential. Many are also Coal States, and so will require extra efforts to move towards Solar.


SEC. 7006. ADDITIONAL STATE ENERGY GRANTS


This section refers back to the earlier content of the Bill described as "paragraph (6) under the heading ‘‘Department of Energy—Energy Programs—Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’’ in title V of division A of this Act."


Here's the referred-to section.

(6) $3,400,000,000 shall be for the State Energy Program authorized under part D of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act ((42 U.S.C. 6321).


Here's the referred-from section.

SEC. 7006. ADDITIONAL STATE ENERGY GRANTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Amounts appropriated in paragraph (6) under the heading ‘‘Department of Energy—Energy Programs—Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’’ in title V of division A of this Act shall be available to the Secretary of Energy for making additional grants under part D of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6321 et seq.). The Secretary shall make grants under this section in excess of the base allocation established for a State under regulations issued pursuant to the authorization provided in section 365(f) of such Act only if the governor of the recipient State notifies the Secretary of Energy that the governor will seek, to the extent of his or her authority, to ensure that each of the following will occur:

(1) The applicable State regulatory authority will implement the following regulatory policies for each electric and gas utility with respect to which the State regulatory authority has ratemaking authority:

(A) Policies that ensure that a utility’s recovery of prudent fixed costs of service is timely and independent of its retail sales, without in the process shifting prudent costs from variable to fixed charges. This cost shifting constraint shall not apply to rate designs adopted prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Cost recovery for prudent investments by utilities in energy efficiency.
(C) An earnings opportunity for utilities associated with cost-effective energy efficiency savings.

(2) The State, or the applicable units of local government that have authority to adopt building codes, will implement the following:

(A) A building energy code (or codes) for residential buildings that meets or exceeds the most recently published International Energy Conservation Code, or achieves equivalent or greater energy savings.
(B) A building energy code (or codes) for commercial buildings throughout the State that meets or exceeds the ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007, or achieves equivalent or greater energy savings.
(C) A plan for the jurisdiction achieving compliance with the building energy code or codes described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) within 8 years of the date of enactment of this Act in at least 90 percent of new and renovated residential and commercial building space. Such plan shall include active training and enforcement programs and measurement of the rate of compliance each year.

(3) The State will to the extent practicable prioritize the grants toward funding energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, including—

(A) the expansion of existing energy efficiency programs approved by the State or the appropriate regulatory authority, including energy efficiency retrofits of buildings and industrial facilities, that are funded—
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 22:48 Jan 23, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00645 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\HR1.XML HOLCPC

(i) by the State; or
(ii) through rates under the oversight of the applicable regulatory authority, to the extent applicable;

(B) the expansion of existing programs, approved by the State or the appropriate regulatory authority, to support renewable energy projects and deployment activities, including programs operated by entities which have the authority and capability to manage and distribute grants, loans, performance incentives, and other forms of financial assistance; and
(C) cooperation and joint activities between States to advance more efficient and effective use of this funding to support the priorities described in this paragraph.

(b) STATE MATCH.—The State cost share requirement under the item relating to ‘‘DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; energy conservation’’ in title II of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1985 (42 U.S.C. 6323a; 98 Stat. 1861) shall not apply to assistance provided under this section.
(c) EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES.—No limitation on the percentage of funding that may be used for the purchase and installation of equipment and materials for energy efficiency measures under grants provided under part D of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6321 et seq.) shall apply to assistance provided under this section.

SEC. 7007. INAPPLICABILITY OF LIMITATION.

The limitations in section 399A(f)(2), (3), and (4) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6371h-1(f)(2), (3), and (4)) shall not apply to grants funded with appropriations provided by this Act, except that such grant funds shall be available for not more than an amount equal to 80 percent of the costs of the project for which the grant is provided.



Followed by RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION STUDY.

Egolf (New Mexico) proposes tax districts for solar loans

Great Program!

Centrotherm - Presentation

Found by Uptothetrees of Yahoo.

Centrotherm.

Interesting Technology Option - Holographic Tuning.

Found at www.1st-solarenergy.blogspot.com.

Manufactured by Prism Solar