INTRODUCTORY SPECIAL INTRODUCTORY ... - PHOTON Info

A LONG, 

STRANGE TRIP 

SOUTHERN 

EXPOSURE 

PV’s coming 

of age in America 

We cruise down to Anaheim 

for Solar Power 2009 

IMPERFECT UNION 

An in-depth look at state and 

local incentive programs 

FIRST ON 

THE THE BLOCK BLOCK 

The challenges and triumphs 

of an early PV adopter 

The Photovoltaic Magazine 

$ 5.95 November 2009 

INTRODUCTORY INTRODUCTORY SPECIAL SPECIAL 

A A full full PDF PDF version version of of the the November November issue issue of of 

PHOTON PHOTON – – The The Photovoltaic Photovoltaic Magazine Magazine is is available available 

for for free free on on our our website website (www.photon.info). 

(www.photon.info). 

Feel Feel free free to to distribute! 

distribute! 

Conference and Event Calendar Jobs and Internships Vendors and Installers 

#74470-CFBEHh:L;L

Gainesville 

is the start 

On the surface, the challenge 

of satisfying US electricity 

needs and eliminating CO emis- 

2 

sions from electricity generation 

can be solved with a small dot 

on the map. The current electricity 

consumption in the US is approximately 

3,900 terawatt hours 

annually. In order to produce this 

amount of electricity from sunlight, 

it would be necessary to 

have a photovoltaic installation 

measuring about 18,000 square 

miles – that is equal to the small 

yellow square in the accompanying 

map of Arizona. That is 

all that is needed to reduce the 

greenhouse gases resulting from 

US electricity production to virtually 

zero. 

Of course, such a simple solution 

is unrealistic to address the 

complex issues of US electricity 

supply and CO emissions. Real- 

2 

ity is much more complicated, 

especially because PV will not be 

centralized in one corner of Arizona 

but is being deployed across 

the entire country, from Hawaii 

to Florida. Integrating a large volume 

of PV will require significant 

upgrades to the electricity grids, 

integration of PV with operation 

of other fuel sources including 

wind and biomass, and perhaps 

implementation of electricity storage. 

For PV to become a significant 

portion of US electricity supply, it 

would require much more than 

just a dot on the US map. 

Perhaps PV’s biggest challenge 

is the financing. In order for photovoltaics 

to really get rolling in 

the US, financing questions need 

to be answered. At first glance, it 

seems that PV will make financial 

sense for a broad set of customers. 

The electricity tariffs are high in 

EDITORIAL 

many states where there is a lot of 

good sunshine. A decent return 

is within easy reach. But whoever 

wants a good return from such an 

investment will need to dip into 

many pots – tax rebates, subsidies 

from energy suppliers, municipalities 

and states, access to net 

metering. After being confronted 

with such a complex investment, 

some investors are sure to lose 

their appetite. 

This is the mixed-message of 

PV across the US: While the economics 

may make sense for many 

customers, the financing and 

policies are still too complicated. 

We are dedicating a large share of 

this first issue of PHOTON USA 

to the various incentive programs 

available in the US. 

And we couldn’t have found 

a better example of a policy on 

the right path than Gainesville, 

which has both the US’s first feedin 

tariff and the common challenges 

that face implementation 

of these types of programs. This 

actually did not surprise us at all. 

It is no coincidence that the German 

edition of PHOTON, started 

in 1996, is headquartered in the 

German city of Aachen, which 

itself is something of a European 

Gainesville. In the early 1990s, 

the magazine’s founders-to-be 

were active in a political movement 

demanding a feed-in tariff 

for solar electricity. With the 

success of what became known 

as the »Aachen Model,« the first 

trial balloons for what would become 

Germany’s Renewable Energy 

Law were released. And this 

law is the most important reason 

that Germany is today the number 

one solar country worldwide. 

More and more, the feed-in 

tariff system has been paying for 

itself. The mass installation of solar 

electricity systems has reduced 

their cost dramatically – and will 

continue to do so. That means we 

do not have to wait for a cheaper 

technology. Through massive 

economies of scale, solar will become 

ever cheaper – and so will the 

task of reconciling our need for energy 

with climate protection. 

Gainesville is a shining light 

in the US. It provides a model of 

a simple-to-understand feed-in 

tariff policy. And it also illustrates 

the importance of adjusting any 

policy over time to meet the needs 

of customers and policy makers. 

Let this solar movement be the 

start of a mass movement. Then 

this century will begin looking 

sunny indeed. 

Philippe Welter, Publisher 

November 2009 3

4 

Under the Sun 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

Politics Business 

PV history Solar friendly states Buying programs 

14 28 54 

After predictions that the Bell Labs- 

invented solar battery would transform 

the world in the 1950s proved wildly off 

the mark, the PV industry has survived 

for decades as a niche market, sustained 

by unlikely patrons such as the space program, 

Big Oil and pot growers. With the 

promise of PV more real than ever today, 

PHOTON looks back at the people and 

events that have shaped the industry. 

14 ! PV history 

The unlikely, and still unfi nished, 

story of PV in America, and what it 

says about the future 

PHOTON 

November 2009 

cover picture: 

Technicians from PowerLight install solar 

panels atop roofs of houses that are part 

of a 600 home solar powered community 

being built in Roseville, California. 

Photo: Charles Chipman / 

photon-pictures.com 

For most Americans interested in in- 

stalling PV on their homes, one of the 

fi rst things they ask is: is going solar a 

good investment? Given the prevalence of 

this question, we would be remiss in not 

trying to answer it in our inaugural issue 

of PHOTON USA. But before we answer 

the question, we have to acknowledge up 

front: homeowners in the US won‘t fi nd 

it easy to fi gure out whether a home PV 

system is a good investment. 

28 ! Solar friendly states 

PHOTON investigates the factors 

driving the economics of residential 

PV in 13 US states 

34 San Francisco 

How San Francisco managed 

to transform from a solar no-gozone 

to a PV hotspot – at least 

for the time being 

40 Stimulus package 

The Obama Administration’s 

stimulus package is huge, ambitious, 

and has a big focus on renewable 

energy. Just what does it mean for 

the PV industry? 

Rolf Schulten / photon-pictures.com 

From San Diego to New Orleans, Denver 

to Sonoma County, communities in 

the U.S. are banding together to go solar. 

Community buying programs educate 

homeowners about solar, help them get 

discounts off their PV systems, and vet 

installers. It’s grassroots solar power, and 

the trend is gaining momentum. 

46 Thin-fi lm production 

Solyndra breaks ground on a 500 MW 

thin-fi lm module production facility in 

Fremont, California 

50 U.S. PV market 

The U.S. PV market will grow next 

year. Just how much depends on 

whom you ask 

54 Buying programs 

A new trend of grassroots-style community 

buying programs in the US 

is expanding the residential market, 

and educating new audiences about 

solar 

96 Test Lab 

97 Statistics 

99 Events 

105 Education & Training 

107 Internships 

109 Ask the Editors 

111 Industry Registry 

112 Classifi eds 

Service 

F1 Online digitale Bildagentur GmbH 

November 2009

Science & Technology Architecture 

Nearing the end of a turbulent year, the 

Solar Power International (SPI) conference 

and expo provides us with a moment to refl 

ect on how the industry has changed since 

the last gathering a year ago. More than 

900 exhibitors will be at the Anaheim Convention 

Center for SPI covering more than 

200,000 ft2 of space, twice the territory at 

last year‘s expo in San Diego. A preview 

on new products especially interesting for 

home owners and system integrators. 

59 ! The Magic Kingdom awaits 

60 PV monitoring and more 

61 Panel wiring with Parallux vBoost 

62 Ceramic-backed modules 

63 Small single-axis tracker for 

standard modules 

64 Japanese company introduces 

T-Junction; PowerBox replaces 

module’s standard junction box 

65 Extra-low-voltage power inverters; 

power optimizers use selective 

installation 

66 Attractive modules for the US market; 

inverters from Italy; monitoring 

systems – and technical crews to 

operate them 

67 Power optimizers for any module; new 

inverter with backup battery power 

68 Little product, big comeback 

69 Microinverters 

An old idea shuffl es off its stale 

reputation and makes a comeback 

in a new package 

Frederic Neema / photon-pictures.com 

A former training center near a European 

Space Agency (ESA) ground station 

underwent elaborate reconstruction, 

transforming it into a business park for 

aerospace companies. Installing a PV system 

as part of this complex came naturally 

to an industry that historically has 

been one of the fi rst to employ PV in any 

sustained way. 

78 Belgium 

An aerospace business park runs on 

solar electricity – well, what else? 

In Practice 

Exhibition Belgium My PV system 

59 78 90 

! 

Lead article 

additional pictures: 

www.photon-pictures.com 

November 2009 5 

Guido Schiefer / photon-pictures.com 

Rick Elkus is self-admittedly attracted 

to projects that tend to increase in scale 

from the initial plan. Take, for instance, 

the 3,000 gallon fi sh tank in his backyard. 

But when the Elkus’s decided to get 

a PV system installed, the scope of the 

project went far beyond anything they 

could have imagined. And far beyond the 

small town in which they live. 

84 Proposals 

PV veteran Bill Brooks’ nine steps to 

fi nding the right system integrator 

90 ! My PV system 

The Elkus’ PV system started as a 

challenge and ended in a safety code 

nightmare 

Rubriken 

3 Editorial 

6 Picture of the month 

10 Readers‘ letters 

113 List advertisers 

113 Imprint 

114 Preview 

Rolf Schulten / photon-pictures.com

6 

Photo of the month 

The garden of earthly lights: 

A remarkable new species of sunflower sprouted this summer on the site of the former Austin, Texas municipal airport. You might call it 

Helianthus photovoltaicus. Instead of producing tiny seeds and brilliant yellow petals, these 18-to-24 ft plants generate energy by day, and cast 

an electric glow at night. These 15 sunflowers were installed on a public pathway near the I-35 freeway running north to Dallas and Fort Worth. 

The entire installation uses 105 trapezoidal modules supplied by Sacramento, California-based Atlantis Energy Systems, and has a nominal power 

rating of 15.1 kW, about as much as a private rooftop systems. In this case, beauty comes at a price – the $595,000 project cost more than five 

times as much as a typical system this size in the US. It was funded by Catellus Development Co., Applied Materials, Inc., and the City of Austin‘s 

solar rebate program. The PV sunflowers were designed by the Harries/Héder Collaborative, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. mh 

Photo: Rolf Schulten 

November 2009

November 2009 7

May we introduce ourselves? 

The PHOTON US editorial team is part 

of the internationally active PHOTON 

Group with 150 employees worldwide. 

Our publishing house was founded in 

1996 with the aim of publishing Ger- 

many’s first PV magazine – »PHOTON 

– das Solarstrom-Magazin.« Over the 

years, we have added additional pub- 

lications, the first of which was PHO- 

TON International in 1998, our English 

edition for the international PV indus- 

try, followed by Spanish and Italian 

editions. Now, we have launched a 

magazine for the US market – the first 

issue of which, November, you’re hold- 

ing in your hands. We will continue to 

thwart any attempts by investors, other 

companies, or lobby groups to exert in- 

fluence on our editorial work. Our core 

team of writers, Chris Warren, Melissa 

Bosworth, Mike Matz, and Matthew 

Hirsch, together with the editorial 

teams from our other magazines, and 

8 

Graphic: PHOTON 

Christopher Warren 

Chris has worked as an associate editor 

at Los Angeles Magazine, as well as a 

freelancer for publications such as Na- 

tional Geographic Traveler, Forbes and 

The Los Angeles Times. And even when 

not working as a journalist, he was busy 

forging words, most notably as a wri- 

ter at The White House during Presi- 

dent Bill Clinton‘s first term in office. 

Not surprisingly, his interest in solar is 

focused on policies and politics around 

the growth of solar in the US, as well 

as the entrepreneurs who are working 

to develop businesses here. 

Melissa Bosworth 

Melissa is kind of a senior at PHOTON 

USA – she joined during the develop- 

ment stage in May, a month before her 

colleagues. She has worked in municipal 

finance, as a freelancer and as editor-in- 

chief of etc. Magazine in San Francisco. 

What she likes most about her new job is 

telling people about photovoltaics – rea- 

ders, friends, family, cab drivers, grocery 

store clerks or anyone else who will li- 

sten. Melissa also likes finding out about 

new innovations and meeting the peo- 

ple who make them, as well as getting 

to know installers and owners. 

our in-house test laboratory, promise to 

bring you the highest quality journal- 

ism possible. 

Rolf Schulten / photon-pictures.com (4) 

Today, PHOTON Group operates branches and offices 

in 10 locations worldwide. The PHOTON US editorial 

team is based in San Francisco. 

Michael Matz 

Michael declares »laughing« as one 

of his hobbies. But that doesn‘t mean 

he isn‘t taking his work seriously. »I 

see solar as a critical part of addres- 

sing global climate change,« he says, 

»the gravest global threat of our 

time.« The professional experience 

he brings to the PHOTON staff is »a 

combination of green journalism, en- 

vironmental policy advocacy, and sci- 

ence writing« – three reasons why he 

is a perfect fit to the team. 

Matthew Hirsch 

Before joining PHOTON in June, Matt 

wrote for The Recorder, a daily news- 

paper on the legal industry in Califor- 

nia and worked as a staff writer at the 

San Francisco Bay Guardian. He has 

also been a contributor for Bloomberg 

News, among several other publica- 

tions. When asked about his area of 

focus for PHOTON USA, Matt cites the 

questionable business practices in the 

photovoltaic industry. He also has an in- 

terest in the guerilla solar movement. 

But that‘s nothing to worry about; Matt 

is absolutely good-natured. 

November 2009

November 2009 9

10 

Readers‘ letters 

PHOTON, welcome to the US, we love 

you and read you all the time. We are very 

happy to hear you are joining us stateside. 

Wishing you great success. 

Fida Hossain 

CEO and President, E2Logicx Solar and AIRE Inc 

PHOTON Magazine is excellent. I have 

one suggestion: make all the articles avail- 

able electronically to print subscribers as 

soon as the magazine comes out, even if 

you charge a premium for the electronic 

option. Electronic copies of articles are 

valuable for two reasons: first, I file them 

(organized by company) on my PC and 

reference them later, generally while 

away from the office. Second, I forward 

key articles to colleagues. 

Bob Conner 

VP, Photovoltaics, Semprius, Inc. 

You should include one-page fact 

sheets that can be ripped out and hung 

on the wall for students, media, and poli- 

cymakers – with pictures and prose. These 

fact sheets could cover: concentrated PV, 

PV types (thin-films, polycrystalline, 

nano, etc), energy balance for PV, etc. 

You should also have a series of USA 

Today-like statistical charts on sales (US 

and global); deployment by state and 

country; stocks (on several global ex- 

changes); aggregated MWs, and employ- 

ment, etc. 

And a timely critical issues column fo- 

cusing on: the glut and price points for PV 

over the next 5 years; upcoming mergers 

acquisitions; the global feed-in-tariff pic- 

ture; and whether state RPS really drive 

PV, and if so in market niches, etc. 

Basically, PHOTON should be a refer- 

ence publication offering timely analy- 

sis of issues. 

Scott Sklar 

President, The Stella Group, Ltd 

November 2009 

Colourbox Deutschland GmbH

November 2009 11

12 

Readers‘ letters 

So why are so few homes outfitted 

with solar generation capability? For a 

long time the answer has been: cost. 

The key to cost reduction is innovation. 

Most often innovation comes from 

smaller organizations with a close-knit 

and dedicated employee base that share 

a more common goal/philosophy than 

a large organization. Red-tape has put 

an end to brilliant innovation more 

times in history then I’d care to count. 

I suggest you include a »spotlight on in- 

novation« section in your magazine to 

focus on individuals and small busi- 

nesses that are innovating, rather than 

the products of huge corporate research 

budgets and projects. This personalizes 

the industry in a way that will get the 

target audience (those end-customers 

in the US interested in building a PV 

system) excited about the technology. 

This will help people understand that 

solar power is NOT a large corporate 

gimmick designed to take their money, 

or a political ploy catering to recent 

global climate change realizations. 

There are multitudes of regular, grass- 

roots enthusiasts pursuing innovation 

and who believe in the future of this 

technology’s benefit to mankind. 

Dustin Charamut 

Mechanical Design / Systems R&D, Aerospec Inc. 

I hope you are planning to track solar 

stocks as an index and individual securi- 

ties, as has been the case in PHOTON 

International. 

Jeff Shaddock 

Project Manager, MA Properties 

I think something that might be 

valuable is to have a map of the states 

outlining some key stats about the 

current incentives within a state – like 

a cheat sheet, if you will. Then, when 

something changes in that state, it 

will be highlighted, so that people no- 

tice. I think one of the biggest areas of 

confusion (especially for people com- 

ing from other countries that have a 

unified solar incentive program) is re- 

membering which state has what in- 

centive and if that knowledge is cur- 

rent. Maybe you can even make a 

something that people can tear out of 

the magazine each month and post on 

their bulletin board. 

Lee Johnson 

Vice President, Stellaris Corporation 

If you can combine PV-specific news 

with up-to-date hands-on installation 

and regulatory information as well as 

national and global political PV news, 

you will have a hit. 

Mark McCain 

Austin, TX 

Case studies always garner interest 

from readers. I think people want to 

know about actual installations, from 

the folks who went through the struggle 

themselves. Especially in a relatively 

new and exploding marketplace, it’s 

critical for people to be able to read about 

the challenges they may encounter, and 

innovative ways that others have over- 

come them. 

Joanne Lowy 

Director of Marketing, AlsoEnergy 

If I was going to create a magazine 

about solar I would really like to see a 

strong emphasis on solar from start to 

finish. Whether it’s a story related to the 

first silicon crystal forming in a factory, 

a piece of legislation in congress, or a 

story about the last bolt being put in 

place on a solar system. My description 


is fairly vague, but I think you probably 

understand what I’m getting at. 

I would also like to see »PHOTON« 

add open editorials, along with a power- 

fully matched internet based networking 

site. The web site would be a great source 

for documenting advances. It could be a 

great forum for scientists, government ad- 

vocates, contractors and many others to 

voice their opinions and ideas. I also think 

it would be great, if some of the better fo- 

rums and their highlights could be posted 

in the magazine. That would bring further 

attention to these topics and cause others 

to voice their thoughts, in editorials, on- 

line, or publicly. I think it would be really 

neat, if both (magazine and web content) 

could inform people about social meet- 

ings in the real world. Whether this meet- 

ing is at a local bar, or with their congress- 

man. All of these different ideas for how 

PHOTON could connect people would be 

a great way to promote solar and raise in- 

terest in the topic, rather than just being a 

magazine they read once to pass the time. 

I hope these ideas have been useful. 

Chase Drum 

Competitive Solar 

This year we installed a 3.7 kW rooftop 

solar array – everything’s working per- 

fectly. It’s fun watching the meter run 

backwards. The problem we’d like to see 

your magazine address is called »TRue- 

Up,« a phenomenon in which PG&E takes 

the excess electricity we generate and feed 

into the gird, and then keeps a record for 

each month that shows a progressive in- 

crease in the amount of power we »sell« 

to them. However, at the end of each cal- 

endar year, if we’ve generated more pow- 

er than we’ve used, rather than send us a 

check for the excess power, or giving us a 

credit for our natural gas usage, PG&E just 

starts the meter at zero, effectively steal- 

ing any extra electricity we’ve generated 

beyond consumption. If we use MORE 

power than we generate, PG&E would bill 

us for the extra power. We don’t think 

this is fair, and apparently it’s not the 

same in all areas of the US. 

Jack Reineck 

reineckandreineck.com 

November 2009

Some topics I would like to see covered: US inverter tests; Month- 

ly update on PV installations (divided in on/off-grid) in the US and 

in Canada, and a forecast; Updates on incentives and feed-in tariffs 

(states and federal); Case studies of PV installations in the US. 

Peter J. Zisterer 

Manager New Business Development NAFTA, 

Photovoltaics, Diehl Controls North America 

Congratulations on the start of your new magazine. I have been 

involved in the solar energy industry for almost 25 years, and in that 

time I have rarely seen any clear and concise literature about the US 

market. Knowing the work of PHOTON International, I am sure you 

and your magazine will prove to be a great asset to photovoltaics. 

Jeff Szczepanski 

Applied Photovoltaics, LLC 

Since I haven’t seen the first edition yet, the following may be 

moot, but my primary concern is that the US edition maintain 

the very high quality of research, testing, and articles found in 

the German edition. I fear (based on the price), that you will go 

the way of so many other European magazines and dumb it down 

for the US audience. 

Paul Wolf 

Consultant 

We have noticed the following business dynamics in the solar 

(PV) industry: Danger of outright killing solar industry by cap- 

ping installations in California (like in Spain), instead of increas- 

ing levels; Influx of German, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese compa- 

nies competing for medium, large scale projects – sometimes with 

US Government funding! 

Danger of deluge of unqualified, unskilled, unlicensed, unin- 

sured, unbonded, unregulated bands of roving »solar installers«, 

i.e., every two people with a truck and a magnetic sign booking 

residential solar jobs, Publicly subsidized companies like Solyn- 

dra and privately funded ones like Enphase, who have innovative 

technologies but won’t make them available to qualified, experi- 

enced installers with established businesses. 

There is such tremendous potential for solar to remake the econ- 

omy, our state, our country, and the world, but it is being strangled 

in the cradle by greed, ignorance, stupidity, and outright criminal 

behavior in many areas. Big Electric is worse than Big Oil. 

Tom Taylor 

VP, Sales & Marketing, Pacific Sun Technologies, Inc. 

PHOTON‘s editorial team welcomes any letters from its readers. Please send your letters to: 

PHOTON USA Corp. 

Editorial Department 

514 Bryant St. 

San Francisco, California, 94107 

Or send an email to: readersletters@photon-magazine.us 

Please provide your complete name and address. We reserve the right to shorten letters. 

The content expressed in the letters does not necessarily reflect the opinion of PHOTON. 

November 2009 13

14 

Under the Sun 

History 

A long, 

November 2009

strange trip 

The unlikely, and still unfinished, story of PV 

in America, and what it says about the future 

Don’t let the buzz fool you. While photovoltaics may be a hum of activity these days 

– with big and small companies scrambling to grab a slice of the growing domestic 

market and governments spending big to help solar expand – that hasn’t always 

been the case. After predictions that the Bell Labs-invented solar battery would 

transform the world in the 1950s proved wildly off the mark, the PV industry has 

survived for decades as a niche market, sustained by unlikely patrons such as the 

space program, Big Oil and pot growers. With the promise of PV more real than ever 

today, PHOTON looks back at the people and events that have shaped the industry 

and what guidance those experiences provide for the future. 

An unlikely champion: Despite lingering suspicions that the oil and gas industry has been out to kill PV, the truth is that Big 

Oil was one of the largest early markets for solar. Even today, as can be seen at this Wamsutter, Wyoming BP gas field, PV 

is used to generate a current that prevents well and pipe corrosion and to operate monitoring equipment 


» 


16 

Under the Sun 

The headquarters of SunPower Corp. 

are, to be blunt, unremarkable. Located 

off a busy highway in San Jose, Cali- 

fornia, in the heart of Silicon Valley, Sun- 

Power – one of America’s largest suppliers 

of solar panels to homes, businesses and 

utilities – is housed in a one-story office 

park on the campus of its former parent 

company, Cypress Semiconductor. Chock 

full of small cubicles and modest executive 

offices, it’s the sort of utilitarian building 

A m i x t u r e o f ideAlism A n d p r A c t i cA l i t y: dr A w n to northern cAliforniA, w h e r e l A n d w A s 

c h e A p A n d p l e n t i f u l, ideAlistic c o m m u n e s f o r m e d in t h e 1960s A n d 1970s to c r e A t e 

c o m m u n i t i e s detAched f r o m m o d e r n s o c i e t y. so m e o f t h o s e people t u r n e d to pV 

favored by Corporate America and global 

multinationals alike; indeed, just across 

the street is the technology company, No- 

vellus Systems; not far away Sony Ericsson 

and Microsoft Corp. have set up shop. 

The similarities SunPower shares 

with its large corporate neighbors don’t 

end with its choice of headquarters, ei- 

ther: perhaps most importantly, it has 

its shares traded on a stock exchange (in 

SunPower’s case, Nasdaq), meaning that 

it has its business and its prospects con- 

tinuously pored over and dissected by 

Wall Street analysts. In all of this, Sun- 

Power – along with other publicly trad- 

to p o w e r t h e i r h o m e s 

ed photovoltaic companies, like Tem- 

pe, Arizona-based First Solar Inc. and 

Massachusetts’ Evergreen Solar Inc. – 

is decidedly in the mainstream. 

And for the American photovoltaic in- 

dustry, this is a remarkable position to be in. 

In fact, the history of photovoltaics, 

or PV, in the United States has been – 

and in many ways, continues to be – one 

spent on the fringes, as a tiny, niche in- 

dustry dependent at various times on 

the military, off-grid communes, Big Oil 

and even marijuana growers for survival 

(more about all of that later). These days, 

it’s an industry with a decidedly Jekyll 

and Hyde-like personality. 

For one thing, despite spawning in- 

numerable start-up companies and at- 

tracting billions of dollars in investments 

from venture capitalists, large investment 

banks and American corporate behe- 

moths like DuPont and Dow Corning 

Corp., PV in the United States is still an 

industry dependent on subsidies and in- 

centives from individual states and the 

federal government. And despite the fact 


» 

that mainstream publications like »The 

New York Times« and »Fortune« consider 

PV worthy of regular, sometimes breath- 

less coverage, the amount of energy in the 

United States generated via solar panels 

converting the sun’s rays into electricity 

remains infinitesimal, far less than one 

percent, the vast majority of it occurring 

in just one state – California. 

Still, by many accounts, PV looks to 

be on the cusp of unprecedented growth 

in the United States. Last year, for in- 

stance, 356 megawatts (MW) – enough 

to power around a quarter of a million 

homes – were installed in America, an 

increase of 70 percent over 2007. This 

year, in the midst of the worst econom- 

ic downturn since the Great Depres- 

sion, the amount of solar panels being 

incorporated into businesses, homes 

and as part of large power plants will 

undoubtedly rise, with some analysts 

expecting a doubling, or more, of last 

year’s number (see article, page 50). 

Almost every week there are new an- 

nouncements of plans for utility-sized 

projects. And with the price of solar en- 

ergy creeping closer to energy provided 

by fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal – a sit- 

uation known as grid parity, which solar 

advocates describe as being something 

akin to Xanadu – many believe that the 

United States will not only soon become 

the largest world market for PV, but that 

America will ultimately turn to the sun 

to meet a substantial amount of its pow- 

er needs. »There’s nothing stopping us 

now,« says Paul Maycock, who headed 

up the Department of Energy’s (DOE) PV 

program under President Jimmy Carter 

in the 1970s, and later started and ran 

»PV News«, an industry newsletter. 

Which brings us back to the topic of his- 

tory. If, as so many historians insist, past is 

indeed prologue, then it’s worthwhile to 

revisit the evolution of PV in America. It’s 

a story of sometimes too exuberant opti- 

mism and promise, dogged personalities, 

and unlikely alliances. An interesting yarn, 

it’s also, hopefully, a tale that can provide 

guidance and a measure of caution as the 

industry moves forward. Just ask Maycock, 

who, 30 years ago, in 1979, wrote a best- 

November 2009

»ıı 

November 2009 17

Under the Sun 

selling book, »A Guide to the Photovoltaic 

Revolution.« »It was a bit of a farce in a 

way because I still believed we would be 

fully economic by 1986,« he says. »I really 

thought we were going to make it.« 

18 

As PHOTON launches its coverage 

of the American market, we decided 

to journey back along the twisty, usu- 

ally lonely, road PV has traveled in this 

country to reach the point where its 

promise as an industry, although no- 

where near realized, has at least moved 

beyond the abstract. With history as 

our teacher, here are some lessons that 

we’ve learned on our trip. 

Lesson one: Beginnings are messy 

The most romantic recounting of 

how an invention or an industry is born 

goes a little like this: a misunderstood 

genius toils in obscurity, obsessed with 

an impossible idea until, after a color- 

ful »a-ha« moment, a magical break- 

through – think Christopher Lloyd in 

the movie »Back to the Future.« 

Reality is less simple, of course, and 

it’s no exaggeration to say that the inven- 

tion of the solar cell was the result of a 

combination of hard work, luck and ri- 

valry. In 1950s America, like today, some 

of the most important centers of scien- 

tific innovation were sponsored by com- 

panies looking for products to take from 

the lab to the marketplace. One such 

company was Western Bell Telephone, 

whose Bell Labs had, in 1947, famously 

developed the transistor, one of the es- 

sential components for the microproces- 

sor that would eventually be created – 

and arguably change the world with its 

incorporation into personal computers 

– a couple of decades later. 

With this commercial bent to its sci- 

entific inquiries, Bell Labs in the mid- 

1950s was looking to develop a device 

that could power telephone repeater 

stations in remote areas; long telephone 

lines needed repeater stations every 50 

miles or so to ensure that a signal could 

get through and those devices needed 

a reliable source of power. The work of 

three Bell scientists – Daryl Chapin, 

Calvin Fuller and Gerald Pearson – co- 

alesced to produce a product the phone 

company could use: a so-called »solar 

battery,« or the first silicon solar cell. 

But it almost never happened. First of 

all, Chapin, Fuller and Pearson weren’t 

working as a team, at least not initially, 

to invent a silicon solar cell. For his 

part, Chapin, tasked with solving the 

repeater dilemma, was intrigued with 

the possibility of tapping sunlight for 

ch A n g e d t i m e s: sunpo w e r f o u n d e r 

ri c hA r d sw A n s o n, s h o w n here At 

c o m pA n y heAdquArters in sAn Jo s e, 

belieVes the pV i n d u s t r y is experiencing 

A clAssic »l e A r n i n g curVe,« w h i c h is 

d r iV i n g d o w n c o s t s A n d h e l p i n g the 

i n d u s t r y g r o w m o r e. this, he s Ay s, hA s 

neVer hAppened b e f o r e w i t h pV. 

power. But his initial attempts using a 

selenium cell were fruitless, yielding 

not nearly enough electricity for his 

purposes. Meanwhile, Fuller and Pear- 

son were working together to probe the 

electronic possibilities of silicon as a 

way to improve transistors; an exten- 

sion of earlier work Fuller had done at 

Bell in which, by doping silicon with 

tiny amounts of lithium, he had cre- 

ated a p-n junction, an essential dis- 

covery allowing for the creation of 

electrical fields in semiconductors. 

Then, one day in 1953, the work of 


the three scientists converged, thanks to 

a little bit of luck. After Pearson had laid 

out some of the materials he was testing 

on his laboratory desk, he noticed some- 

thing unusual. The sunlight streaming 

in through the lab window hit some of 

the experimental silicon lying on his 

desk and, because the silicon was hooked 

up to a measurement device, registered a 

relatively significant electrical current. 

Pearson hadn’t expected this reaction 

and, frankly, didn’t really believe it. So 

he called Morton Prince – who would 

later help refine and improve the silicon 

cell his colleagues invented – into his of- 

fice to make sure he wasn’t seeing things. 

He wasn’t, and Pearson soon let Chapin, 

whom he knew was struggling, know 

about his unexpected silicon discovery. 

At first, Pearson, Chapin and Fuller, now 

working together, were unable to boost 

the efficiency of their silicon solar cell 

beyond 4 percent – it needed to be closer 

to 6 percent to be a viable power source – 

and Bell executives seemed on the verge 

of forcing the trio to move on to other, 

more commercially promising things. 

That is, until a rival lab, RCA, the re- 

search arm of the Radio Corporation of 

America, scored a major publicity coup – 

complete with a presentation at New York’s 

Radio City Music Hall – when it unveiled its 

so-called nuclear silicon cell, which relied 

on highly radioactive strontium-90 instead 

of the sun for PHOTONs to turn into elec- 

tricity. »RCA took out a big ad and splashed 

it in the paper,« recalls Morton Prince. »The 

management at Bell Labs said what RCA 

did with their device is nonsense.« 

» 

Determined to one-up its rival, Bell 

Labs’ managers leaned on the scientists 

to fully develop their silicon solar cell. 

Ultimately, the Bell solar battery – with 

efficiency improvements yielded by 

adding boron and arsenic to the sili- 

con – generated a stunning fifty million 

times more power than its nuclear coun- 

terpart. The Bell solar battery was rolled 

out to the public over two days, first at 

a press conference at Bell’s New Jersey 

headquarters, where the solar arrays were 

used to turn a 21-inch high Ferris wheel, 

and then at Washington, DC’s National 

November 2009

Our sister publications 

New 

Chinese Spanish English German German Italian 

Get your free sample copy online or contact us at: 

info@photon-international.com 

prueba@photon.com.es 

info@photon-international.com 

probeheft@photon.de 

omaggio@photon-online.it 

www.photon.info

Under the Sun 

Academy of Sciences, where solar power 

was employed to play music for the as- 

sembled crowd. 

Times saw it as important enough to 

place on page one, lauding the scientists 

for possibly ushering in a new era, »lead- 

ing eventually to the realization of one of 

mankind’s most cherished dreams – the 

harnessing of the almost limitless energy 

of the sun for the uses of civilization.« 

Lesson two: Don’t believe the hype 

20 

As John Perlin recounts in »From 

Space to Earth: The Story of Solar Elec- 

tricity,« the reaction to Bell’s discovery 

was nothing short of rapturous. One of 

the scientists who had worked on RCA’s 

nuclear battery equated the development 

with »when aircraft went from propeller 

speeds to jet velocities.« The New York 

on the bAttlefield: when the u.s. militAry rAn the s pA c e p r o g r A m in the 1950s, it b e c A m e 

o n e o f the first big c u s t o m e r s f o r pV, w h i c h helped p o w e r c o m m u n i cA t i o n equipment o n 

sAtellites. mo r e recently, the militAry hA s utilized pV, like this system f r o m un i t e d so l A r, 

If there’s one timeless lesson to be 

learned from the earliest days of the 

silicon solar cell, perhaps it’s this: be 

exceedingly wary of anybody, whether 

a journalist or some other self-described 

to p o w e r c o m m u n i cA t i o n s o n the bAttlefield 

expert, loudly proclaiming the beginning 

of a new era in civilization. Very quickly, 

the issue that has dogged PV right up 

to this day became all too apparent. It 

turned out that electricity produced by 

these magic little silicon cells cost way 

too much to be anything but a novelty, 

let alone be used as a power source for 

America. In fact, as Perlin notes, despite 

developments at Bell Labs that fairly 

quickly doubled the efficiency of solar 

cells, Chapin calculated that – with a 

one-watt cell costing $286 – it would 

cost a 1956 homeowner over $1.4 mil- 

lion to power their home with the sun. 

This harsh economic reality quickly 

tempered any enthusiasm Bell Labs 

managers had for their highly publi- 

cized new device. After setting up a pi- 

lot line to make enough cells to actually 

produce some panels, the lab’s foray into 

solar came to a rather abrupt end. »They 

ran that for about half a year and then 

cut it off because it was too expensive to 

make these devices,« says Prince. 

United Solar Systems Corp. 

That very well might have been the 

end of PV in America. That is, if another 

customer, one not exactly known as a 

bargain hunter, hadn’t come along. In 

the late 1950s, the Cold War moved be- 

yond just a geopolitical chess match on 

terra firma to become a duel thousands 

of miles above Earth when the Soviets 

launched their Sputnik satellite in 1957. 

Determined not to be outdone, the Unit- 

ed States government accelerated its own 

space program, quickly developing a 

fleet of rockets and satellites. What these 

devices lacked – a lightweight, reliable 

and long-lasting source of power to run 

communication equipment – presented 

the first substantial market for PV. 

By that time, Prince had left Bell Labs 

to join Hoffman Electronics, one of the 

first companies to actually make solar 

cells, and he made the pitch to military 

brass, who ran the space program before 

NASA was created. Later on, the military 

would employ PV to help supply power 

to communication devices used by sol- 

diers, and special forces even utilized PV 

during the Vietnam War to power heat- 

sensitive metering gadgets to count foot 

traffic on the Ho Chi Minh Trail. But be- 

fore all that was possible, Prince had to 

give them the hard sell. »I showed them 

what we were able to do and convinced 

them to use PV for satellites,« he recalls. 

On St. Patrick’s Day of 1958, the Van- 

guard satellite was launched, carrying 

with it electronic equipment powered 

by Hoffman solar cells. »PV made the 

space program possible, really,« he says. 

»And the space program made PV pos- 

sible, too.« 

» 

While the space race may have thrown 

PV a lifeline – by 1972, 1,000 U.S. and 

Soviet satellites used it for power – it did 

very little to bring the price down in a 

way that would allow for use closer to 

home, a fact that was highlighted by a 

visit Prince and his boss, Leslie Hoff- 

man, paid to the newly formed NASA in 

1960. Prince remembers visiting Wash- 

ington, DC with the hopes of convinc- 

ing a NASA official to standardize solar 

cells; up until then, every cell Hoffman 

made was specially built, and expensive, 

November 2009

November 2009 21

Under the Sun 

made to uniquely fit each new satellite, 

a process that required training new 

workers with every order. »We suggested 

that they standardize solar cells and we 

would make them continuously and 

have them in inventory,« he says. »But 

they wouldn’t buy that.« 

Lesson three: No gets you nowhere 

22 

If one still relevant guiding principle 

from the early days of PV is to be skepti- 

cal of too much hype, another is that 

when most people see dim prospects of 

success there are always a few who see 

opportunity. Such was the case with 

two scientists, Peter Varadi and Joseph 

Lindmayer, who were working in the 

early 1970s at COMSAT, the Communi- 

cation Satellite Corp.’s research lab. 

COMSAT was one of the few busi- 

nesses involved in developing PV for 

space and both Lindmayer and Varadi 

earned a good living improving solar 

cells and managing the company’s phys- 

ics and chemistry labs, respectively. 

Things were running smoothly enough 

at COMSAT, so Varadi and Lindmayer, 

maybe a little bored, figured it was time 

to do something new. As 1972 came to 

a close, Varadi, a Hungarian native who 

escaped the country before the Soviets 

invaded in 1956, suggested to COMSAT 

managers, a bunch of retired Air Force 

generals, that the lab should investigate 

ways to utilize PV on earth. 

Nothing doing, the generals told Vara- 

di and Lindmayer. Rather than settle back 

into their cushy jobs, the duo, fortified by 

Lindmayer still moved ahead with their 

plans. Or at least they tried. Convinced 

that their idea to bring down the cost 

of PV and make it suitable for so-called 

terrestrial applications was patently bril- 

liant, Varadi says he figured all they had 

to do was send their business plan to 

venture capitalists and the money would 

start flooding in. Twenty presentations 

later, Solarex remained penniless. »If we 

were very successful, they learned how 

to spell photovoltaic,« says Varadi, who 

attributes their failure to raise much 

money to their complete lack of business 

experience and the fact that the venture 

capitalists had never even heard of PV. 

Still undeterred, Varadi and Lind- 

mayer managed to scrounge enough 

money from friends and relatives, un- 

derstanding that it meant they would 

have to make Solarex a viable business 

quickly. And they did, turning a profit 

in just eight months, while also validat- 

ing their hunch that, yes, PV did, in fact, 

have a place on earth. 

And just who on earth was buying the 

PV that Solarex was making? There were 

small markets, Varadi says, which were at- 

tracted to solar for its economics, strange 

as that may sound to an industry whose 

perpetual bugaboo has been cost. For So- 

larex, those earliest commercial markets 

were not of the grid-tied commercial, 

residential and utility type so focused 

on these days: customers were businesses 

and institutions that saw in PV a cheaper, 

more reliable alternative to batteries. 

Meeting the telecommunication 

»A g u y fr o m l.A. c A m e up in A po r s c h e wi t h pV in th e bA c k«: th At’s ho w Jo h n schAeffer, seen he r e, t h e fo u n d e r of re A l go o d s, A 

n o r t h e r n cAliforniA instAller, f i r s t be g A n selling mo d u l e s to of f-gr i d us e r s bA c k in th e 1970s. to d A y, 95 percent of hi s business is 

a few glasses of champagne, decided on 

New Year’s Eve in 1973 to take a stab at 

bringing PV down to earth. »We decided 

that to hell with the generals, we were go- 

ing to do it ourselves,« Varadi said. Still at 

the party, they settled on a name for their 

still fictitious company: Solarex. 

Even after the euphoria of the New 

Year’s celebration wore off, Varadi and 

s o l A r, m o s t of it gr i d-tied 

needs of government institutions like 

the United States Forest Service and the 

Bureau of Land Management and police 

departments brought in a lot of initial 

business, Varadi says. »They were the 

first serious customers we went after,« he 

says. »For police in Arizona, they could 

get no communications from repeater 

stations in the mountains so they put in 

solar.« Lights on navigational buoys also 

needed power and it was a lot cheaper 

to use PV – even at $20 per watt -than it 

was to outfit a boat to go swap out a non- 

rechargable battery every time it died, 

which could add up to a bill of around 

$6,000. Varadi, who outfitted buoys in 

the Suez Canal with PV systems in the 

mid-1970s, also found willing custom- 

November 2009

ers in telecommunications companies, 

who needed equipment in remote areas 

to function with as little hands-on main- 

tenance as possible. 

Lesson four: Your enemies 

may be your friends 

It has been axiomatic in the PV 

industry that when oil prices rise, 

interest in solar goes up; as prices 

fall, so too does enthusiasm for solar. 

But oil and PV have had a more direct 

relationship than that for a long time. 

After the space program was ratcheted 

back in the 1970s, in fact, big oil compa- 

nies became one of the main customers 

for the few PV companies around. Bill 

Yerkes knows this from experience. Like 

Varadi, Yerkes is one of the pioneers of the 

American PV industry, who also got his 

start in PV via the space program when 

he worked at Spectrolab, another sup- 


» 

plier of panels for satellites and rockets. 

After Spectrolab was sold in 1975, Ye- 

rkes was ousted as president of the com- 

pany, giving him one of those rare op- 

portunities to redirect his life. »I was out 

of a job and I decided I knew a lot about 

solar panels and had a lot of ideas about 

how to do it,« he says. Yerkes leased a 

4,000 square foot garage in Chatsworth, 

California, bought some wafers, built his 

very own laminator and started trying 


Under the Sun 

to figure out how to make low-cost solar 

cells and panels. For help, he hired six 

of his daughter’s high school classmates, 

who, once the processing line was up and 

running, would take 1,000 3-inch diam- 

eter wafers and assemble them into 33 

panels every week, selling them for about 

$300 apiece. »By Friday, we had the UPS 

truck come and take the boxes away, that 

was our production method.« 

24 

In the mid- to late 1970s, in particu- 

lar, Yerkes found willing customers in 

companies like Exxon, ARCO, Amoco, 

and Shell because PV supplied an an- 

swer to very specific problems they 

faced. In particular, offshore oil rigs, 

which were sprouting all around the 

Gulf of Mexico because of new discov- 

eries, needed blinking lights and fog- 

horns to avoid boat collisions. PV got 

an additional boost in 1978 when the 

Environmental Protection Agency out- 

lawed the standard practice of dump- 

ing batteries into the ocean when they 

ceased functioning. 

Oil and gas producers also found a 

use for PV in keeping their well casings 

and pipelines free of corrosion, which 

was accomplished by generating a cur- 

rent that broke down any corrosion that 

might stop up their flow. Again, because 

oil and gas fields tended to be in remote 

spots, far from cheap grid power, PV be- 

came a relatively inexpensive solution. 

»Mostly it was businesses that had to get 

something done and were doing it with 

primary batteries,« says Yerkes. »It was 

not romantic. Screw the cause. It was a 

cheaper way to do something.« 

Eventually, oil companies became 

more than just customers of PV com- 

panies – they became their owners. In 

1983, Solarex was bought by Amoco; Ye- 

rkes sold his company to ARCO in 1977, 

becoming ARCO Solar; Exxon and Mo- 

bil, too, had their own solar arms, and 

they collectively invested millions in ef- 

forts to lower the price of PV and make it 

a more mainstream power source. 

Why? For one thing, they could afford 

to lose money. The price of oil had hit 

unprecedented highs following the 1973 

OPEC oil embargo and the companies 

had plenty of cash to invest in promis- 

ing technologies. »Companies had dif- 

ferent thinking about it, but generally it 

was, well, if this stuff really works, we 

want to be a part of it,« says Bill Rever, 

an almost three-decade veteran of the PV 

industry, who got his start at Solarex and 

now works for BP Solar. »It was a hedge, 

a pretty insignificant hedge by oil com- 

pany standards.« 

But what was petty cash by the 

standards of the oil companies was big 

money for PV. It ultimately resulted in 

some of the first large-scale solar pow- 

er developments in the United States, 

such as ARCO Solar’s 5 megawatt plant 

on California’s Carrizo Plain. It also led 

to suspicions that oil companies were 

trying to snuff out the PV industry in 

its infancy and, like the space program, 

actually kept it alive. »I must say the oil 

companies were very much interested 

and Amoco was a marvelous investor,« 

says Varadi. »They say oil companies 

tried to kill solar. No, I can testify it was 

a pleasure to deal with them.« 

Lesson five: What the government 

makes, it can also destroy 

Oil can also be credited with the first 

real government push – a precursor to 

the Obama administration’s efforts to- 

day – to make PV an important part of 

the country’s energy mix. Just as the 

Cold War presented an opportunity for 

PV, the OPEC oil embargo, and subse- 

quent gas lines and shortages, was yet 

another geopolitical event that briefly 

benefited the industry because it had 

America scrambling for ways to wean 

itself off foreign oil. »It was driven by 

energy security,« says Neville Williams, 

author of »Chasing the Sun,« who served 

as an official promoting solar energy 

during the Carter administration. »A 

bunch of us on the inside of DOE and 

energy policy felt it was a bad thing to 

be so reliant on foreign oil.« 

Determined to break that depen- 

dence, Carter, who famously urged 

Americans to turn their thermostats 

down in winter and wear warmer 

clothes to save energy, gave a speech to 

Congress about solar and set a goal of 

generating 20 percent of the country’s 

energy from the sun and hydropower 

by the year 2000. Paul Maycock was 

brought in to run the PV program at 

DOE and succeeded in growing the bud- 

get to around $150 million per year. 

Maycock had an ambitious agenda, 

one that included focusing on research 

and development as a way to bring 

down costs and, during his tenure, 

funded 50 megawatts in solar demon- 

stration projects. These government- 

funded installations were large for the 

time and included the world’s first 100 

kilowatt array in Natural Bridges, Utah. 

This flurry of activity prompted a good 

deal of optimism that PV was on the 

cusp of an explosion. »The industry has 

gone through phases of optimism,« says 

Timothy Ball, who was one of install- 

ers of the Utah array and is now presi- 

dent of Mainstream Energy in San Luis 

Obispo, California, a firm that invests 

in and advises PV companies mostly on 

the downstream end of the business. 

»Around the end of the 1970s, the in- 

dustry was in one of those phases of op- 

timism and there was a lot of discussion 

around how the cost of PV could drop to 

where markets could expand.« 

But it’s worth remembering that, at 

least in a democracy, policies come and go 

with elections. And when Ronald Reagan 

defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980 to become 

president, the days of major government 

support were shelved. »His people said, 

who needs solar? Put it on the shelf like a 

good wine and wait until we need it,« says 

Maycock, who recalls the pain he felt at 

having to slash funding for work going on 

at the Jet Propulsion Lab to try and get the 

cost of PV down to $2 per watt by 1986. 

»I resigned in March of 1981 when the 

budget numbers came through.« 

As funding for government projects 

and research dried up, so too did interest 

from large companies, like Bechtel, who 

had entered PV and successfully landed 

contracts for the largest DOE develop- 

ments. By the mid-1980s, they were all 

gone, says Ball. »It was no longer the 

equivalent of building the Space Shuttle 

November 2009

A m o d e s t b e g i n n i n g: in t e n s e m e d iA c o V e r A g e s w i r l e d A r o u n d the i nV e n t i o n o f the first silicon s o l A r c e l l At bell lAbs, i n c lu d i n g A f r o n t pA g e s t o r y 

in »the new yo r k ti m e s«. Am o n g the w A y s bell d e m o n s t r At e d it w A s by p o w e r i n g this 21-i n c h tAll ferris wheel 

or something like that,« he says. »It was 

more like standard business and their 

cost structure was better suited for much 

larger projects, which didn’t exist.« 

Lesson six: Customers come from the 

strangest places 

The area a few hours north of San 

Francisco, in Humboldt and Mendocino 

counties, has long been a place where 

people flock to get away: sometimes 

for a weekend respite from the crowded 

city, sometimes for a lifetime away from 

modern society. In the early 1970s, after 

graduating from the University of Cali- 

fornia at Berkeley, John Schaeffer made 

what was then a familiar pilgrimage for 

a small number of young people disaf- 

fected by tumultuous events like the 

Vietnam War and 20th century life in 

general, taking up residence on what he 

terms an »archetypal hippy commune« 

on 290 acres in Mendocino. 

There, he and his fellow New Age 

pioneers lived off the grid, with no 

electricity, no phone and no running 

water. That is, until Schaeffer, in 1976, 

discovered some 12-volt batteries in a 

hardware store and hooked them up to 

a car battery. »All of a sudden, in the 


» 

middle of the woods, in a commune of 

Luddites who hated technology, there 

was light,« he says. »It was very contro- 

versial, nobody wanted electricity.« 

Well, not quite everyone eschewed 

electricity. Schaeffer soon discovered 

that there were quite a few folks who 

were tired of using candles and kerosene 

for light, enough for him to launch a 

company, Real Goods, in 1978, to pro- 

vide fellow off-grid rural dwellers prod- 

ucts that could bring power and conve- 

nience to their Spartan existence. 

A chance visitor to his store – which, to 

this day, sells composters, solar hot water 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

Under the Sun 

heaters and books to aid remote living – 

got Schaeffer into the business of selling 

PV. »A guy from L.A. came up in a Porsche 

with PV in the back of his car, he said he 

was coming from the space industry,« 

says Schaeffer. Intrigued at the possibil- 

ity of using PV to charge batteries to power 

homes, Schaeffer bought 100 9-watt mod- 

ules to test if he could sell them. 

26 

In the late 1970s into the 1980s, then, 

as Reagan came into office and elimi- 

nated funding for DOE demonstration 

projects, and as the oil companies tried, 

and failed, to make solar profitable, a 

new market emerged to help keep PV 

alive. Off-grid denizens of a particular 

sort were especially enthusiastic about 

deriving power from the sun. »It was a 

good fit because there were thousands of 

people living off the grid who had money 

because they were growing marijuana,« 

says David Katz, president of AEE Solar in 

Humboldt County in northern Califor- 

nia. »That’s how they financed it.« 

Pot growers in northern Califor- 

nia and elsewhere didn’t typically use 

PV for cultivation of their cash crops 

– regular sunlight was good for that – 

but instead as a source of electricity for 

their homes. Bringing in grid power 

would have necessitated lots of unwel- 

come visitors, any one of whom might 

have noticed the illegal farming opera- 

tions and tipped off the authorities. PV 

didn’t have that problem and pot farm- 

ers quickly became a significant mar- 

ket. »That’s how we got our start,« says 

Schaeffer. »Thank God for those early 

growers who really built the industry.« 

Even the manufacturers of PV took 

notice. One day a Learjet from ARCO 

Solar landed at a tiny airport in Wil- 

lits, California. »I think it was the first 

jet that had come to the airport,« says 

Schaeffer. »They wanted to come into 

the store first hand and find out why 

all their photovoltaics were selling to a 

little store called Real Goods.« 

Lesson seven: Faraway events matter 

Had nothing changed, PV would like- 

ly have remained a relatively obscure in- 

dustry, supplying tiny, niche markets. 

Even Schaeffer says that, at the begin- 

ning, 95 percent of his business was 

non-solar and that virtually every bit of 

PV he sold was for off-grid applications. 

Certainly, there were blips of demand 

for PV, driven, as in the past, by major 

events, like the fear of what would hap- 

pen when the world hit the year 2000. 

»We’d get Mormons or survivalists in 

Idaho that wanted 20 PVs Fed-Ex’d to 

them and they had to arrive by Friday be- 

pV h i g h: mAriJuAnA fArmers, like this o n e in northern cAliforniA, h AV e l o n g been big 

purchA sers o f pV (n o t i c e the r o o f t o p system) b e c A u s e it A l l o w s them to liVe discretely o f f 

cause the apocalypse was on Saturday,« 

he says. »It didn’t matter what it cost.« 

Today, though, 95 percent of Real 

Goods’ business is with PV and virtually 

all of it is grid-tied. And in many ways, 

the transformation of Real Goods, now 

part of Gaiam Inc., a publicly traded 

company, is a microcosm of an indus- 

try that has matured. What happened? 

In short, the industry got real, thanks 

to a host of different factors, many of 

which originated far, far away. In the 

early to mid-1990s, Germany and Japan 

got serious about boosting the amount 

of energy they generated from the sun, 

and launched attractive incentives to 

encourage people to install PV on their 

homes. 

the g r i d A n d still e n J o y m o d e r n c o n V e n i e n c e s 

This created a new market for Ameri- 

can manufacturers of PV, who had been 

satisfying the small off-grid domestic 

demand and exporting more to devel- 

oping countries that used solar to sup- 

ply electricity to light their homes. »It 

was a lot of exporting out of the United 

States,« says Rever of BP Solar, who 

says other little market segments, like 

powering highway traffic signs, added 

up to something, although not much. 

»Dribs and drabs added up to a modest 

market.« 

The ripples from overseas eventually 

reached American shores. In 1998, Cali- 

fornia launched an incentive program 

to encourage PV installations, one that 

has been expanded and added to ever 

since. Then in 2005, as part of the Ener- 

gy Policy Act, the federal government’s 

investment tax credit (ITC) launched a 

subsidy that has helped drive demand 

for PV from individuals, businesses 

November 2009

and, these days, utilities and investors. 

»It was like a little plant in the desert. It 

didn’t have the spring rain until it got 

the 30-percent tax credit,« says Rever. 

»Then we got the credit and all of a sud- 

den you have a big bush.« In addition 

to the tax credit, there are now a raft of 

state subsidies and incentives to encour- 

age PV installations as well as renew- 

able energy portfolio standards, which 

mandate that utilities generate a certain 

amount of energy from wind, solar and 

other renewables. 

Taken together, these initiatives 

– along with concerns about climate 

change and hopes that renewable ener- 

gy can boost economic growth – have 

done what past efforts haven’t: create a 

real American market. »So much capi- 

tal and production capacity has gone 

into the industry that it did what we 

all said needed to be done, which is get 

real and get big,« says Mike Stern, who 

got his start working for ARCO Solar 

and is now chief operating officer of 

Woodland Hills, California-based proj- 

ect developer Solar Electric Solutions. 

All of this, Stern insists, has helped the 

industry reach the critical mass it needs 

to capture economies of scale and drive 

down prices. »That is the fundamental 

difference and that is why this time it’s 

for real.« 

Lesson eight: Don’t predict the future 

Back at SunPower headquarters, R ich- 

ard Swanson, the company’s founder 

winces in pain. It may be due to the fact 

that he’s contending with a broken rib 

from a sailing accident. But then again, 

for a guy whose office is adorned with 

a drawing of Don Quixote, it may just 

be a reflexive response to hearing that 

plenty of people are so confident about 

the industry’s prospects. »That’s kind of 

ominous,« he says. 

Swanson has lived through enough 

of this history that his caution is un- 

derstandable. Swanson first got into PV 

after finishing up his PhD in semicon- 

ductor devices in the 1970s and figur- 

ing, wrongly, it turns out, that the truly 

pioneering days of the microchip busi- 


ıı 

ness were already past, he instead opted 

to pursue solar as a career (along with 

his teaching assignments at Stanford) 

eventually founding SunPower in 1985, 

which was essentially a commercial out- 

let for work he was doing at Stanford to 

design higher efficiency solar cells. 

As we’ve seen, there were precious 

few commercial applications in those 

days and Swanson learned to be wary 

about how enthusiasm for PV didn’t 

necessarily translate into a market. For 

instance, when the DOE demonstration 

programs were dismantled after Reagan 

came to office, it ended what had been 

a »heady climate,« as Swanson remem- 

bers it. »A lot of my friends and others 

in the industry were forced to exit,« he 

recalls. He’s also had plenty of experi- 

ence simply keeping SunPower alive, at 

times relying on research grants and 

small projects, like outfitting a Honda 

vehicle with solar for a race across Aus- 

tralia. 

All that said, Swanson does agree 

with many other observers that things 

are different now – largely because of 

the industry’s size. »The big difference is 

that PV panels were, in current dollars, 

$30 to $60 dollars a watt back then,« 

he says. With size, the industry has ben- 

efited from what he terms »the miracle 

of the learning curve,« which means 

that as it grows, more resources can be 

devoted to solving technical and pro- 

duction problems, which leads to costs 

going down and even more growth. »I 

think we still continue to amaze our- 

selves at how much we’ve taken costs 

out,« he says. 

Lower costs, policy support and lots of 

investment: it’s a recipe that would seem 

to add up to a very bright future. But if 

history is a guide at all, it teaches caution 

and to expect the unexpected. Rever 

learned this in his early days at Solarex in 

the 1970s, when it appeared to him that 

one of two things was sure to happen. »It 

looked like it was going to go bust or it 

was going to do great things, and inter- 

estingly neither one of those happened,« 

he says. »I would never have guessed the 

future as it unfolded.« Chris Warren

28 

The 13 Solar Colonies 

PHOTON investigates the factors driving the economics 

of residential PV in 13 US states 

For most Americans interested in 

installing PV on their homes, one of 

the first things they ask is: is going 

solar a good investment? Given 

the prevalence of this question, 

we would be remiss in not trying 

to answer it in our inaugural issue 

of PHOTON USA. But before we 

answer the question, we have to 

acknowledge up front: homeowners 

in the US won’t find it easy to figure 

out whether a home PV system is a 

good investment. 

Take the case of an »average« California 

homeowner. To determine the return 

on investment for going solar, this 

homeowner would need to answer several 

questions. For instance, how much sun- 

light does her region in California get? 

What is the retail price of electricity in 

her utility district, and how quickly will 

that price go up over time? What tier (don’t 

worry, we’ll explain what a »tier« is short- 

ly) is she in the utility’s electric rate struc- 

ture? What is her time-of-use consump- 

tion during peak and non-peak periods? 

How quickly does the PV system degrade 

over time? What is the federal tax incen- 

tive, the state solar rebate, and the local 

city incentive? 

If your eyes glazed over after reading 

these questions you’re not alone. Yes, it’s 

No Joke: this formula really exists. US company Sunpower is 

using its website to help teach homeowners how to calculate the 

»levelized cost of electricity.« We tried ourselves – and we admit: it’s 

difficult to make an informed decision about whether to go solar in 

the US. In the end, we found 13 states with attractive conditions. 

complicated. Fortunately, in this article 

and issues to come, PHOTON will demys- 

tify the tangle of terms and issues that 

factor into making an informed decision 

about the purchase of a PV system. 

While a long list of factors determine 

whether a residential PV system is a good 

investment, readers should look for five 

key factors that have the strongest impact 

on whether a state can offer conditions for 

an auspicious rate of return. These factors 

are: good solar financial incentives, high 

electricity prices, plenty of sunlight, a de- 

cent local installer infrastructure, and low 

PV system prices. 

Later, we’ll explain why these factors 

are important and how they impact your 

investment. For now, the short answer to 

the question of whether solar is a good 

November 2009


Politics 

investment for homeowners: it depends 

greatly on the state in which the consum- 

er lives. That’s because the five key factors 

mentioned above differ significantly from 

state to state. To gain insight into these key 

factors, PHOTON has collected and evalu- 

ated market data from all 50 states, and 

conducted interviews with solar financial 

analysts. The general consensus is that 13 

states currently offer good financial condi- 

tions for buying a residential PV system. 

To get a better handle on the situation in 

these 13 »solar colonies,« we calculated the 

internal rate of return – a common met- 

ric for measuring the attractiveness of an 

investment – for going solar in the states 

(see graph page 30). Although we didn’t 

perform any calculations for the other 37 

states, current data, in particular electric- 

ity prices and incentives, suggests that 

buying a PV system would not yield a good 

return in these states. But that could easily 

change in the near future. 

Finally, we must make an important 

caveat when presenting state by state com- 

parisons of solar financial conditions: the 

factors driving your return can vary not 

only by state, but by your utility company. 

Moreover, it can even vary customer to 

customer – i.e. your next-door neighbor 

could have a better or worse return on in- 

vestment than you. 

How sunny is your state? 

Not surprisingly, the amount of sun- 

light where you live has a significant in- 

fluence on how well the PV system on your 

roof will perform – in other words, how 

many kWh your system will crank out per 

unit of time. This, in turn, determines how 

much electricity you will avoid having to 

purchase from your utility, and there- 

fore how much money you will save over 

time. While irradiation does differ from 

region to region in the US, the amount of 

variation is remarkably small. According 

to solar radiation data from the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, Boston on 

average gets just 12 percent less sunlight 

than Miami. Data from select cities in the 

13 solar colonies is presented at page 32. 

Apart from sunlight, there are many 

system design factors that can influence 

Solar friendly States 

PV performance, such as system sizing, 

shading, tilt, and orientation. For exam- 

ple, has the installer picked the best roof 

on the house, or considered the fact there 

is a big tree in the middle of the southern 

skyline? Shading is one example of a fac- 

tor that can make your neighbor’s return 

on investment better than yours. These 

topics are beyond the scope of this article, 

however, but future issues of PHOTON 

will investigate them in depth. For now, 

it’s important for the prospective PV buyer 

to know that the installer has can control 

many of these issues – you have to ask the 

installer the right questions. 

Solar incentives: all shapes and sizes 

A homeowner interested in purchasing 

a PV system can benefit from financial in- 

centives designed to improve the econom- 

ics of going solar. In the US, solar incen- 

While a long list of factors determine 

whether a residential PV system is a 

good investment, readers should look for 

five key factors that have the strongest 

impact on whether a state can offer conditions 

for an auspicious rate of return. 

These factors are: good solar financial 

incentives, high electricity prices, plenty 

of sunlight, a decent local installer infrastructure, 

and low PV system prices. 

tives come in many shapes and sizes. Some 

are received up-front upon system instal- 

lation, while others are spread over the 

system’s lifetime. Some are administered 

by utilities, while others are disbursed 

through state programs. Because the bud- 

gets for these programs vary widely, some 

incentives are much more generous than 

others. In our examination of the 13 solar 

colonies, we encountered a mix of incen- 

tive programs, including cash rebates, tax 

credits, renewable energy credits, and a 

feed-in tariff (see graph on page 32). 

Rebates are upfront cash payments 

disbursed by state agencies and utilities 


» 

to ease the cost of installing a PV system. 

Most rebates reviewed for this article are 

calculated based on the size of the system 

being installed. Typically, they are listed 

in dollars per W. Massachusetts, for in- 

stance, offers a $1 per W rebate for resi- 

dential solar, which would translate into 

a $5,000 reward for a 5 kW (or 5000 W) 

system. In many cases, the state or utility 

administering the rebate places a cap on 

the payment, and these caps can differ sig- 

nificantly. While Pennsylvania’s $2.25 per 

W rebate is capped at $22,500, Vermont’s 

$1.75 per W rebate has a much lower cap at 

$8,750. Colorado utility Xcel Energy offers 

a relatively hefty rebate of $3.50 per W, but 

low electricity prices in that state – to be 

discussed later in this article – dampen the 

financial attractiveness of PV there. 

Another common state-level incentive 

that can cut the cost of a PV installation is 

an income tax credit. Among the 13 states 

we examined, Arizona, Pennsylvania, New 

York, New Mexico, Massachusetts, and Ha- 

waii offer tax credits, which are usually ex- 

pressed in terms of percentage of installed 

costs. As with rebates, this percentage varies 

widely, and many states place a cap on the 

credit amount. The cap on Hawaii’s state 

tax credit is $2,250, while New Mexico’s 

cap is $9,000. A homeowner in New York 

that pays $40,000 for a PV system will not 

tap the full value of the 25 percent state 

tax credit because it is capped at $5,000. 

Most homeowners will only reap 65 to 85 

percent of the value of state tax credits due

Politics 

to federal income tax. Also, tax credits are 

received during the following tax year, 

or are spread out over a succession of tax 

years. Don’t fret if the cap on your state’s 

tax credit or rebate is smaller than other 

states. There may be additional incentives 

in your state or other factors – such as low 

electricity prices – that contribute to a bet- 

ter return on investment. 

30 

Homeowners in all 50 states also qual- 

ify for the Federal Investment Tax Credit, 

which pays 30 percent of system costs. Be- 

fore January 1, 2009, there was a $2,000 

cap on that tax credit, but that cap has 

been removed, providing homeowners 

with a major boost for their investment. 

A third incentive type common in the 

13 solar colonies is the use of solar renew- 

able energy credits (SRECs), a tradable 

environmental commodity on the open 

market. Many states have renewable port- 

folio standards (RPS), which mandate that 

utilities sell their customers a minimum 

amount of solar electricity in a certain 

timeframe. To comply with a state RPS, 

utilities build their own solar power plants, 

or purchase a required number of SRECs 

from homeowners or businesses with PV 

installations – or else pay a penalty called 

the Alternative Compliance Payment. Ho- 

meowners are credited with SRECs based 

on the amount of electricity that their PV 

systems produce over time. They can sell 

their SRECs on the open market, or bro- 

ker contracts with »aggregator« companies 

who in turn sell them to the utilities. By 

selling SRECs, customers accrue value over 

the lifetime of their PV system, helping to 

finance their long-term investment. 

New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylva- 

nia, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, 

and Massachusetts all have SREC markets 

associated with RPS compliance. SREC 

prices vary widely from state to state. Be- 

cause they are sold and traded on the open 

market, the prices adjust according to mar- 

ket conditions, and are difficult to predict 

over the long-term. That means that while 

SREC prices in some states are currently 

quite high, customers may not have the 

long-term guarantee of a revenue stream. 

Rapid growth in a state’s solar market could 

result in a glut of SRECs and a significant 

decline in prices. As part of our internal 

rate of return calculations for the 13 solar 

colonies, we made conservative assump- 

tions about long-term SREC prices. Keep 

in mind that the high price uncertainty 

means that the rate of return could signifi- 

cantly change in your state. 

Some utilities are beginning to offer 

SREC purchase programs that guarantee 

Internal Rate of Return 

(Percentage on an annual basis) 

New Jersey 

California - Southern 

California Edison 

California - San Diego 

Gas & Electric 

Delaware 

California - Pacific 

Gas & Electric 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Hawaii 

New York 

New Mexico 

Pennsylvania 

Connecticut 

Vermont 

Arizona 

Colorado 

1.0 

4.3 

4.0 

4.0 

3.3 

5.2 

5.0 

6.1 

6.0 

7.6 

7.0 

9.0 

13.3 

10.1 

0 3 6 9 12 15 

A good investment: PHOTON calculated potential 

14.4 

return on investment for a residential PV system in 13 

states with a favorable mix of electricity prices, solar 

financial incentives, and sunlight. Results show that it 

makes sense to invest in PV in these »solar colonies,« 

especially during the current economic downturn 

when other investments have less rosy outlooks. 

long-term payments. The utility Public 

Service Co. of New Mexico offers custom- 

ers contracts to purchase SRECs at a rate 

of $0.13 per kWh for 12 years, and credits 

payments on the monthly bill. In New 

Jersey, utility companies JCP&L, Atlantic 

City Electric, and Rockland Electric offer 

Source: PHOTON USA 

ten-year contracts averaging $0.41 per 

kWh. Once the contract periods end, cus- 

tomers may continue to receive SREC pay- 

ments, but it is difficult to forecast prices 

beyond the contract period. Rather than 

making SREC payments to customers over 

a period of time, some utilities, like Xcel 

and Black Hills Energy in Colorado, offer 

an up-front SREC incentive for 20 years 

worth of production – like a rebate – based 

on a system sized at $1.50 per W. 

A fourth incentive type that is growing 

in popularity in the US, albeit slowly, is the 

feed-in tariff. This mechanism mandates 

utilities to guarantee premium-priced 

payments for each kWh produced by a PV 

system through multi-year contracts, usu- 

ally 15 or 20 years. Well-designed feed-in 

tariffs pay enough to customers to recover 

costs of the PV system and turn a reason- 

able profit. In 2004, Germany implement- 

ed a feed-in tariff that helped that country 

become the world’s largest PV market. 

Earlier this year, Vermont passed a law 

creating a feed-in tariff policy. The state es- 

tablished an interim price level of 30 cents 

per kWh for PV systems – about double 

the average price for retail electricity in 

the state – and in January 2010 will issue 

final rules. Thus a homeowner consider- 

ing the purchase of a PV system now could 

potentially take advantage of this incen- 

tive by the time the system is installed. 

What makes the feed-in tariff attractive to 

homeowners is the state’s guarantee of a 

revenue stream in the form of a 25-year 

payment contract. In our rate of return 

calculation for Vermont, we assumed that 

the $0.30 per kWh price would remain in 

the final rules. 

Here today, gone tomorrow 

Homeowners should be aware that an 

incentive program offered by a state or 

utility today can disappear quickly. Ac- 

cording to solar financial analyst Andy 

Black, cash incentives are »highly visible« 

and »can and do come and go depend- 

ing on the political winds.« Because of 

funding cuts, New Jersey’s state rebate has 

dropped from $5.30 per W in 2005 to its 

current level of $1.55 per W. That’s a loss 

in savings of nearly $19,000 for a 5 kW sys- 

November 2009

tem. Given the vulnerability of incentive 

programs to such cuts, the return calcula- 

tions presented in this article represent a 

snapshot in time. If a state slashes fund- 

ing for a rebate program, returns could 

decline significantly. Additionally, many 

rebate programs, such as the California 

Solar Initiative, step down their rebate 

amount over time as installed solar capac- 

ity increases. 

Another problem with some solar in- 

centives is that their program budgets 

may be small relative to demand. Pro- 

grams can become oversubscribed, re- 

sulting in long waiting lists. Vermont’s 

feed-in tariff program is capped at 50 

MW, so it is entirely possible that many 

homeowners itching to go solar won’t be 

able to reap its benefits. 

Not surprisingly, changes in solar in- 

centive programs can have a major impact 

on return on investment – and thus the 

number of homeowners who decide to 

take the plunge. In Colorado, installers are 

worried that Xcel Energy’s plans to reduce 

its SolarRewards program rebate will result 

in the collapse of the local solar market 

and loss of industry infrastructure – what 

Blake Jones of Boulder-based installer Na- 

maste Solar calls the »Xcel cliff.« 

Electricity prices matter 

It may come as a surprise that the price 

you pay for electricity is a huge factor in 

determining your PV system’s rate of re- 

turn. That’s because when you generate 

solar electricity, you avoid having to pur- 

chase electricity from the utility. The more 

electricity you produce, the less you have 

to purchase – and the lower your monthly 

utility bill. In this way, your PV system 

provides an ongoing financial value over 

the lifetime of the system. 

How much money you save each 

month depends on the price your utility 

company charges for your electricity, since 

that is the price you would have paid if 

you didn’t own a PV system. In Colorado, 

for instance, where the average price for 

electricity is less than 10 cents per kWh, a 

typical customer saves that 10 cents for ev- 

ery kWh of solar electricity she produces. 

Hawaii’s average electricity price is nearly 

22 cents, so a customer in the Aloha state 

can save more than double the amount 

the Coloradoan saves per kWh of output. 

If you consider that US residential utility 

customers, on average, consume 936 kWh 

per month, those 12 extra cents in savings 

per kWh add up to a lot of money over a PV 

system’s 25-year lifespan. This is why Ha- 

waii has a higher IRR than Colorado, even 

Average Retail Price of Electricity 

(Cents per Kilowatthour) 

Hawaii 

Connecticut 

Massachusetts 

New York 

New Jersey 

Vermont 

Maryland 

California 

Delaware 

Pennsylvania 

Arizona 

New Mexico 

Colorado 

U.S. Total 

Avoided costs: the average retail price of electricity 

for residential customers in the 13 solar colonies is 

generally higher than in the rest of the US. Higher 

grid costs improve the economics of purchasing a PV 

system, since generating your own solar electricity 

allows you to avoid these costs. 

though the former state has less generous 

incentive programs. Nine of the 13 solar 

colonies have average residential electric- 

ity prices that are above the national aver- 

age of 11.47 cents. 

For a homeowner to accrue the finan- 

cial benefits of avoided utility electricity 

purchases in the US, she needs to take ad- 


11.43 

10.51 

9.87 

9.55 

11.47 

16.11 

14.89 

14.89 

14.7 

13.86 

22.89 

17.84 

17.79 

20.19 

0 5 10 15 20 25 

Source: Energy Information Administration 

» 

vantage of a special billing arrangement 

known as net metering. Under net meter- 

ing, homeowners can feed their excess 

solar electricity production back into the 

grid, which causes their electric meters to 

turn backwards, and offsetts their electric- 

ity consumption on their monthly bill. 

Through this offsets, customers effectively 

receive the full retail value of the electric- 

ity they generate. A Hawaii ratepayer that 

produces 500 kWh per month could offset 

$110 of her electricity bill, assuming a re- 

tail electricity price of 22 cents per kWh. 

All 13 of the states surveyed in this ar- 

ticle require net metering by law. In fact, 

42 states in the US mandate net metering, 

although some of these laws only apply 

to investor-owned utilities, not munici- 

pal utilities. The good news is that many 

states are altering their net metering laws 

to make them more economically favor- 

able to PV system owners. Future issues 

of PHOTON will examine these improve- 

ments in greater detail. 

Colorado and Arizona are good illustra- 

tions of how important electricity prices 

are. These states offer quite generous re- 

bate programs at $3.50 and $3.00 per W, 

respectively, yet our IRR calculations re- 

veal that these states have returns of just 1 

percent and 3.3 percent, respectively. The 

main reason for these less than spectacu- 

lar returns is those states’ lower electricity 

prices. It might be logical to assume that 

solar would be a better investment in Ari- 

zona than in Massachusetts, since Arizona 

has much higher irradiation levels. But in 

reality, the return is better in Massachu- 

setts because electricity prices matter as 

much as sunlight, and the variation in 

electricity prices between states is much 

greater: while Massachusetts electricity 

prices are 56 percent higher than in Arizo- 

na, Arizona receives just 41 percent more 

solar radiation than Massachusetts. 

The disparity in electricity prices from 

state to state may seem unfair, since PV 

systems yield a much better return for 

customers in states suffering from higher 

electricity prices. Homeowners consid- 

ering solar in states with low electricity 

prices may wonder if prices will ever in- 

crease to the point that it makes sense to

State 

32 

Politics 

invest. If history is any guide, electricity 

prices will likely rise: since 2001, electric- 

ity prices in the US have soared, though 

it is difficult to estimate what the future 

rate of increase will be, especially in the 

midst of an economic downturn. States 

with a heavily coal-based electricity mix 

tend to have had low inflation rates his- 

torically, while states using more natural 

gas have seen greater price increases. In 

our return calculations, we assumed that 

electricity prices will increase by 3 per- 

cent annually. Note: if prices rise more 

quickly, your return could be higher. 

In addition to price inflation, there are 

other ways to artificially increase electric- 

ity prices, and thereby make solar a more 

attractive investment. One strategy is for 

the utility to implement tiered electric 

price structures. Under price tiering, the 

more electricity a homeowner consumes, 

the more he pays per kWh – a structure 

Solar incentives in 13 states 

Arizona 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Hawaii 

Maryland 

State rebate 

Renewable energy 

credit market 

State tax credit 

Feed-in tariff 

Website for more 

information 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ $ 

Massachusetts $ $ $ 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

Pennsylvania 

Vermont 

$ $ 

$ 

$ 

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ $ $ 

www.azdor.gov/brochure/543.pdf 

www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/solar 

www.csi-trigger.com/ 

www.xcelenergy.com/Residential/RenewableEnergy/Solar_Rewards/Pages/ 

home.aspx 

www.ctcleanenergy.com/YourHome/SolarRebates/RebateAmounts/tabid/77/ 

Default.aspx 

www.dnrec.delaware.gov/energy/services/GreenEnergy/Pages/GreenEnergy 

DelmarvaPower.aspx 

hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/renewable/solar 

www.state.hi.us/tax/announce/ann09-09.pdf 

energy.maryland.gov/incentives/residential/solargrants/index.asp 

www.masstech.org/solar/res2009.html 

www.massenergy.com/Solar.REC.Sale.html 

www.njcleanenergy.com/renewable-energy/programs/renewable-energyincentive-program 

www.emnrd.state.nm.us/ECMD/CleanEnergyTaxIncentives/solartaxcredit.htm 

www.pnm.com/customers/pv/program.htm 

www.powernaturally.org/Programs/Solar/incentives.asp 

www.depweb.state.pa.us/energindependent/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=545926 

paaeps.com/credit/ 

$ $ www.rerc-vt.org/incentives/forms.htm 

psb.vermont.gov/docketsandprojects/electric/7523 

In our examination of the 13 solar colonies, we encountered a mix of incentive programs, including cash rebates, 

tax credits, renewable energy credits, and a feed-in tariff. 

that helps to motivate energy conserva- 

tion. The first part, or tier, of a household’s 

consumption is priced at a low rate. When 

consumption exceeds a certain limit, the 

consumer will enter the next higher- 

priced tier and pay that higher price for 

any additional energy usage. Many utili- 

ties in the US have adopted tiered pricing. 

California’s investor-owned utilities have 

especially steep tiers: in PG&E’s five-tier 

rate structure for residential customers, 

the Tier 5 price of 44 cents per kWh is four 

times the Tier 1 rate of 11 cents per kWh. 

Tiered pricing is a good thing for PV 

system owners. A PV system offsets the 

most costly electricity consumed first 

through net metering, improving the 

economics of solar. If you are considering 

the purchase of a PV system, you should 

learn more about your utility’s electrici- 

ty price structure. If there is price tiering, 

and your monthly electricity consump- 

tion puts you in a higher tier, that could 

boost your return on investment. 

California’s investor-owned utilities – 

Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California 

Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric – 

have significant price differences between 

tiers, so the rate of return for a PV system 

will vary greatly depending on your tier. A 

PG&E customer in Tier 5 with a PV system 

would save a lot more money than a Tier 

2 customer on a per kWh basis because of 

this difference, and thus have a much bet- 

ter IRR. We provided separate IRR calcula- 

tions for these three utilities in California 

because their tiered rate structures differ 

significantly. Note that these calculations 

are based on an assumption that the cus- 

tomer is in Tier 4. If you live in California 

and your consumption puts you in a high- 

er or lower tier, your IRR could be signifi- 

cantly higher or lower, respectively. 

PV system owners can also benefit from 

utilities that have a time-of-use rate struc- 

ture, in which electricity prices are more 

expensive during periods of increased 

electricity demand. Such »peak« periods 

occur in the late afternoon in Arizona 

and California during the summer when 

air conditioning use is at its highest. Con- 

veniently, many PV systems produce the 

most solar electricity during this peak pe- 

riod, so homeowners can take advantage 

of the higher offset on their utility bill 

through net metering. In the eastern US, 

where humid summers can keep air con- 

ditioning units on all day, peak periods 

often stretch from 9 AM to 9 PM. 

There is yet another important vari- 

able that could impact electricity prices: 

the possibility of a carbon tax. If the US 

passes a carbon tax – and there are cur- 

rently proposals for one at the national 

level – prices in states with a heavily 

coal-based electricity mix could change 

significantly. 

Falling PV system prices could some- 

what increase the rate of return for hom- 

eowners in states with low electricity rates. 

But according to On-Grid’s Andy Black, 

many states have such low grid prices that 

the system price doesn’t matter. »Even 

if you gave the system away for free, the 

savings on the electric bill wouldn’t be 

November 2009

Solar Radiation Data 

Yearly average solar radiation (kWh/m 2 /day) 

Phoenix, AZ 

Albuquerque, NM 

Honolulu, HI 

Los Angeles, CA 

Boulder, CO 

San Francisco, CA 

Wilmington, DE 

Boston, MA 

Baltimore, MD 

Atlantic City, NJ 

New York, NY 

Philadelphia, PA 

Hartford, CT 

Burlington, VT 

4.6 

4.6 

4.6 

4.6 

4.6 

4.6 

4.4 

4.3 

5.7 

5.6 

5.5 

5.4 

6.5 

6.4 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

*Data collected for flat-plate collectors facing 

south with a fixed latitude-angle tilt 

Sunny: solar irradiation data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory reveals remarkable uniformity among select cities in the 13 solar colonies. The irradiation 

levels in Phoenix are 51% higher than those in Burlington, Vermont. 

enough to pay for the maintenance and 

the inverter replacement cost,« says Black. 

»You’re in a perpetually negative cash sit- 

uation, and shrinking your module costs 

won’t solve that problem.« 

One state, many stories 

Keep in mind that the single IRR num- 

ber we calculated for each state doesn’t tell 

the whole story. The economics of solar 

can vary significantly within a single state, 

due to variations in incentive programs, 

electricity prices, and rate structures from 

utility to utility. With more than 3,000 

utility companies in the US, a single state 

can have many different stories. 

New York is a good illustration. If you 

live in New York, our IRR calculation of 

5.2 percent may somewhat understate the 

financial attractiveness of going solar for 

many customers in the state. Residents of 

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

kWh/m 2 * year 

> 2100 

2000-2100 

1900-2000 

1800-1900 

1700-1800 

New York can opt for the state rebate pro- 

gram administered by New York State En- 

ergy Research and Development Author- 

ity, which yields a maximum payment 

of $20,000. But Long Island residents 

who are customers of Long Island Power 

Authority (LIPA) are eligible for a rebate 

capped at $35,000 – a significant finan- 

cial boost. Additionally, electricity prices 

Solar Financial Calculators 

Given the limitations of statewide IRR numbers 

for residential solar, prospective PV system buyers 

can find more detailed return on investment 

information for their specific location by using 

sophisticated solar financial calculators available 

on the Internet. 

Solar Advisor Model from the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory 

www.nrel.gov/analysis/sam 

Solar PV Calculator from Kyocera and Clean 

Power Research www.kyocerasolar.com/ 

products/pv_calculator.html 

1600-1700 

1500-1600 

1400-1500 

1300-1400 

1200-1300 

1100-1200 


ıı 

1000-1100 

900-1000 

in upstate New York, where there is a great 

deal of hydropower, are cheaper than in 

Long Island. In other words, if we had bro- 

ken down the state into LIPA customers 

and other New York residents, the former 

would have a better rate of return. 

Naturally, we aren’t suggesting that 

customers outside of the 13 solar colo- 

nies avoid going solar now because of un- 

attractive economics. In fact, the more 

earlier adopters in »uneconomic« states 

call installers to request PV systems, the 

more installers will set up shop in those 

states, which will help reduce installa- 

tion costs. Purchasing a PV system also 

boosts overall US market growth, which 

in turn helps manufacturers upscale 

their operations and therefore reduce 

solar module prices. Thus every PV pur- 

chase is an investment in a clean energy 

future for the US. Michael D. Matz 

Quelle: NRE: Deutscher Wetterdienst, Grafik: PHOTON

34 

Politics San Francisco 

From megawords 

Tipping point: San Francisco fi refi ghter Barry Wong said that San Francisco’s solar rebate program 

»pushed me over the edge« to purchase a PV system for his house in the city’s Sunset District. 

When combined with state and federal incentives, Wong saved 54 percent on his system. 

November 2009

to megawatts 

How San Francisco managed to transform 

from a solar no-go-zone to a PV 

hotspot – at least for the time being 

San Francisco resident Barry 

Wong is positively giddy 

about the PV system on his 

house in the city’s Sunset 

District. After installing the 

3.2 kW system last year, his monthly 

utility bill plummeted from $150 to 

$20. He, his wife and three children 

enjoy watching their house’s electric 

meter run backwards, thanks to the system’s 

solar electric output that offsets 

his family’s energy consumption. 

Several years ago, Wong had considered 

solar for his home, but never took 

the plunge because »it was a little costprohibitive.« 

That changed in 2008 

when the City of San Francisco launched 

GoSolarSF, an upfront cash rebate pro- 

November 2009 

gram for homeowners, businesses, and 

non-profi ts that purchase PV systems. 

When combined with the California 

Solar Initiative, a rebate program administered 

by the State of California, 

and federal tax credits, the GoSolarSF 

incentive payment reduced Wong’s 

system price from $30,702 to $13,991 

– a savings of 54 percent. »GoSolarSF 

pushed me over the edge,« said Wong. 

»The program brought it back into our 

price range. We jumped right on it.« 

» 

Barry Wong was not the only San 

Franciscan that jumped on the Go- 

SolarSF bandwagon. When the incentive 

program opened its doors in July 

2008, the rebate – which ranged from 

$3,000 to $8,000 for residential applicants, 

and up to $10,000 for businesses 

– sparked a solar boom in the 

city. San Francisco applications to the 

California Solar Initiative jumped from 

26 in June that year to 62 in July, and 

climbed to a peak of 117 in January 2009 

»It was so bad that all the installers we had around the 

table had written off San Francisco,« said Ting 

35 

Frederic Neema / photon-pictures.com

36 

Politics 

(see table below). According to Laura 

Spanjian of the San Francisco Public 

Utilities Commission, the administra- 

tor of GoSolarSF, annual city installa- 

tions have more than quadrupled. In 

the first year of GoSolarSF, residents 

submitted 827 applications requesting 

$4.8 million in rebates, and San Fran- 

cisco committed to nearly 2 MW in resi- 

dential solar installations – an average 

subsidy of $2,400 per kW. 

The rebate may not seem like a lot of 

money when compared to the $30,000 

price tag for a residential system like 

Barry Wong’s. But the numbers show 

that the rebate was a tipping point of 

sorts. »It was clearly the right num- 

ber,« said SFPUC’s Spanjian. »People 

just needed a little more money to feel 

like they could afford it and they were 

getting a good return in a reasonable 

timeframe.« Moreover, many installers 

working in San Francisco coordinate 

the paperwork for the various incen- 

California Solar Initiative Application Count: 

City and County of San Francisco 

Applications 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Apr 07 

May 07 

Jun 07 

Jul 07 

Aug 07 

Sep 07 

Oct 07 

Nov 07 

Dec 07 

Jan 08 

Feb 08 

Mar 08 

Apr 08 

May 08 

2 

Feb 07 

Mar 07 

8 7 

16 19 20 

12 17 

26 

22 

13 12 

27 

117 117 

Solar spike: Applications from San Franciscans to the California Solar Initiative – the state’s solar rebate pro- 

gram – skyrocketed after July 2009 when the city launched GoSolarSF. In February 2009, San Francisco reduced 

the GoSolarSF incentive amounts, which may account for the sharp drop in applications at that time. 

29 

9 

14 

26 

62 

68 

93 

104 

111 

Jun 08 

Jul 08 

Aug 08 

Sep 08 

Oct 08 

Nov 08 

Dec 08 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Month 

»We met for 6 to 7 months and did something that task 

forces never do: We didn’t write a big report. Instead, we 

decided to implement what we recommended.« 

tives, so customers simply need to write 

a check for the attractive net price. But 

San Francisco’s solar market was not 

always the gold rush it has been since 

GoSolarSF began. 

A »Solar Task Force« 

to overcome barriers 

According to Phil Ting, Assessor- 

Recorder of San Francisco, the city was 

held back by a lack of leadership when it 

came to solar. »There were a lot of mega- 

words, but not a lot of megawatts,« said 

Ting. As of January 2007, Ting recalled, 

San Francisco was last among the nine 

Bay Area counties in per capita solar in- 

stallations. At that point, said Ting, the 

23 

27 27 

48 

35 

Source: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 

city had 583 buildings with PV systems 

– roughly 5 MW – well short of the city’s 

goal of 10,000 solar roofs by 2010. Even 

when the State of California launched 

its successful rebate program in January 

2007, San Francisco solar installations 

failed to increase significantly. »We 

watched the number of installations in 

California double overnight because of 

that incentive program, but San Fran- 

cisco didn’t move,« said Ting. 

In an effort to change this situa- 

tion, Ting’s office convened the San 

Francisco Solar Task Force in 2007. 

This group of elected officials, solar 

installers, community leaders, activi- 

ties, non-profit organizations, and 

business people met monthly to inves- 

tigate why the city would not adopt so- 

lar, and how to jump-start the market. 

One major problem that the task force 

discovered: there were major bureau- 

cratic hurdles to doing solar business 

in San Francisco. »Permits (for solar 

installations) were taking six months 

to get approved. It was so bad that all 

the installers we had around the table 

had written off San Francisco,« said 

Ting. PV installers chose not to work or 

even market systems in San Francisco 

because they could do much better in 

other Bay Area cities – like San Rafael 

and San Jose – with more streamlined 

permitting processes. 

Task force members went right to the 

heart of the matter by working with the 

municipal permit agencies – the plan- 

ning, building, and fire departments 

– to streamline the solar installation 

process. According to Ting, the solar 

installers on the task force – including 

Akeena Solar, Occidental Power, and 

Luminalt – helped to lead this effort, 

since they are the ones who handle 

the day-to-day project logistics. Ting is 

pleased with the results: »Now, 95 per- 

November 2009

Frederic Neema / photon-pictures.com (2) 

In the field: San Francisco residents Liz Goldbaum and Ross Wilson 

PHOTON visited Liz Goldbaum and her husband Ross Wil- 

son. The two had previously considered solar for their house 

in the Richmond district of San Francisco. »The price was 

astronomical,« Goldbaum said. But when they heard about 

GoSolarSF, Wilson did a financial analysis to account for 

local, state, and federal incentives. »The numbers were spec- 

tacular and we couldn’t refuse,« said Goldbaum. »The incen- 

tive made it so much more viable for us.« Together, the three 

incentives reduced their starting system price for the 3.2 kW 

system from $27,983 to $12,179 (see table) – a savings of 57 

percent. »Pretty awesome,« Goldbaum concluded. She and 

her husband ultimately decided to purchase a larger system 

than they had originally considered because they plan to 

buy a plug-in electric car and wanted to take advantage of 

the extra electricity. »Because of the incentive, I felt like we 

could afford the extra $2,000 to get the larger system,« she 

said. The system has now a size of 3.2 kW and is expected to 

produce 4,753 kWh per year. Their first monthly utility bill 

since going solar was $31.20, significantly down from the 

previous bill of $159.60. mdm 

Elizabeth Goldbaum with her young Yellow Labrador »Sarber« at her house in San 

Francisco. The 3.2 kW system (only partly visible in the picture) on the roof was 

installed on August 20, 2009. 

How Goldbaum and Wilson reduced their system price 

Gross system price $27.983 

California Solar Initiative state rebate ($4.228) 

GoSolarSF city rebate ($5.000) 

Federal tax credit ($7.126) 

Community discount ($570) 

Estimated federal tax on city rebate $1.120 

Net system price $12.179 


Source: Liz Goldbaum 

»

Politics 

cent of permits are over-the-counter. 

That means you get your permit the 

same day you walk in.« 

38 

The task force’s most significant 

finding was that the cost of installing 

solar in San Francisco was much higher 

than elsewhere in the Bay Area. Accord- 

ing to Ting, San Francisco installations 

were about $2 per W more than instal- 

lations in Marin County, located just 

across the Golden Gate Bridge. That’s 

$10,000 more for a 5 kW residential 

system. The city’s unique architecture, 

diversity of roof structures, and tighter 

space between houses – along with the 

time-consuming permit process and 

steep cost of operating a business – all 

contributed to the higher prices. The 

task force learned that many city resi- 

dents wanted to go solar, but found it 

was simply too expensive. 

Armed with a better understanding 

of solar economics in San Francisco, 

task force members crafted an incentive 

program to reduce the cost of solar in 

Intensive marketing efforts 

One reason for GoSolarSF’s success 

was the city’s intensive marketing ef- 

forts. In addition to a city-wide mailer 

about the program, SFPUC organized 

four town hall-style events in neigh- 

borhood community centers – »one- 

stop shops« where residents learned 

how the program worked, received 

program applications, and talked spe- 

cifics with representatives from instal- 

lation companies. Attendance at these 

events ranged from 150-350 people. 

As another marketing tool, the City’s 

Department of the Environment cre- 

ated an Internet-based solar calculator 

(www.sf.solarmap.org) that allows us- 

ers to enter their address and generate 

an analysis of their roof’s solar electric- 

ity potential and estimated energy bill 

savings. The site also provides advice 

for locating an installer, and includes a 

Google Maps tool showing all PV sys- 

»There are still people out there where even half off 

a solar system is too expensive.« 

the city. »We met for 6 to 7 months and 

did something that task forces never 

do,« said Ting. »We didn’t write a big re- 

port. Instead, we decided to implement 

what we recommended.« In June 2008, 

the San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

passed two ordinances resulting in the 

creation of GoSolarSF. 

Special offers to low-income 

participants 

When GoSolarSF began accepting 

applications in July 2008, the basic in- 

centive amount for a homeowner was 

$3,000. But residents could obtain a 

much larger incentive – $6,000 – by 

choosing an installation company that 

has hired economically disadvantaged 

workers from one of the city’s work- 

force development programs. In fact, 

the city’s Department of Economic and 

Workforce Development has certified 

14 installers for their participation in 

workforce development activities, and 

maintains a list of these certified com- 

panies on its website. In its first year, ac- 

cording the SFPUC, GoSolarSF spurred 

the creation of 33 green-collar jobs. 

Another unique aspect of GoSo- 

larSF is the additional incentive it of- 

fers to low-income participants. Dur- 

ing the program’s first six months, a 

low-income participant who opted for 

a workforce-certified installer was eli- 

gible for a $14,000 rebate. Barry Wong, 

who is a firefighter, qualified for the 

low-income incentive because his wife 

doesn’t work and he supports a family 

tem locations in the city. mdm A useful website for anyone interested in installing a PV system in San Francisco: www.sf.solarmap.org 

November 2009

of five. GoSolarSF also offers 

an extra »environmental jus- 

tice« incentive for families 

who live in Bayview-Hunt- 

ers Point, the San Francisco 

neighborhood that has been 

most adversely impacted by 

city power plants. 

Citing the special work- 

force development, low- 

income, and environmental 

justice incentives, Janine 

Cotter of San Francisco in- 

staller Luminalt believes that 

GoSolarSF is »the most inno- 

vative incentive program in 

the US.« »Solar in the US has 

predominantly been seen as 

a luxury item that poor com- 

munities have not participat- 

ed in,« said Cotter. 

Despite the hefty low- 

income rebate, the predomi- 

nant demographic for Go- 

SolarSF has been educated 

professionals, says Cotter. 

In her installation experi- 

ence, the diversity of solar 

customers in San Francisco 

is »better than most places, 

but still not where it needs 

to be.« Of the 827 residential 

applications submitted in the 

program’s first year, just 58 

were from low-income fami- 

lies. The SFPUC is planning 

additional outreach into 

low-income communities to 

generate more interest in and 

understanding of solar. 

Low interest solar loans to 

be launched in 2010 

Fortunately, San Francisco 

– unlike many other cities – 

was lucky enough to have the 

money to fund GoSolarSF. 

The SFPUC operates the Hetch 

Hetchy reservoir and two 

large-scale hydropower plants 

that supply power to munici- 

pal agencies. The city sells the 

excess Hetch Hetchy power on 

ıı 

the open market, and invests 

the revenue from these sales 

in renewable energy projects, 

including GoSolarSF. 

The city allocated $4 mil- 

lion for GoSolarSF in its first 

year, $5 million in the sec- 

ond year, and »is on track to 

do a similar amount« next 

year, according to SFPUC’s 

Spanjian. She adds that 

long-term program funding 

depends on city revenues, 

module prices, and the sta- 

tus of California and federal 

incentives. »We need to be 

flexible to the market,« she 

said. In September, the city 

reduced the payment levels 

because of shrinking funds. 

»Because it’s been such a suc- 

cessful program, the money 

is starting to run out,« said 

Spanjian. »We don’t want to 

have a stop-start to the pro- 

gram. By reducing the incen- 

tive amount, we can have 

more people participate and 

have the money go further.« 

And San Francisco is not 

stopping with GoSolarSF. SF- 

PUC’s Spanjian says that the 

city is designing a financing 

program that will allow in- 

dividuals to borrow money 

at favorable interest rates to 

install solar, other renewable 

energy systems, and make 

energy efficiency upgrades. 

Participants will pay back the 

loans through their property 

taxes – a scheme similar to 

the solar financing initiative 

implemented by the City of 

Berkeley. »There are still 

people out there where even 

half off a solar system is too 

expensive,« says Spanjian. 

This program, which the city 

expects to launch in early 

2010, will help to make solar 

affordable for such people. 

Michael D. Matz 

November 2009 39

40 

Politics 

Stimulus package 

Feel the warmth: President Obama, here in front of a PV array at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, has focused much 

of his $787 billion stimulus on promoting renewable energy 

Solar Simulation? 

The Obama Administration’s 

stimulus package is huge, ambitious, 

and has a big focus on renewable energy. 

Just what does it mean for the PV industry? 

Nellis Air Force Base E 

ven though he’s a scientist – and an 

Australian – Dr. Michael Harvey just 

might want to consider switching ca- 

reers to become a spokesperson for the 

Obama administration. A co-founder 

and the CTO for XeroCoat, Incorporat- 

ed, a Redwood City, California-based de- 

veloper of anti-reflective coating for PV 

modules, Harvey is downright effusive 

about the impact the American Reinvest- 

ment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA), 

also known as the stimulus package, has 

had on his business. »This is incredibly 

important in a nascent industry like PV, 

particularly in the current [economic] 

climate,« enthuses Harvey, who says 

XeroCoat moved its headquarters from 

Australia to California in 2007 in order 

to have better access to the people and 

skills that have converged in Silicon Val- 

ley to work in the solar industry. 

Now, granted, it’s likely that Harvey’s 

enthusiastic support for the stimulus 

package has something to do with the 

fact that, in June, XeroCoat was one of 

24 businesses, universities and research 

centers selected to receive funding from 

the bill, thanks to the US Department 

of Energy’s (DOE) PV Supply Chain and 

Cross-Cutting Technologies Program. 

Still, just because XeroCoat received $3 

million in stimulus cash doesn’t make 

Harvey’s views invalid. 

For one thing, XeroCoat is attempt- 

ing to develop anti-reflective coat- 

ing – already being used in crystalline 

modules to boost efficiency – for use 

with thin-film technology. Getting the 

stimulus funds, says Harvey, not only 

helped alleviate some of the fundrais- 

ing pressure, always a difficult task for 

small companies, it also allowed Xero- 

Coat to focus on reaching the thin-film 

market. »It let us take some of the risk 

out by partly funding this expansion 

into a new sector of solar which nobody 

has been able to service,« he says. Being 

selected by the DOE also has some mar- 

keting value, adds Harvey. »Having the 

DOE approval, if you will, and having 

someone vet that what we’re doing, at 

least on paper... goes a long way towards 

validating us with potential customers.« 

November 2009

A sprawling piece of legislation 

All of this, no doubt, would be music 

to the ears of those crafting President 

Obama’s energy policy. Even before he 

took office last January, Obama made it 

clear that supporting renewable energy 

sources like PV would be a top priority, 

with administration officials often men- 

tioning a goal of doubling the amount of 

energy produced from renewable sources 

over the next three years. 

If that’s the goal of the administra- 

tion, then clearly the way to get there 

– and, more generally, develop the capa- 

bility and infrastructure for a low-carbon 

economy while attempting to create jobs 

– is largely via the $787 billion stimulus 

bill. Even President Obama’s choice of a 

location to sign the bill was a message 

about the importance of renewables, and 

PV in particular: the bill was signed at 

the Denver Museum of Nature and Sci- 

ence, where the president not only took a 

tour of the facility’s rooftop PV array, but 

was joined at the bill signing by a host of 

installers and other industry types. 

Political theater and photo-ops pro- 

vide good publicity for PV, but far more 

important, of course, are actual policies 

and budgets. So what in the stimulus 

bill actually supports PV? Well, quite a 

lot. In fact, the bill includes 19 programs 

that benefit solar in some way, albeit 

most of them are designed to help out re- 

newables in general, and therefore open 

to applications from PV companies. 

Understanding every element of the 

stimulus package with the potential to 

benefit PV is no easy task. For instance, 

the US military recently awarded $152 

million to install 15 to 20 MW of PV at fa- 

cilities around the country; the govern- 

ment will also now be more aggressive 

about procuring PV for public buildings; 

and the stimulus also made what Rhone 

Resch, president of the Solar Energy In- 

dustries Association in Washington, DC 

considers a vital change by removing 

what he says was a penalty on subsidized 

energy financing. »If you received grants 

from the state, or a discount in the in- 

terest rate for your project development 

from the state or bonds, then you had to 

reduce the basis for which the federal tax 

credit would apply,« he says. »If you’re 

installing at $8 per W and you get a $3 

state subsidy, you could only take the 30 

percent tax credit on the $5 per W.« 

But arguably the most important stim- 

ulus program, at least for the moment, is 

A hand up: Blake Jones, CEO of Colorado-based installer Namaste Solar, shows off the solar panels on the roof 

of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, where President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law. Solar 

executives like Jones have been very supportive of the stimulus bill’s assistance to PV 


Namaste Solar Electric 

» 

in section 1603 of the stimulus bill, which 

gives the Treasury Department the au- 

thority to make cash grants to renewable 

energy projects. For selected PV projects, 

the Treasury grants can provide up to a 

30 percent reimbursement of a devel- 

oper’s total costs. This component of the 

stimulus was much needed, many argue, 

because traditional tax equity financing 

for large PV plants essentially dried up 

during the financial crisis. »The grant in 

lieu of the standard investment tax credit 

(ITC) should eliminate the problem in the 

market today where there is very little tax 

equity investment,« says Frank DeRosa, 

CEO of Nextlight Renewable Power, LLC, 

a San Francisco, California-based devel- 

oper of utility-sized solar plants. »It will 

simplify our financing.« 

Like much of the stimulus package, 

the Treasury grant program is designed 

to produce quick results. The idea is that 

an immediate boost to renewable energy 

projects will help jumpstart job creation 

and economic growth – the administra- 

tion’s number one priority. Applications 

for the program have been accepted and 

reviewed since July 31st, and the first 

awards were announced just a little over 

a month later, on September 1st when 

the first $500 million of an expected $3 

billion was dispensed. In order to be eli- 

gible for a grant, PV projects have to be- 

gin construction by the end of 2010, and 

operational by New Year’s Day of 2017. 

The DOE loan guarantee program is 

the other main stimulus-funded pro- 

gram. It too is designed to provide a big 

boost to financing renewable energy proj- 

ects. The loan guarantees were delineated 

in sections 1703 and 1705 of the stimulus 

bill: section 1703 is designed to support 

new and innovative technologies, while 

1705 provides help for more convention- 

al, commercial projects. 

When we went to press, only the loan 

guarantee program for new technologies 

had made much headway – there are still 

no clear rules for how the commercial 

loan guarantee program will function. 

In late July, the DOE announced that it 

would provide up to $30 billion in loan 

guarantees and released a solicitation to

42 

Politics 

guide companies interested in applying. 

Like the Treasury grants, there is a premi- 

um on rapid results: applicants needed 

to demonstrate that their project could 

begin construction by September 30th, 

2011. Additionally, companies hoping to 

land a section 1703 DOE loan guarantee 

– the first round of applications were due 

on September 14th – had to be able to 

provide 20 percent of the total project 

cost via equity, with the DOE agreeing to 

guarantee the remaining 80 percent. 

Research and development assistance 

Believe it or not, the DOE loan guar- 

antees and Treasury grants, while poten- 

tially providing the biggest impact, are 

by no means the only stimulus programs 

designed to help the PV industry. Com- 

panies like XeroCoat are benefiting from 

ARRA funds designed to boost research 

Stimulus funding for the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

$ mn 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

800 

400 

346 

Biomass 

Geothermal Technologies 

Energy Efficient Building Technologies 

256 

Industrial Technologies 

Solar Technologies Program 

117 110 100 93 

Wind Energy Projects 

Vehicle Technologies 

NREL Facility and Infrastructure 

Info & Communication Technology 

and development. In fact, thanks to the 

stimulus, research funds devoted to PV 

have reached their highest level since the 

early 1980s, before former President Rea- 

gan gutted support for solar. 

Determining exactly where the money 

is headed, and who is benefiting from it, 

is a challenge. The funds are being award- 

ed and distributed through a mixture of 

universities, companies and national re- 

search laboratories, like the National Re- 

newable Energy Lab (NREL) in Colorado. 

But one thing is certain: in May, Presi- 

dent Obama announced that $16.8 bil- 

lion stimulus cash would go to the DOE’s 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renew- 

able Energy, $117 million of which was 

targeted for the Solar Energy Technolo- 

gies Program. Of that $117 million, $92 

million in stimulus money is earmarked 

for PV. Adding in the $145 million that 

50 42 32 25 22 

Fuel Cell Markets 

US Hydropower Projects 

Mass. Wind Technology Testing Center 

Community Renewable Energy Deployment 

Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program and Energy Star 

$0.3 billion 

Alternative-Fueled-Vehicle Pilot 

Transportation 

Electrification 

$0.4 billion 

Advanced Battery 

Manufacturing 

Grants 

$2 billion 

Applied Research, Development and 

Conservation Block Grants 

$2.5 billion 

had already been allotted through the 

regular 2009 budgeting process, the total 

funding for solar reaches $237 million – 

that’s a 75 percent increase from 2008. 

Outside of the Solar Technologies 

Program and the regular budget, an ad- 

ditional $277 million in stimulus mon- 

ey was awarded in August to 46 Energy 

Frontier Research Centers – including 

universities and laboratories – not all of 

which are focused on PV, although many 

are. In all, stimulus funds directed to- 

wards PV research and development 

have landed in the coffers of companies 

as large as General Electric, DuPont and 

3M, and as small as XeroCoat. Just one 

example of the programs: the PV Tech- 

nology Pre-Incubator program aims to 

help promising, small companies take 

their products from concept to commer- 

cially viable prototype. 

Total $16.8 billion 

Energy Efficiency and 

Conservation 

Block Grants 

$3.2 billion 

Grant Program 

$0.3 billion 

Weatherization 

Assistance 

$5 billion 

State 

Energy 

Program 

$3.1 billion 

A partial breakdown: Of the $16.8 billion of stimulus money directed to the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, $117 million is devoted 

to solar research and development. Here’s how that portion is being divided - and it doesn’t include the billions allotted for Treasury grants and DOE loan guarantees 

November 2009 

source: Department of Energy, graphic: PHOTON

Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory 

Calling all solar companies: Dr. Steven Chu, a winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics and a long-time supporter 

of renewable energy, is Obama’s Secretary of Energy. Much of the stimulus money devoted to helping PV will be 

disbursed by Chu’s agency 

There are still other ways that the 

stimulus bill is geared towards helping PV, 

including giving financial assistance to 

training programs for installers, and $2.3 

billion to fund a manufacturing tax credit 

to attract cell and module manufacturers 

to the country. Funding from the ARRA has 

also gone directly to states for a number of 

applications beneficial to the PV industry, 

including the establishment or support of 

state incentive programs. »States have cre- 

ated or expanded existing solar programs,« 

says SEIA’s Resch. »The State of Virginia 

never had incentives for solar energy, but 

now they do. Many states, because of their 

dire financial situation, would have prob- 

ably dramatically cut their solar programs. 

This has kept them alive.« 

States have used stimulus money 

to do more than just to bolster incen- 

tives. In Massachusetts, which had just 

2.9 MW of PV in 2008, Governor De- 

val Patrick launched a so-called »Solar 

Stimulus« to install a total of 16 MW of 

PV on public buildings, such as schools, 

housing developments, and even Bos- 

ton’s Logan International Airport. 

A bumpy road 

It’s alluring to think that the combina- 

tion of billions of dollars, and the personal 

attention of the President of the United 


» 

States, would translate instantly into 

smooth sailing for the stimulus bill – and 

provide a tremendous boost for renewable 

energy in general, and PV in particular. 

The truth is that setting goals, formu- 

lating policies, and making attention- 

grabbing speeches are the easy part. The 

execution is the difficult part, especially 

when it involves this much money and 

this much bureaucracy. The stimulus has 

certainly faced its share of problems dur- 

ing the roll out. Even the administration’s 

most ardent supporters concede that the 

speed at which the rules for applying 

and receiving stimulus dollars were for- 

mulated and released, particularly for the 

Treasury grant and DOE loan guarantees, 

was detrimental to the industry’s poten- 

tial in 2009. »In many ways, the delay in 

announcing the [grant] program has held 

back the industry this year,« says SEIA’s 

Resch, who contends that the pace of large 

PV projects has increased now that cash 

grants are being awarded. »Solar projects 

were put on hold until the program was 

announced.« 

In some ways, all of the attention sur- 

rounding the initial announcement of the 

stimulus package and its impact on solar, 

followed by months of inactivity, may 

have caused more disappointment than if 

the ARRA funds had been unveiled quietly.

Politics 

»There was a lot of hoopla, and a lot of an- 

nouncements were made, but then there 

was a long period of silence and nothing 

happening,« said John Baumstark, CEO of 

Atlanta, Georgia-based solar cell manufac- 

turer Suniva in September. »The MTC [Ad- 

vanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit] 

was passed very early in the administra- 

tion, and the rules for applying just came 

out within the last 30 days.« 

44 

Although an overall supporter of the 

stimulus package and its impact on PV, 

Baumstark’s criticism isn’t limited to 

speed; it’s also about content, particu- 

larly the fact that the MTC is a 30 percent 

tax credit rather than a cash grant. »If it’s 

a cash grant it would be tangible, and it 

would hopefully be immediate,« he says. 

»If you spent $100 million on a factory 

and you could count on $30 million in 

cash coming back quickly, you could 

put that to work to create more jobs and 

further investments in R&D. If it’s a tax 

credit, and you’ve built a $100 million 

factory, the first thing you have to do is 

have a $30 million tax liability.« 

Baumstark is also critical of the ar- 

gument that big government programs 

take time to set up properly and execute 

correctly; an argument the administra- 

tion has made by saying that its efforts 

are designed to build the infrastructure 

behind a 20-year energy plan. He cites 

the efforts the Chinese have made re- 

cently to provide land and funding for 

its PV manufacturers, an aggressive ap- 

proach he says the US needs to emulate 

if it’s to take advantage of the opportu- 

nity for US manufacturers to serve the 

domestic market. »It’s not just the Chi- 

nese, it’s other people targeting the US, 

and it’s taking a while to get policy in 

place to support US manufacturing, US 

job creation and US leadership in solar,« 

says Baumstark. It’s like »moving the 

Titanic,« he says, »but we have to find 

some ways to move quickly here.« 

Some argue that political calculations 

have sapped some of the possible effec- 

tiveness of the stimulus when it comes 

to PV. In August, Congress passed, and 

President Obama signed, an extension of 

the Cash for Clunkers program, an ini- 

State assistance: each state is using federal stimulus money in different ways. Some are creating or improving 

solar incentive programs. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, shown here, is using stimulus funds to install 

PV on state owned property 

tiative popular among auto dealers and 

car buyers. The program gave consum- 

ers a $3,500 to $4,500 rebate for trading 

in their low fuel efficiency vehicles to 

buy higher fuel efficiency cars. The $2 

billion for the Cash for Clunkers exten- 

sion came straight from the DOE’s loan 

guarantee program, which means only 

$750 million remains for commercial 

projects, not all of which will go to PV. 

»The loan guarantee program as it stands 

today is not going to have any meaning- 

ful impact,« says Vishal Shah, an ana- 

lyst with Barclays Capital, who doesn’t 

believe promises from House Speaker 

Nancy Pelosi and others that the fund- 

ing will be replenished, eventually. 

Moving faster 

Shah is not prepared to say that the 

stimulus funding has been a failure, but 

he does say that it’s clear that it has not 

lived up to expectations. »I think the 

impact, when we were initially talking 

about providing stimulus, was expect- 

ed to be a lot higher,« says Shah. After 

the Cash for Clunkers announcement, 

Shah reduced his projection for total 

installed PV in the US in 2010 from 

1.05 GW to 750 MW, although he said 

that reduction in funding wasn’t the 

only reason for the downgrade. 

ıı 

The argument can be made, obvious- 

ly, that when expectations are too high, 

people are bound to be disappointed 

– case in point is some of the disap- 

pointment already being expressed by 

liberal Democrats regarding the Obama 

administration’s progress as a whole. 

Certainly, the pace of the stimulus 

has picked up, and with the process of 

awarding stimulus money clearly ac- 

celerating, Obama officials are out pro- 

moting their progress in earnest. 

At the Renewable Energy Finance Fo- 

rum-West in San Francisco in late Sep- 

tember, Matt Rogers, the DOE’s point 

man for stimulus spending, said that 

the department has already handed out 

$17 billion in stimulus dollars, and ex- 

pected that number to rise to $30 billion 

by the end of the year. Expect »a very ex- 

citing fall,« Rogers told the audience. 

Greg Shepperd, chief research officer 

with California-based iSuppli Corpora- 

tion, agrees that the stimulus’ impact will 

be felt far into the the future. Shepperd 

sees the US market going from 500 MW in 

2009 to 1 GW in 2010. »We wouldn’t be 

seeing the doubling of the market without 

the incentives,« he says. »I think it has had 

a positive effect, particularly counteract- 

ing the horrible economic environment 

the economy has fallen into.« Chris Warren 

November 2009 

Associated Press GmbH

November 2009 45

Solyndra, Inc. (2) 

46 

Business 

Serious money for 

oddly shaped modules 

In 2008 Fremont-based Solyndra 

launched production of cylindrical 

shaped thin-film modules. Now the 

Department of Energy (DOE) finalized 

a $535 million loan guarantee – the 

agency’s first since the 1980s – to 

finance Solyndra’s new production 

facility, which will have a capacity 

of 500 MW. By focusing on flat roofs, 

the company is concentrating its 

effort on a niche with great potential 

– and has been rewarded with 

orders worth $2 billion. 

Thin-film production 

Solyndra breaks ground on a 500 MW thin-film 

module production facility in Fremont, California 

The ready-to-install system looks like solar thermal evacuated-tube collectors. 

It’s a bright, sunny September day at a 

construction site outside Fremont, California. 

Something important seems to be 

happening here. A stage with a podium 

has been erected, and a distinguished cast 

of sharply dressed characters is present. 

The group includes California Governor 

Arnold Schwarzenegger, US Department 

of Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu, and 

Fremont Mayor Bob Wasserman. There 

are more than a hundred people sitting 

in the audience. Behind the stage, amidst 

mounds of dirt, stand giant bulldozers 

draped with American flags. 

The first order of business is a live 

feed of Vice President Joe Biden on a gi- 

ant television screen. Biden emphasizes 

how critical solar is to »a much brighter 

tomorrow.« When the Vice President fin- 

» 

ishes, Governor Schwarzenegger steps 

up to the podium to rave about Califor- 

nia’s booming solar industry, and clean 

energy-friendly policies. »A wave of in- 

novation has washed over California,« he 

proclaims. In classic Governator form, he 

further hypothesized that it’s the solar 

panels on top of the Staples Center in Los 

Angeles that explain why the LA Lakers 

»have extra energy.« 

This high-profile event is the ground- 

breaking ceremony for the construction 

of Fremont-based company Solyndra, 

Inc.’s solar module manufacturing plant. 

But what is so special about this Califor- 

nian company that it has attracted such 

esteemed dignitaries? Solyndra has made 

history as the first recipient of a loan 

guarantee from the DOE since the 1980s. 

November 2009

Prominent shovel workers: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, US Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu (left of Schwarzenegger), and Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet 

(right of Schwarzenegger) break ground on September 4 th at what will be a 500 MW module factory in Fremont, California. 

What’s more, the loan is for a whopping 

$535 million – hence it’s no surprise the 

bigwigs have gathered to celebrate. On 

March 20, just 56 days after President 

Obama took office, the DOE condition- 

ally issued Solyndra the loan guarantee. 

During the six months between then 

and the groundbreaking in September, 

Solyndra and the DOE negotiated the 

final terms and conditions of the loan. 

Now the loan has been finalized, and 

construction has begun on what will be 

Solyndra’s second production facility. 

Unique technology 

Solyndra’s solar modules apparently 

impressed the DOE enough to catapult 

the company to the front of a com- 

petitive pack of solar firms looking for 

federal assistance. Founded in 2005, 

the company manufactures copper-in- 

dium-gallium-diselenide (CIGS) thin- 

film modules. But that alone doesn’t 

make Solyndra unusual. What’s unique 

about Solyndra’s modules is that they 

are cylindrical and the CIGS photoac- 

tive material is deposited inside the 

tubes. The cylindrical shape allows the 

modules to collect direct, diffuse, and 

reflected sunlight across a 360° surface, 

which gives them an advantage over 

flat modules when it comes to captur- 

ing sunlight. On the other hand, the 

modules’ conversion efficiency is just 

7.6 to 10 percent which is significantly 

lower than that of crystalline silicon 

flat modules. Crystalline modules can 

have conversion efficiencies as high as 

20 percent. According to Truman Kelly, 

Vice President of Marketing, Sales, and 

Business Development, the company 

initially considered several shapes, but 

ultimately chose the cylinder for its good 

optics, as well as for ease of manufactur- 

ing. Apparently, it’s easier for Solyndra 

to achieve a uniform CIGS coating with 

the cylindrical form, says Kelly. 

Solyndra’s modules also differ radi- 

cally from flat modules in terms of 

how they are installed. Traditional flat 

solar modules are typically attached 

to rooftops using additional mounting 

systems. Solyndra’s cylindrical modules 

are not attached directly to the rooftop, 

but instead mounted on low, flat racks. 

The weight of the racks alone keeps them 

anchored to rooftops – much like a table 

November 2009 47

48 

Business 

DOE in the spotlight 

Solyndra first applied to the DOE’s loan 

guarantee program in December 2006. 

This program was created under the 2005 

Energy Policy Act, which authorized 

the DOE to dispense $47 billion in loan 

guarantees for innovative technologies. 

The federal stimulus bill, known as the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act, signed into law in February, appro- 

priated an additional $60 million to the 

DOE for loan guarantees for power gen- 

eration and manufacturing projects. But 

it took some time for the DOE to publish 

rules on how to obtain the new loans. 

After months of anticipation among US 

PV companies, the DOE released a solici- 

tation announcement in July detailing 

how and when to apply for $30 billion 

in loan guarantees. The first application 

deadline was September 14 th . 

A flat roof with a Solyndra system on the left, and 

conventional crystalline modules on the right. 

Given the large sums of money in- 

volved, and the six month wait to roll out 

the loan program, the DOE finds itself in 

the political spotlight. Solyndra’s Kelly 

said that the agency’s loan guarantee staff 

applied »a lot of extra scrutiny« to finaliz- 

ing the Solyndra loan, perhaps explaining 

why the negotiations took more than five 

months. As the first loan guarantee recipi- 

ent since the 1980s, Solyndra was appar- 

ently a guinea pig of sorts. According to 

Kelly, the DOE used its negotiation pro- 

cess with the company to iron out – and 

clearly define – its loan guarantee process 

for future recipients. 

Nonetheless, compared to his experi- 

ence with the DOE under the Bush admin- 

istration – when it took two and a half 

years for the company to move from its 

initial proposal in December 2006 to the 

conditional loan guarantee announce- 

ment in March – the loan finalization 

process under the Obama administra- 

tion was »fast,« says Kelly. 

The big question now is, when will 

the DOE award the remainder of the 

$30 billion in loan guarantees? The July 

solicitation announcement did not pro- 

vide a clear answer, only divulging that 

the agency’s objective was to support 

projects »most assured of commenc- 

ing construction, and hence having 

a loan guarantee issued, no later than 

September 30th, 2011.« Secretary Chu 

provided little additional information 

at the groundbreaking: »We’re going to 

make many more awards in the weeks 

and months ahead.« Certainly, US solar 

companies are watching closely how 

this will play out. mdm 

November 2009

– so no complex mounting systems are 

required. The company claims that the 

modules can even withstand winds as 

high as 130 mph, since the gusts natu- 

rally flow through the spaces between 

the tubes. Lower installation costs com- 

bined with expectations of higher en- 

ergy yields per kW, are what make the 

economics of this module so attractive, 

says Kelly. 

Although the DOE did not respond 

to our interview requests, at the ground- 

breaking ceremony Secretary Chu of- 

fered some possible reasons – albeit 

vague – for why his agency awarded the 

loan guarantee to Solyndra: »Building a 

better solar panel is exactly what Solyn- 

dra has done. Compared to traditional 

solar panels, Solyndra’s innovative thin- 

film system produces more energy for 

less money and less hassle.« 

A prominent theme at the ceremony 

was the potential for Solyndra’s new 

plant to create jobs. The company says 


ıı 

that the construction project will create 

3,000 jobs, while the completed facility 

will employ more than 1,000 individuals, 

as well as create »hundreds« of additional 

installation jobs. Presumably, the DOE 

was moved by these employment figures, 

given the significant political pressure to 

jump-start the economy. 

Order backlog of $2 billion 

Solyndra already operates one 

300,000 ft 2 automated production facili- 

ty in Fremont with an annual production 

capacity of 110 MW. When completed, 

the second facility, known as Fab2, will 

have a production capacity of 500 MW. 

Fab2’s construction will proceed in two 

phases. Kelly expects the first phase to be 

completed by the end of 2010, and com- 

mercial production to begin by the end of 

the first quarter of 2011 at a level »more 

than half« of the 500 MW target. Capi- 

tal for the first phase includes the $535 

million loan – from the US Treasury and 

backed by the DOE – along with $198 mil- 

lion from an equity financing round led 

by Argonaut Private Equity. 

Regarding the second construction 

phase, Kelly says that »the exact cost is 

not yet fixed but we could easily come up 

with what we need from working capital.« 

He added that there were other financing 

options for this phase, including another 

government loan and equity financing. 

Solyndra targets its modules for large, 

flat commercial rooftops, particularly 

ones that are highly reflective. The cy- 

lindrical modules have attracted interest 

from installers, and the company already 

boasts an order backlog of $2 billion. In 

the last year, Solyndra signed sales con- 

tracts with Pennsylvania-based Carlisle 

Energy Services, Netherlands-based inte- 

grator SunConnex B.V., and three German 

integrators – GeckoLogic GmbH, Umwelt- 

Sonne-Energie GmbH, and Ebitsch Ener- 

gietechnik. At the groundbreaking cer- 

emony, CEO Chris Gronet declared hy- 

perbolically that his company’s plan was 

»to cover the 15 billion m 2 of flat rooftops 

in the world. This will generate 1,000 GW, 

or enough power for one-third of all US 

commercial buildings.« Michael D. Matz

50 

Business US 

Boom, bust, or neither? 

At the beginning of this year, 

many analysts were predicting 

big things for the U.S. PV market 

in 2010. Since the financial 

crisis resulted in tougher fi- 

nancing requirements, optimism 

has cooled off a little. Now it 

seems that many analysts agree 

that the market will reach the 

1 GW range. With two excep- 

tions: Paula Mints of Navigant 

Consulting feels the market will 

reach just 0.5 GW, and Chris 

Porter of PHOTON Consulting 

foresees as much as 3.8 GW. 

The U.S. PV market will grow next year. 

Just how much depends on whom you ask 

Predicting the future is no easy job. 

For a palm reader, or a Ouija boardwielding 

decipherer at the state fair, the 

stakes are pretty low. Chances are, they’ll 

never again have to see the person whose 

future they just predicted. 

Equity analysts and those paid to 

sagely predict where a market is headed 

don’t have it so easy. Their estimates, 

presumably derived from careful analy- 

sis of every conceivable factor, are con- 

sidered more science than art. And their 

analyses can have the kind of impact a 

crystal ball gazer never could: they can 

make or break a company, and earn or 

lose investors a lot of money. 

For PV industry observers trying to 

determine where the market is headed, 

these have been nettlesome times. 

Not long ago many well-respected PV 

industry analysts predicted big things 

for the U.S. market in 2010. For instance, 

in early 2009, Mark Bachman, from 

Portland-based Pacific Crest Securities, 

believed that American PV installations 

would hit 600 MW by the end of the year, 

and then show unprecedented growth to 

2 GW in 2010, and 3 GW in 2011; Bach- 

man has since toned down those rosy pro- 

jections. He now believes only 1 GW will 

be installed next year. »We believe that 

congress appears increasingly unlikely to 

pass any sweeping renewable legislation 

in 2009; such legislation would have in- 

cluded a federally mandated Renewable 

Energy Standard (RES), which could have 

proven a strong market driver for PV,« 

says Bachman. The House version that 

was passed in July, as part of the Ameri- 

can Clean Energy and Security Bill, was 

neutered, and Bachman believes it will be 

weakened further in the Senate. »A lack 

of meaningful non-compliance penalties 

and the inclusion of energy-efficiency 

November 2009

Getty Images Deutschland GmbH 

offsets in the RES definition tells us that 

the eventual legislation is unlikely to 

have any impact on demand,« he says. 

Bachman is hardly alone in his sour- 

ing view of just how big America’s appetite 

for PV will be in 2010. Still, it should be 

remembered that even the grimmest out- 

look for the U.S. still envisions fairly robust 

growth in 2010. In fact, many analysts not 

only expect total PV installed capacity to 

double, or more, next year, they uniformly 

expect an uptick in installations in 2009, 

even if it’s only a very modest increase. 

Larry Sherwood, head of Colorado- 

based Sherwood Associates and former 

head of the American Solar Energy So- 

ciety, says that any growth at all is in 

itself a remarkable feat. »The growth is 

smaller than what it has been the last 

several years, but is still robust and given 

all the economic turmoil it’s been pretty 

remarkable growth for 2009,« says Sher- 

wood, who believes there will be 30 per- 

cent growth in 2009. »Then it’s clear that 

2010 is going to be back to much more 

dramatic growth rates.« 

Well, just how dramatic depends on 

whom you ask. 

The case for a big bump 

It should come as no surprise that 

Rhone Resch is quite confident about the 

prospects for PV growth in the U.S. in 

2010. As president of the Solar Energy In- 

dustries Association in Washington, DC, 

Resch’s job is to promote the industry, 

both to the public and to government 

policymakers who craft and fund (or 

don’t) incentive programs that encour- 

age the adoption of PV. 

Still, Resch’s prediction of 1 GW for 

the U.S. market in 2010 – up from an 

expected 550 MW for 2009 – is hardly 

excessive when compared with predic- 

tions by other mainstream analysts, 

such as PHOTON Consulting’s Chris 

Porter, who predicts the 2010 market 

will reach somewhere between 2.2 GW 

and 3.8 GW. According to Resch, there 

are a host of factors coalescing to ensure 

that the size of the U.S. market will come 

close to doubling next year. In terms of 

residential systems, he says, the exten- 

sion of the 30 percent Investment Tax 

Credit (ITC) as part of the bank bailout 

last year was instrumental, as it also re- 

moved the ITC’s $2000 cap. »That’s a 

game changer,« he says, citing how the 

federal incentive can be paired with state 

subsidies to make PV very attractive. »All 

of a sudden, if you’re getting $2 a W from 

the state, and 30 percent from the fed- 

eral government, you’re talking about 

over half paid for by subsidies, and that 

is enough to move consumers into resi- 

dential systems.« 

Representatives from the solar in- 

dustry aren’t the only ones who foresee 

U.S. PV market growth. Vishal Shah of 

Barclays Capital sees the market grow- 

ing from 350 MW in 2009 to 750 MW 

in 2010. Shah says that a good chunk of 

that growth – between 200 MW and 250 

MW, to be exact – will come from the 

utility sector. »We think the utility mar- 

ket will pick up compared to this year, 

and it’s going to be one of the strong 

markets,« he says. 

Investments in these larger projects, 

Shah believes, are more attractive for 

large institutions these days, thanks in 

particular to some of the funding being 


» 

provided through the American Rein- 

vestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), also 

known as the stimulus bill. In particu- 

lar, Shah says the stimulus-funded cash 

grants program – administered through 

the Treasury Department and designed 

to boost project financing after tax eq- 

uity evaporated in the wake of the fi- 

nancial crisis and recession – is starting 

to have an effect. »The cash grants pro- 

gram has already started, and it’s going 

to help, especially as more banks look at 

these grants as an attractive bridge, and 

so you get more tax equity players get- 

ting in,« he says. 

2010 U.S. Market Predictions (in GW) 

Chris Porter (PHOTON Consulting) 

Adam Krop (Ardour Capital) 

Rhone Resch (SEIA) 

Greg Sheppard (iSuppli Corporation) 

Mark Bachman (Pacific Crest Securities) 

Vishal Shah (Barclay Capital) 

Paula Mints (Navigant Consulting) 

0.53 

The stimulus could have an even big- 

ger potential impact, says Shah, if the 

$2 billion in funding designated for 

the Department of Energy’s (DOE) loan 

guarantee program, which was designed 

to promote renewable energy projects, is 

reinstated – that funding was taken away 

to bolster the »Cash for Clunkers«-pro- 

gram. Additionally, Shah thinks the sec- 

ond half of 2010 could see faster growth 

if the DOE comes out with rules for its 

loan guarantee program that are struc- 

tured to benefit PV. »If the government 

comes out with guidelines for the loan 

0.75 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

2.2 -3.8 

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 

The prognosticators: a sampling of views about whither the U.S. market may head in 2010

Business 

guarantee program, and they favor small 

commercial sector solar, then I think 

you’re talking about significantly faster 

[growth] and a bigger market,« he says. 

52 

PHOTON Consulting has, by far, the 

most bullish projections for 2010, expect- 

ing somewhere between 2.2 GW and 3.8 

GW of total installations. Clearly, that’s 

a big potential gap, and Chris Porter of 

PHOTON Consulting explains the range 

by saying that there are still a number 

of significant uncertainties – primarily 

related to the availability of financing - 

that will ultimately determine just how 

big 2010 is. »While the U.S. Treasury’s 

grant – in – lieu of the investment tax 

credit program should be the most im- 

portant driver behind relieving the tax 

equity appetite bot- 

tleneck that has 

constrained 

the growth of the U.S. market in 2009, 

other financing-related uncertainties 

that will influence 2010 include the pace 

of general improvements in the overall 

credit markets and the rate at which new 

sources of financing capital enter the 

market,« he says. Porter also says that 

whether the U.S. market (PHOTON in- 

cludes Canada in its projections) will be 

closer to 4 GW or 2 GW also depends on 

how quickly utilities move with PV-relat- 

ed programs and projects, the impact of 

federal stimulus spending on the level of 

direct government purchases of PV, and 

the development of the overall policy 

environment in North America. 

2010 is also shaping up to be strong, 

contends Larry Sherwood, because, un- 

like 2008, the Investment Tax Credit 

(ITC), which is so important to the in- 

dustry, is not up for renewal. »We are 

not looking at looming deadlines of the 

base incentives expiring, which causes a 

short-term scrambling,« he says. 

A less optimistic scenario 

For someone so friendly and jovial, 

Paula Mints has an unlikely reputation: 

»I get accused of being doom and gloom, 

a glass half-empty person,« says Mints, 

who analyzes the PV market for Califor- 

nia-based Navigant Consulting. 

The reason people regard her as dour 

when it comes to predicting 

U.S. market growth is 

simple: her estimates 

are the most conser- 

vative. For her part, 

Mints has broken 

down her projec- 

tions for 2010 into 

three categories: 

one is 420 MW, 

in the event 

the recession 

c ont i nu e s; 

her conser- 

vativeesti- m ate i s 527 

MW; and her »accelerated« projection is for 

837 MW. »I don’t expect it to be accelerated. 

My expectation is either the recession or 

the conservative, and for 2010 I think the 

conservative forecast is more probable.« 

Mints is quick to point out that even 

her conservative outlook, while gloom- 

ier than what others expect, is still a 

significant amount of PV installations, 

particularly in the midst of a still recov- 

ering economy. A host of factors account 

for her relatively reserved predictions, 

including the impact the recession has 

had, or still could have, on funding for 

state incentive programs, which are so 

important in fueling large numbers 

of PV installations. Without adequate 

funding, she maintains, small markets 

will remain just that, small. »Even in 

good times it’s very expensive to fund 

these programs, and California is the 

leader and the strongest market in the 

U.S.,« she says. »But we need to see other 

markets develop, and that’s a huge com- 

mitment in terms of funding.« 

Additionally, Mints is less convinced 

that all of the announcements of large 

utility projects will amount to much in 

the near-term, since many of them are 

not even expected to begin for a few 

years. »Utilities are slow moving any- 

way, so anything can happen to those 

projects,« she says. 

While Mints may be the analyst most 

associated with pessimistic market pro- 

jections, she is certainly not alone in rec- 

ognizing potential problems that could 

derail more optimistic projections. For 

example, Larry Sherwood of Sherwood 

Associates believes that the financial mar- 

kets remain the critical piece of the growth 

equation, at least when it comes to large 

commercial projects: if financial markets 

improve, and he believes they will, and tax 

equity financing returns, then healthier 

market growth is more likely. 

But if these improvements do not ma- 

terialize, the future could be altogether 

different. »If markets were to tighten for 

Upper end: PHOTON Consulting’s Chris Porter is 

by far the most bullish analyst. He sees a 2010 

U.S. market of between 2.2 and 3.8 GW. 

November 2009

some reason, that creates a problem.« 

That same dynamic, more or less, is at 

play in the residential market, says Sher- 

wood. If the overall economy in the U.S. 

doesn’t improve, it doesn’t seem likely 

that individuals will shell out money 

for big-ticket items like a PV system. 

»Just how confident do consumers feel, 

and do they want to spend the money 

on a big capital purchase?« he asks. 

The U.S. market after 2010 

Even though analysts spend 

much of their time examin- 

ing how companies and in- 

dustries fare from quarter 

to quarter, or year to year, 

they also pull out their 

crystal balls occasionally to 

project developments over the 

long term. This is an inherently 

more difficult task, since it re- 

quires identifying and quantify- 

ing the impact of budding trends, 

and, even more difficult, trying to 

anticipate what unknown factors 

could ultimately affect growth. 

For many observers of the U.S. 

PV industry, going through this 

exercise has resulted in the con- 

clusion that even bigger things are 

in store for America. »In our view, 

the U.S. market is analogous to a 

large freight train – painfully slow 

to start, but able to travel a long way 

once up to speed,« says Bachmann. 

»We see eventual long-term growth in 

the U.S., not just the one-year, multiple 

GW opportunity recently experienced 

in Spain.« 

As another example, Paul Maycock, 

former editor and publisher of PV 

News, foresees 5 GW of installations in 

the U.S. over the next five years, and 

predicts that America will become the 

world’s largest PV market, overtaking 

Germany in 2011. 

The long-term trends that contrib- 

ute to Maycock’s optimism are obvious 

to anyone who has spent much time 

observing the U.S. industry. For one, 

take the price of fossil fuel energy. 

These prices are not only impacted by 

demand, but also by government ac- 

tions. If the U.S. government’s attempts 

to address climate change result in a 

cost for carbon emissions, it could very 

well give the PV market a lift. »People 

are thinking as the economy recovers 

that energy prices are going to creep 

up again,« says Sherwood. »We haven’t 

seen that yet, but if that happens, that 

would be a positive thing for solar.« 

Other long-term factors receiving 

less attention may become extremely 

important. For instance, Adam Krop 

at Ardour Investments is fairly bull- 

ish about growth over the next 

couple of years. He predicts that 

Lower end: Navigant 

installations will reach 3 GW 

in the U.S. by 2012. But be- 

Consulting’s Paula Mints is 

less enthusiastic than other 

analysts about the prospects 

for large U.S. market growth 

in 2010. It’s hard for her 

to imagine there will 

be much more than 

500 MW of newly 

installed systems 

in the U.S. 

yond that, he wonders about 

the effectiveness of using 

tax incentives as such 

an important tool for 

financing PV. By his 

calculations, 3 GW of 

installations amounts 

to between a $12 and 

$13 billion market. 

»The tax appetite for 

that has to be sub- 

stantial, and 

ıı 

you have to have bigger and bigger 

entities coming in,« he says. »That’s 

harder and harder as the years go on 

and installed capacity gets bigger and 

bigger.« 

That’s why Krop and others think that 

there must be a transition beyond tax fi- 

nancing to spur the demand required to 

produce truly explosive growth. In fact, 

Krop argues that if states, including Cal- 

ifornia, want to meet their renewable 

energy portfolio standards, they’ll need 

to introduce an alternative incentive 

program. »For major growth to happen, 

we have to adopt another system, like a 

feed-in tariff,« he says. Chris Warren 

53

54 

Business Buying programs 

Solar block party 

A new trend of grassroots-style community buying 

programs in the US is expanding the residential 

market, and educating new audiences about solar 

It’s a Saturday night in late July in 

Mar Vista, California, and more 

than 100 residents of this Los An- 

geles neighborhood have squeezed 

into the 1224 Venice Boulevard for 

a standing-room-only community event. 

Residents are mingling, enjoying drinks 

and hors d’oeuvres, and listening to a 

series of presentations on global climate 

change, the promise of clean energy, and 

the logistics of residential solar installa- 

tions. A local councilman even made a 

guest appearance and put in a good word 

for solar. 

This lively scene is the launch event 

for GoSolar Mar Vista, a community- 

based organization that is organizing 

a group residential solar purchasing 

program to create collective bargaining 

power and secure a discount for Mar 

Vista residents. To provide some context 

for their new program, the event orga- 

nizers spoke to the audience about the 

growing affordability of solar, and its 

potential to address the urgency of cli- 

mate change. They also formally kicked 

off their broader campaign to achieve 

100 percent clean energy in Mar Vista 

by 2018. Representatives from Solar- 

City, the California installer selected by 

GoSolar Mar Vista to deliver the group 

installation program, talked about their 

solar lease program and answered ques- 

tions and concerns regarding residential 

solar installations. By the end of the eve- 

ning, many enthusiastic residents signed 

up for the program after discovering that 

they could install solar on their home 

with no upfront costs. 

Spreading the word about solar 

GoSolar Mar Vista’s successful event 

is no isolated phenomenon. Numerous 

cities and towns in the US are witness- 

ing the emergence of grassroots-style 

community solar purchasing programs. 

While each program has a unique local 

flavor, there are some common features 

among them. Typically, community or- 

ganizers use house parties, canvassing, 

and word-of-mouth to spark interest in 

group purchasing. When a critical mass 

of participants forms in a community, 

they identify a local installer through a 

request-for-proposal process, and nego- 

tiate a discounted cash price for instal- 

lations – and in some cases, a lease of- 

fering. There is a formal sign-up period 

for residents, usually several months, 

when they can qualify for the discount- 

ed price. The selected installer provides 

homeowners with free site evaluations, 

issues them customized proposals, and 

completes installations for those resi- 

dents who give the green light. If the 

program proves successful, the organiz- 

ers may launch additional installation 

cycles in that community. 

The number of installations yielded 

November 2009


by community solar programs is not ex- 

traordinary: typically, 30-150 homeown- 

ers install systems in an average program 

cycle. But the educational impact seems 

much greater. Even if only 50 home- 

owners ultimately install solar on their 

houses, hundreds of others – and per- 

haps thousands through word-of-mouth 

– have an increased awareness that solar 

is affordable, and within reach of the 

everyday consumer. The community- 

based education that occurs through 

these programs is helping to prime the 

American public for a solar boom. 

The sprouting of community aggre- 

gation programs is no surprise, as the 

strategy provides significant benefits 

for both consumers and installers. The 

most obvious benefit is cost. Given 

that the top barrier to the adoption of 

residential solar is upfront costs, the 

opportunity to secure a group discount 

is appealing. The organizers of aggre- 

gation programs also do significant 

groundwork to identify a high-quality 

installer among a large field of compa- 

nies. For many homeowners interested 

in residential solar, the task of choos- 

ing the right company may be daunt- 

ing. It’s a complicated process to find an 

installer that can be trusted, especially 

when the homeowner has a limited un- 

derstanding of solar technology. Group 

purchasing programs filter through all 

the information so homeowners can 

make the most educated decision. 

Community aggregation is also more 

efficient for installers, who may spend 

significant resources shuttling their 

crews back and forth between cities for 

individual sales. Through group pur- 

chasing, installers can save employee 

time and transportation costs by com- 

pleting multiple jobs in a concentrated 

geographical area. 

Power to the people 

Group purchasing programs lever- 

age the power of community organiz- 

ing to educate the public about the 

accessibility of solar and catalyze resi- 

dential installations. One of the first 

community programs was GoSolar 

When a critical mass of participants forms in a 

community, they identify a local installer through a 

request-for-proposal process, and negotiate a 

discounted cash price for installations 

Marin, founded in 2007 by San Rafael, 

California resident Lisa Max. Despite 

the similar name, the program has no 

relationship with GoSolar Mar Vista. 

Max came up with the idea for GoSolar 

Marin after getting several installation 

estimates for her house, and realizing 

how high the upfront costs were. »I was 

sure I could get solar for less, so I started 

knocking on neighbors’ doors to see if 

anyone else wanted to buy solar,« she 

recalled. A local reporter, who Max met 

at a community meeting, published an 

article about her budding program in 

the Marin Independent Journal, spark- 

ing a buzz in the community. »People 

started calling me from around Marin 

County,« Max said. »The interest was 

far greater than I expected.« She then 

called a public meeting attended by 75 

interested homeowners, and GoSolar 

Marin was born. In addition to going 

door-to-door and hosting community 

meetings, GoSolar Marin also has a 

website where residents can register for 

the program. 

Max initially ran GoSolar Marin as 

a pro-bono service during the group’s 

first installation cycle in 2007-2008, 

which resulted in approximately 100 

residential installations. For the pro- 

gram’s second cycle in 2008-2009, it 

became a project of local non-profit 

organization MarinLink and collected 

$12,900 in referral fees from selected 

installer Solar City. 

GoSolar Mar Vista is a pro-bono ser- 

vice provided by community activists 

James Brennan and John Ayers. In 2008, 

they launched openmarvista.net, a com- 

munity website to provide a platform for 

local activist causes. Through the site, 

they led an online advocacy campaign 

for an affordable community solar pro- 

gram. Besides their recent launch party, 


» 

interested residents can sign up for the 

Mar Vista purchasing program through 

the website and a series of future com- 

munity events they are organizing later 

this year. The program is »well on track« 

to meet its goal of 35 residential instal- 

lations, says Brennan. 

The San Francisco-based company 

One Block Off the Grid (1Bog), estab- 

lished in 2008, has taken the group 

purchasing concept to the next level 

by organizing collective buying cam- 

paigns in numerous cities around the 

country. To achieve this larger scale, 

the organization hired a field organiz- 

ing director from the Obama presi- 

dential campaign to build a grassroots 

infrastructure and volunteers corps. 

1Bog’s strategy has the feel of an activ- 

ist campaign: the organization enlists 

and trains volunteers to help spread the 

word about community aggregation in 

their own neighborhoods. They host 

house parties, talk to their friends, 

canvass neighborhoods, and hand out 

1Bog literature. The organizers col- 

lect names of interested homeowners 

to grow the group. People can also 

sign up for a 1Bog campaign on the 

organization’s website. 

When there is a critical mass of 

interest – usually about 100 people – 

1Bog issues a request for proposal to 

local installers and formally launches 

the campaign. As with GoSolar Marin, 

media coverage can have a significant 

impact on sign-ups: after the New Or- 

leans Times Picayune published an ar- 

ticle about 1Bog, several hundred New 

Orleans homeowners quickly signed 

up for the program in that city. 1Bog 

campaigns typically have three or four 

month sign-up periods. Residents need 

not worry if they miss the sign-up dead- 

line because the organization plans to

Business 

run three campaigns a year 

in each city, assuming the 

initial campaign is success- 

ful. Current active programs 

include the San Francisco 

Bay Area, Los Angeles, San 

Diego, New Orleans, Denver, 

and Sonoma County. 

56 

SolarCity claims to be the 

innovator of the community 

aggregation strategy, first 

putting it into practice in 

2006 in an attempt to im- 

prove the efficiency of the 

company’s residential in- 

stallation business. The com- 

pany selected communities 

based on their enthusiasm 

to go solar. »If we got many requests in 

the same community, we would meet 

with some of the more enthusiastic ho- 

meowners who were passionate about 

environmental change, and work with 

them to propose a community solu- 

tion,« says SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive. 

His company offered homeowners dis- 

counts of 10 to 25 percent off the pre- 

vailing retail price, depending on the 

size of the community program. In re- 

turn, the residents helped to organize 

neighborhood seminars to educate the 

community about the benefits of solar 

Getting jazzed about community solar: at a recent launch event for the group buying 

program GoSolar Mar Vista, organizer James Brennan educates homeowners about 

the advantages of aggregate purchasing. Staff from installer SolarCity were on 

hand to answer questions. 

launching its SolarLease financing 

program, which allows homeowners 

to install residential systems without 

any upfront costs, and instead make 

monthly payments. »We had so much 

demand with the leasing program that 

we didn’t need to run these community 

programs anymore,« Rive added. »You 

can only focus on so many things.« 

It appears that the group buying pro- 

grams didn’t pay off for SolarCity, giv- 

en the significant marketing resources 

required to generate relatively limited 

residential sales. In fact, it makes more 

For a cash purchase of a typical 3 kW system in San 

Francisco, 1Bog offers homeowners more than $5,000, 

or 22 percent, off the pre-incentive system price 

and the advantages of participating in 

an aggregation program. Following its 

first community program in Portola 

Valley, California, which resulted in 

90 residential installations, SolarCity 

went on to complete more than 800 

installations – approximately 4.5 MW 

– in 30 community programs in 2007 

and 2008, mainly in California. 

»The programs were great, but they 

were a lot of work,« said Rive. The or- 

ganizing of events and volunteers »re- 

quired a dedicated focus.« The com- 

pany eventually stopped organizing 

its own community programs after 

sense for non-governmental organiza- 

tions to run these programs because 

they can focus efforts on organizing 

and ask several companies for bids. Ac- 

cording to Solar City’s Jonathan Bass, 

the company still »considers commu- 

nity programs on a case-by-case basis,« 

but only in collaboration with groups 

like 1Bog that handle the organizing. 

GoSolar Mar Vista’s Brennan agreed 

that community programs are resource-in- 

tensive. He said that he needed to perform 

extensive groundwork to build relation- 

ships with community organizations and 

motivate a neighborhood to act together. 

GoSolar Mar Vista 

»I had no idea it would take this 

long,« he said. Another chal- 

lenge was the learning curve: 

Brennan said that he had to 

spend an enormous amount 

of time figuring out how the 

maze of relevant agencies and 

programs fit together. 

Vetting the installers 

including size of discount, service area, 

number of sales people, and through- 

put capacity. »We try to choose the in- 

staller that offers the best combination 

of discount, quality, and reliability for 

our members,« says Burton. 1Bog then 

negotiates a discounted price with the 

selected installer for all participating 

community members. 

When 1Bog moves into a 

new city, the organization 

issues a request for propos- 

als to choose an installer for 

the campaign. According to 

1Bog’s Brad Burton, the or- 

ganization uses several cri- 

teria to evaluate installers, 

Other community programs like 

GoSolar Marin and GoSolar Mar Vista 

use similar criteria for selecting a local 

installer, but may also include some 

additional preferences. For its most re- 

cent campaign cycle ending earlier this 

year, GoSolar Marin’s formal evalua- 

tion criteria in its request for proposal 

included price, product quality, system 

monitoring and maintenance capa- 

bilities, company history, past perfor- 

mance ratings and references, ability to 

serve a wide geographic area, availabil- 

ity of financing or leasing options, and 

good working conditions for installers. 

The community group also informally 

sought installers that used local labor 

and supported local workforce training 

programs. GoSolar Marin ultimately 

chose SolarCity, partly because the 

company offered several perks that 

none of the other bidders offered, in- 

cluding energy efficiency audits and 

online system monitoring. 

Participants in community programs 

typically have a choice between a dis- 

November 2009

counted price on cash purchase and a fi- 

nancing option. 1Bog members choose 

between cash payments and residential 

power purchase agreements offered 

TM 

through SunRun, which include a low 

upfront payment and a fixed monthly 

electricity bill. According to 1Bog, for a 

cash purchase of a typical 3 kW system in 

San Francisco, 1Bog offers homeowners 

more than $5,000, or 22 percent, off the 

pre-incentive system price (see table). Of 

course, the final prices vary somewhat 

depending on the unique characteristics 

TM 

of each home and PV system. Under the 

financing option, SunRun purchases, 

maintains, and monitors the system. 

»The 1Bog discount gets fully passed on 

to the SunRun customer, either off the 

initial payment or off the fixed monthly 

rate that customers pay to SunRun for 

their electricity,« said SunRun’s Lesley 

TM 

Beatty in an email to PHOTON. The 

upfront payment is normally $1,000 to 

TM 

Breakdown of One Block Off the Grid’s (1Bog) group purchasing discount 

for a 3 kW system in San Francisco, California 

$2,000, but »can go lower than that with 

the 1Bog discount,« depending on how 

customers choose to apply the discount. 

SunRun didn’t provide specific pricing 

figures showing how the 1Bog discount 

impacts the financing scheme. 

After including federal and state 

incentives, GoSolar Marin’s group dis- 

count reduced the price tag on a 6.3 kW 

system from $31,617 to $26,237, or a sav- 

Without discount With discount 

Base price $7.76/W (DC) $6.09/W (DC) 

Gross price $23,280 $18,270 

California Solar Initiative rebate ($3,825) ($3,825) 

Federal tax credit ($5,836.50) ($4,333.50) 

San Francisco city rebate ($4,000) ($4,000) 

Payable tax on city rebate $1,120 $1,120 

Net price $10,738.50 $7,231.50 

Power in numbers: 1Bog offers a $5,000 group buying discount off the pre-incentive system price, or a savings of 

22 percent, for a 3 kW residential system in San Francisco, California. The net price savings is 33 percent. 


» 

ings of 17 percent. GoSolar Mar Vista’s 

deal works somewhat differently: For a 

2.44 kW system, there was only a $500 

discount off a $24,536 pre-incentive 

retail price – just a 2 percent savings. 

But SolarCity’s package includes a free 

monitoring service for the PV system, 

which usually costs $1,500. The com- 

pany also provides a free WiFi antenna, 

yielding approximately $300 per year 

Source: 1BOG

Business 

in additional savings for homeowners, 

according to GoSolar Mar Vista’s Bren- 

nan. This unlikely offering grew out of 

a strong interest in the neighborhood in 

securing better Internet coverage. 

58 

Obviously, not everyone is happy 

about the success of community buying 

programs. As Lisa Max was spreading the 

word about GoSolar Marin, there was an 

»industry blowback.« Many local solar 

companies complained that her pro- 

gram unfairly favored large companies 

that could afford lower profit margins. 

»Vendors resented what I was doing,« 

recounts Max. »They felt that reducing 

the price was not in the interest of small 

companies.« In response, Max suggested 

that the smaller companies band togeth- 

er to form collectives that could compete 

with larger companies like SolarCity. 

»From my perspective, the right thing to 

do is to get solar at the best possible price 

from the best company« she says. 

A growing trend 

Existing community programs are 

thriving, and new ones are sprouting 

up. As a wholly owned subsidiary of 

for-profit online activism company 

Virgance, 1Bog is »expanding very 

quickly,« says Brad Burton. While the 

group is not currently releasing infor- 

mation on planned installed capacity 

in the coming years, it is starting its 

third campaign cycle in the San Fran- 

Marin goes solar: approximately 100 homeowners in Marin County purchased PV systems during GoSolar Marin’s 

2007-2008 installation cycle. 

currently providing revenue and profit 

margin data. »We will be releasing this 

in the fall,« says Burton. 

Lisa Max says that she will launch 

GoSolar Marin’s third program cycle af- 

ter the Marin Energy Authority makes 

a decision on a property tax financing 

program, which if passed could make 

group buying even more popular in 

Marin County. 

GoSolar Mar Vista’s Brennan says 

that his program has generated a great 

deal of interest from people in neigh- 

»From my perspective, the right thing to do is to get solar 

at the best possible price from the best company,« 

cisco Bay Area, and plans to be active 

in 20 cities by the end of 2009, and 

»nationwide« by the end of 2010. More 

than 275 homes have gone solar with 

the help of 1Bog programs so far, ac- 

counting for about 1 MW of installed 

capacity. »There are 14 employees work- 

ing on 1Bog, including support teams 

from Virgance, who help us with our 

operations, finances, and software de- 

velopment,« says Burton. 1Bog gener- 

ates revenue through referral fees from 

selected installers, but the group is not 

boring communities. Accordingly, he 

plans to organize similar programs in 

Venice and Santa Monica next year. If 

residents in those neighborhoods are al- 

ready planning group buying programs, 

says Brennan, GoSolar Mar Vista could 

join forces with them. 

Denver resident Mike Spainhower re- 

cently launched an organization called 

Neighborhood Solar, which currently 

counts 50 Denver homeowners as mem- 

bers. The group is using door-to-door 

marketing, flyer distribution, and word- 

ıı 

of-mouth to advertise. »We’re hoping to 

approach an installer by the end of the 

summer,« says Spainhower. Neighbor- 

hood Solar is a for-profit, limited liability 

organization that will collect flat com- 

mission fees from the installer on closed 

deals. The fee percentage will depend on 

the size of the purchasing group. 

It’s likely that news coverage of suc- 

cessful community programs will spark 

similar activities elsewhere. GoSolar 

Marin’s Max says that she has received 

many calls from community groups 

across the country seeking guidance on 

launching their own groups, and issu- 

ing requests for proposals. »Usually it 

was someone who had read an article 

about GoSolar Marin,« she says. 

Solar City’s Rive believes that com- 

munity aggregation strategies, in con- 

cert with financing programs, will 

play an important role in advancing 

the residential solar market. They are 

bringing solar to new audiences, and 

helping new attitudes about solar take 

root. »They add value to the equation,« 

says Rive. »If you know the vetting has 

occurred with installers, and then you 

combine it with a leasing program to 

take away the upfront costs, then why 

would you not do this?« Michael D. Matz 

November 2009 

IPNSTOCK.com

Science & Technology New Products at Solar Power 09 

The Magic 

Kingdom awaits 

Nearing the end of a turbulent year, 

the Solar Power International (SPI) 

conference and expo provides us 

with a moment to refl ect on how the industry 

has changed since the last gathering a 

year ago. More than 900 exhibitors will be 

at the Anaheim Convention Center for SPI 

covering more than 200,000 ft2 of space, 

twice the territory at last year’s expo in 

San Diego. Organizers expect about 25,000 

people to fi ll the halls during the three-day 

event, which begins October 27th . 

Convention-goers can attend a panel 

with Suntech Power executives called 

»How the U.S. can become the world’s 

largest solar market,« moderated by 

PV enthusiasts descend on Anaheim for North 

America’s premier solar solar solar energy trade fair – a 

preview of new products at Solar Power 

PHOTON International’s editor-in-chief 

Michael Schmela. Visitors wandering 

the exhibition halls at SPI can catch a 

glimpse of new technology that might 

help propel the US to the top of the 

PV industry, or create opportunities in 

other parts of the world. What follows 

is a sampling of the most innovative 

concepts making their way to installers 

and system operators. Many of the 

manufacturers featured on the following 

pages are young companies that 

have reacted quickly to consumer demands. 

Others are experienced players 

who can still bring something to market 

that customers haven’t seen before. 

The PV industry has seen many ups 

and downs this year, and as we approach 

SPI, it’s clear that the industry shouldn’t 

be too complacent. The conference itself 

reinforces this message. The event 

has transformed itself from year to year, 

bringing together new ideas, and demonstrating 

the industry’s burgeoning 

growth. For those who are making the 

trip to Anaheim for the fi rst time – don’t 

get used to it. Conference organizers 

have already booked a different space for 

next year’s gathering. In 2010, the event 

is fi ttingly headed for California’s largest 

city, Los Angeles. mh 

www.solarpowerinternational.com 


» 

Frederic Neema / photon-pictures.com

60 

Science & Technology 

AlsoEnergy’s PowerTrack monitoring system. 

While working with customers in its 

home state of Colorado, AlsoEnergy 

discovered a need for monitoring soft- 

ware that can maximize efficiency, and 

optimize resource allocation in commer- 

cial PV systems. In September, AlsoEner- 

gy introduced a product and service pa- 

ckage built around its PowerTrack Solar 

PV monitor and PowerLobby Display. 

AlsoEnergy says the new PowerTrack 

software can detect problems in a PV in- 

stallation. The system measures irradiation 

Direct Grid Technologies, based near 

New York City, is introducing a new 

micro-inverter line especially designed 

for thin-film modules. The company, a 

wholly-owned subsidiary that spun off 

from utility supplier Island Technology 

in September, is banking on a patent- 

pending technology that »significant- 

ly increases reliability and efficiency,« 

says the product datasheet. The pro- 

duct, called the Direct Grid’s »Smart«- 

Series micro-inverter, is available in two 

models with outputs of 200 and 300 W. 

Direct Grid also plans to offer an OEM 

line of micro-inverters, the same basic 

product but without souped-up features 

like a web-based monitoring service that 

New Products at Solar Power 09 

AlsoEnergy: Stand 3184 

PV monitoring and more 

AlsoEnergy’s PowerLobby display system. 

using an on-site weather station with pyra- 

nometers and other weather information. 

It measures system yield using data from 

the inverter, or a separate meter, or both. 

Then, the monitoring system uploads this 

data every minute, as well as sends email or 

text message alerts if the PV system operates 

outside of preset parameters. The software’s 

performance depends on the input data: if 

the data comes from a high quality pyra- 

nometer and a separate meter, then the sys- 

tem should work quite well. Using »other ir- 

Direct Grid Technologies, LLC: Stand 1750 

Micro-inverter for thin-films 

can come with the Smart-Series. 

The core innovation inside Di- 

rect Grid’s micro-inverter is called 

»closed loop MOSFET planar 

technology.« Louis Squeo, Direct 

Grid’s sales and marketing direc- 

tor, says this technology lets the 

transformer produce less heat while 

converting the electric charge. 

The Smart-Series micro-invert- 

ers accept DC voltage inputs ranging 

from 150 to 188 V with a maximum of 

190 V. AC output voltages range from 

100 to 135 V. Enclosed in an alumi- 

num alloy case, the product weighs 

2.75 lbs and stands 1.1 inches tall. 

Direct Grid plans to start shipping its 

radiation data« together with uncalibrated 

data from the inverter tends to reveal only 

the most conspicuous problems. 

The company’s other new software 

product, PowerLobby, allows system op- 

erators to present real-time PV produc- 

tion data, and even includes a few unique 

features just for fun, such as a »Sky View« 

window that lets viewers track the sun 

– and its planetary system – during the 

course of the day. mh, ak 

www.alsoenergy.com 

micro-inverters in the fourth quarter. 

Company president Frank Cooper says 

to watch out for another product soon 

that interfaces with PV technology us- 

ing multiple-junction cells. mh 

www.directgrid.com 

Direct Grid Technologies’s micro-inverter. 

November 2009 

AlsoEnergy (2)

San Jose, California-based eIQ Energy 

released its new power optimizers, 

named Parallux. The name pays homage 

to the idea that wiring panels in paral- 

lel allows them to work independently 

of one another, and boosts overall po- 

wer to the inverter. The Parallux vBoost 

does this by connecting to a DC power 

bus set at an optimal voltage for inverter 

efficiency. A tracker in the vBoost sets 

the MPP level for each module before fee- 

ding the electricity into a DC-DC con- 

verter, which boosts the voltage to match 

that of the bus. 

The constant-voltage bus, which allows 

more high-voltage modules in a string, 

should mean fewer combiner boxes and 

less cabling. And the higher voltage of the 

DC bus should deliver power more effi- 

ciently to the inverter. With so much of 

the power conversion mechanism trans- 

subsidiary of the Ame- 

A rican chemical company 

DuPont is getting into 

the module business. That 

may displease DuPont cus- 

tomers who purchase Tedlar, 

the polyvinyl fluoride pro- 

duct used as backsheets for 

solar panels. DuPont Apollo 

Ltd., the Hong Kong subsi- 

diary that produces the new 

modules, isn’t interested in 

being diplomatic – in fact, 

the company’s stated goal is 

to become one of the world’s 

top three thin-film PV pro- 

ducers by 2015. 

eIQ Energy, Inc.: Stand 2666 

Panel wiring with Parallux vBoost 

The »vBoost module maximizer« is designed to connect to any DC source within its voltage input range, deliver- 

ing a constant 300-range voltage to the DC bus 

ferred to the panel level, the eIQ product 

should make for a less complex, may be 

cheaper inverter. 

eIQ co-founder Gene Krzywinski says 

the patent-pending technology for the 

boost box is comparatively cheap to pro- 

duce and reliable. eIQ offers two vBoost 

maximizers, the 250 for lower voltage 

DuPont Apollo Ltd.: Stand 1564 

Du Pont’s A1 Series (left) and B1 Series modules. 

A1 Series, as well as introduce a second 

series the B1. Both sets of modules, pro- 

duced at a 12.4 acre manufacturing fa- 

cility in Shenzhen, will be available for 

purchase in the fourth quarter. 

The A1 Series and B1 Series modules 


Du Pont Apollo Limited (2) 

» 

panels and the 350 for thin-films. eIQ 

also offers a communication module, 

which is compatible with external moni- 

toring software and sits between the 

string and the inverter to log yield data. 

The company backs the vBoost with a 

25-year warranty. mh 

www.eiqenergy.com 

Chemical company dives into BIPV module market 

DuPont Apollo introduced its first 

module, the DA100-A1, in September at 

the European Photovoltaic Conference 

EU PVSEC in Germany. In the fourth 

quarter, it will add three modules to the 

ises high system voltage, which makes 

it a better choice for large-scale applica- 

tions such as solar farms, says DuPont 

Apollo. Both modules offer lifetime, 

performance-based warranties. mh 

www.apollo.dupont.com 

both use amorphous silicon 

technology, and both prod- 

uct lines include 90, 95, 100, 

and 105 W models. Partially 

transparent, both module se- 

ries are suitable for BIPV ap- 

plications, such as canopies 

and curtain walls. DuPont 

Apollo says its A1 Series is a 

good fit for rooftop installa- 

tions since at 20 kg it weighs 

less than the 28.5 kg B1 Se- 

ries module. Still, the A1 is 

definitely not the lightest 

thin-film module available. 

The B1 Series module prom- 

eIQ Energy, Inc.

System Photonics S.p.A. 

62 


Module factories have been springing 

up like mushrooms lately. 

Production techniques, however, differ 

little from one company to the next. 

Cells are usually embedded in ethyle- 

ne vinyl acetate (EVA) under a plate of 

glass. The modules are sealed with eit- 

her a plastic film or a second glass plate. 

But the modules from market newcomer 

System Photonics are different. The firm 

was founded in January and belongs to 

the System Conglomerate in Modena, 

Italy. System has been active in the ce- 

ramics, electronics, and logistics sectors 

for more than 40 years and employs over 

1,000 people worldwide. System Photo- 

nics presented its new modules for the 

first time ever at the EU Photovoltaic So- 

lar Energy Conference in September. 

At first glance, the modules look like 

standard commercial products. Sun- 

ways’ monocrystalline cells are embed- 

ded in an encapsulation material under 

a glass plate and then sealed tightly to a 

backing material while inside a vacuum 

laminator. But the modules have two 

unique features. The backing material is 

ceramic, and the company uses an ion- 

omer-based plastic encapsulation mate- 

rial called PV5316 made by Dupont. The 

3 mm thick ceramic backing, which is 

manufactured by another company in 

the System Group, is designed to be par- 

ticularly robust and dissipate heat well. 


System Photonics SpA: Stand 1787 

Ceramic-backed modules 

System Photonics’ modules can be installed as roof elements, but work just as well on the ground. 

With unusual materials, a newcomer brings a breath of fresh air into the industry. Modules by Italy’s System 

Photonics feature an ionomer-based encapsulant material and a ceramic backing. 

The backing is also available in several 

colors, with a palette ranging from black 

to gray, brown, and yellow ochre. 

The company decided on the PV5316 

Dupont film because it is significantly 

more stable and less elastic than EVA, 

according to sales manager Massimilia- 

no Gigli. The more robust material can 

better withstand loads from the glass 

front and ceramic backing. The film 

is also easy to work with and allows a 

high degree of automation in produc- 

tion. Gigli emphasizes that moisture 

cannot penetrate the module. Spanish 

company Isofoton had already devel- 

oped ceramic-backed modules in the 

past for a research project. However, wa- 

ter penetrated the modules (which were 

installed in a noise barrier) and Isofoton 

had to replace them with standard com- 

mercial modules. 

The modules also use a unique in- 

stallation system. They are not attached 

with clamps and rails, but hung on a sup- 

porting framework. Clamps on the back 

of the panels are specially designed for 

this mounting system. While glass lam- 

inates always need some sort of frame 

to hold them in place, and there are no 

plastic-backed frameless modules – and 

would be difficult to install if they were. 

But System Photonics’ frameless ceramic 

modules can be laid like tiles. Their ver- 

satility makes the modules suitable for 

both building integration and instal- 

lation in ground-mounted arrays. For 

these applications, System Photonics of- 

fers four product lines. The »Roof« series 

is for roof integration, while the façade 

line is called »Skin.« The »Life« series is 

for municipal projects, while large solar 

farms will use the »Power« series. 

The already certified »Roof« series 

will be the first to hit the market. The 

company’s factory near Modena has a 

25 MW capacity. The modules, which 

will be sold worldwide, are covered by a 

10 year product warranty and a 25 year 

performance guarantee. The company 

won’t reveal the product’s price. iru 

www.system-photonics.com 

November 2009 

Ronald Frommann / photon-pictures.com

SunArx Trackers, a subsidiary of Colorado 

Solar, based in New Castle, 

Colorado, will present its new T-21 

tracker and C-6 control system at Solar 

Power. The T-21 is mast-mounted, sing- 

le-axis tracking system for up to 14 m 2 

of modules. With a net weight of 360 

kg (including modules), it can theoreti- 

cally carry loads of up to 5,000 kg. This 

load-bearing capacity results in high 

stability: with a concrete foundation, 

the T-21 can withstand winds of up to 

160 km/h, and with a smaller module 

area as much as 200 km/h, says SunArx. 

DegerEnergie, based in Horb, Germany, 

will release two trackers especially 

designed for use with concentra- 

tor PV. The DEGERtraker 3000CT and 

5000CT systems, based on the current 

DEGERtraker 3000NT and 5000NT sys- 

tems, will go into production in 2010. 

This time frame also fits nicely with 

Deger’s announcement at Intersolar 

North America in San Francisco that it 

would establish a US subsidiary by »the 

first quarter of 2010 at the latest,« and 

build its own production facility. Until 

now, the company only has warehousing 

facilities in California and Ontario, Ca- 

nada. The US office will reportedly be 

established in Phoenix, Arizona, but no 

details are available. 

The single-axis Deger trackers are 

already certified for the US market in 

accordance with UL 61010-1 standard 

(as well as the Canadian CSA 22.2 No. 

61010-1 standard); certification for the 

dual-axis models will follow this fall. 

The company also wants to certify both 

CT models with TÜV, UL, and CSA cer- 

tificates by the time they go to mar- 

ket. While the new models will be sold 

worldwide, the focus will, of course, be 

SunArx: Stand 2352 

Small single-axis tracker for standard modules 

The tracker is compatible with »any 

framed standard module,« and, de- 

pending on the type of module, can 

accommodate between 1.6 and 2 kW of 

panels. Tracking takes place via an actua- 

tor that moves the panels around an axis 

tilted at an elevation angle of 15 to 65°. 

The angle of axis can be adjusted without 

any tools for location and season. 

The tracker uses an astronomic con- 

troller. The C-6 control unit can con- 

trol a maximum of six trackers. Despite 

its lack of extendibility, centralized 

monitoring, yield monitoring, and 

DegerEnergie GmbH: Stand 615 

Deger’s DEGERtraker 3000CT system 

on particularly sunny locations in the 

US, Asia, and Southern Europe, since 

those are the only regions where con- 

centrator modules make sense. 

Because these technologies demand 

highly precise and continuous track- 

ing across two axes, suitable trackers 

must be able to hold modules steady 

even in high winds. This has nothing 

to do with maximum load-bearing ca- 

pacity, which ranges from 170 to 300 

km/h for both the CT trackers, and all 

of Deger’s larger systems. 


DEGERenergie GmbH 

antitheft mea- 

sures, SunArx 

feels the tracker 

is well-suited for 

large solar farms. 

Tracker for concentrator modules 

The units cost roughly 

$2,000 each. js 

www.sunarx.com 

» 

The task the engineers faced in 18 

months they spent developing the two 

trackers (6 months of which was devoted 

to field tests at the Deger manufacturing 

facility in Germany) was to increase sta- 

bility, and modify the drive and power 

transmission systems. Under laboratory 

conditions, the trackers have a reported 

deviation of only 0.03°, which increases 

to no more than 0.1° in real-world op- 

eration. The module position is adjusted 

every 10 seconds, whereas most compa- 

rable systems from other manufacturers 

use continuous tracking. At Deger, how- 

ever, the stepped movement is seen as 

the best compromise between high pre- 

cision and low power consumption. 

The DEGERtraker 3000CT can carry 

a maximum of 25 m 2 of modules; the 

5000CT, a maximum of 40 m 2 . The 

company states a maximum load bear- 

ing capacity of 4,000 and 6,000 kg, 

and a net weight of 1,100 and 1,600 kg 

respectively (including modules). The 

trackers can be anchored in either con- 

crete or drilled foundations, and can 

also be attached to buildings. Deger has 

not announced system’s price. js 

www.degerenergie.com


In October, Yamaichi Electronics w ill 

introduce its new Y-Sol3 T-Junction 

unit for the company’s connector pro- 

duct line. The T-Junction is designed 

to aid installers with module parallel 

connections. 

64 

The T-Junction is designed for a sys- 

tem voltage of up to 1,000 V, and a rated 

current of 30 A. It comes with precon- 

figured cables, with cross-sections of 6 

Israeli company SolarEdge Technologies, 

with offices in Palo Alto, California, 

pulled back the curtain on its products at 

the Intersolar trade fair in Munich, Ger- 

many, six months ago. For the first time, 

SolarEdge presented its Smart DC ASIC 

technology, designed to open 

entirely new possibilities for PV 

system configuration. SolarEdge 

has since enhanced its product 

line with a 10 kW inverter. 

The complete system is 

consists of three components, 

the most important of which 

is the SolarEdge PowerBox; 

this unit replaces a mod- 

ule’s standard junction box, 

and optimally regulates the 

module’s power point. The unit 

maintains a uniform voltage for each 

module string, regardless of the number 

of modules connected in the string. The 

box can also deactivate any module auto- 

matically. This makes it safer to install the 

system, or in the event of a fire. Finally, 

this system has built-in theft protection, 

since no module can be removed without 

the system detecting it. 

The second component is the SolarEdge 

Inverter, which is available in 3.3 kW, 5 

kW, and now 10 kW. The inverter doesn’t 

need an MPP tracker, since the PowerBox 

is responsible for this task. Using the pre- 


Yamaichi Electronics: Stand 2951 

Japanese Company introduces T-Junction 

mm² and in different lengths. The non- 

locking connector is dust tight and pro- 

tected against immersion beyond 1 m (IP 

68). The contact material is a tin-plated 

copper alloy. The connector can be used 

in ambient temperatures from -40 to 85 

°C and is certified according to German 

norm DIN V VDE V 0126-3. Including 

the cable, each connector costs around 

$4.24 (EUR3) before taxes when ordered 

SolarEdge Technologies: Stand 2438 

SolarEdge Technologies’s 

system includes the 

PowerBox, an inverter, and a 

monitoring portal. 

defined voltage values from the solar gen- 

erator, the company’s inverter operates 

consistently and efficiently, regardless 

of the length of the individual module 

strings, or temperature. SolarEdge prom- 

ises efficiencies of more than 97 percent. 

All of this, the manufacturer argues, is 

possible due to the inverter’s very sim- 

ple, and therefore robust, construction 

New to Yamaichi’s Y-Sol 

range: the Y-Sol3 T-Junction. 

in quantities of 

more than 5,000 

units. djs, mh 

www.yeu.com 

PowerBox to replace a module’s standard junction box 

– naturally, at the cost of 

an electronics unit in each 

module. The latter could be 

one of the most important 

counterarguments the in- 

dustry may make against 

using SolarEdge. Still, the 

company is confident that 

its new development is 

completely reliable, and 

offers a 25-year guarantee 

for the PowerBox. 

The advantages of this 

system, the manufacturer 

says, aren’t limited to the 

module regulator and inverter. 

The third system component, a 

monitoring system called the 

SolarEdge Monitoring Server, 

benefits from the system’s over- 

all innovative configuration: after 

all, if the system can control each in- 

dividual module, it can also capture opera- 

tional data from each module as well. The 

monitoring system can also capture data 

for strings, and the system as a whole. 

The new concept helps simplify sys- 

tem planning, since module strings of 

varying lengths pose no problem. It also 

facilitates the addition of modules to an 

existing generator. The company has not 

released pricing information. js 

www.solaredge.com 

November 2009

In September, Sustainable Energy Technologies 

Ltd. introduced a second-generation 

5 kW inverter at the European 

Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference in 

Germany. The Calgary-based company is 

now releasing two North America versions 

of its new inverter, the Sunergy ELV 208 

and the Sunergy LV 208 – both designed as 

»extra low voltage power inverters.« 

The ELV has a maximum input volt- 

age of 120 V, while the LV can manage as 

high as 150 V. Like the European models, 

Xandex Inc., a veteran of the semiconductor 

industry, launched a solar 

unit two years ago. At Solar Power 

2009, Xandex Solar will announce its 

first PV product, the SunMizer DC po- 

wer optimizer. Using a patent-pending 

technology called Optimum I-V for PV, 

Xandex says the SunMizer can effici- 

ently recover power losses caused by 

shading and other system interference. 

According to Xandex, the SunMizer 

does this by ignoring a system’s proper- 

ly functioning modules. The units are 

only installed on those modules that ge- 

nerate less power than they should. 

According to a preliminary datasheet 

Sustainable Energy Technologies Ltd.: Stand 625 

Extra low voltage power inverters 

these inverters have 95 percent peak con- 

version efficiency, and 94 percent CEC 

[SN1]efficiency. Both inverters also have 

modular designs. Each unit has a »trans- 

former module« and a »power electronics 

module,« which facilitates cost-efficient 

mass production, and easy maintenance 

access. Together the transformer module 

and the inverter module weigh 78 kg. 

Sustainable Energy Technologies offers a 

7-year standard warranty, and optional 10 

and 20-year warranties. The company also 

Xandex Inc.: Stand 2252 

Sustainable Energy Technolo- 

gies has released two new 

5 kW inverters for the North 

American market: the Sunergy 

ELV 208, and the Sunergy LV 

208 (pictured here). 


» 

offers an optional communication device 

that allows for access by third-party moni- 

toring equipment, and an Ethernet con- 

nection with a built-in datalogger. mh 

www.sustainableenergy.com 

Power optimizers to use selective installation 

from Xandex Solar, based in 

Petaluma, California, the Sun- 

Mizer works with modules 

that have a maximum 250 

W power rating and 44 V 

DC voltage. Xandex says 

the product is also compat- 

ible with most 208 V and 

240 V residential-sized in- 

verters, and it conncects 

to modules with series 

wiring schemes. The 15 

x 10 x 4 cm product will be 

available in the US early next year, fol- 

lowed by a release in Europe about three 

months later through a Xandex sub- 

Xandex Solar SunMizers can 

be installed selectively, that 

is only on modules that 

generate less than 

expected power. 

sidiary based in 

the Netherlands. 

Xandex expects to 

receive TUV and UL 

certifications by the 

end of the year. The 

SunMizer is backed by a 

20-year warranty that includes coverage 

for replacement labor. mh 

www.xandex.com


Japan’s Sharp Electronics Corp. is introducing 

two new modules specifically 

suited for the North and South Ameri- 

can markets, according to the company’s 

sales team. However, since Sharp is sel- 

ling the modules worldwide through its 

dealers, it seems likely they will also be 

available outside the Americas. The com- 

pany says it will not offer service outside 

of the Americas. 

66 

The new additions will be the most 

powerful Sharp modules in North and 

South America at 230 and 235 W of pow- 

er, and efficiencies of more than 14 per- 

cent. The NU-U230F3 and NU-U235F1 

monocrystalline modules have MC4 

connectors and UL certification. The 

units are comparable with the ND-V230/ 

A1 and ND-F230/A1 models available on 

the European market, although those 

modules made with multicrystalline 

Judging by technology alone, SunEdison 

Services offers what appears to be a fairly 

standard monitoring system designed for 

commercial and utility-scale customers. 

The Beltsville, Maryland company desig- 

ned its system to be compatible with many 

of the top-selling inverters, and to genera- 

te up-to-the-minute data about how the 

PV system is functioning. One feature al- 

lows the monitoring system, called the Su- 

nEdison Energy and Environmental Data 

System (SEEDS), to churn out billing infor- 

mation in 15-minute intervals. This might 

be more useful for utilities than commer- 

cial customers. At $1,599, the monitoring 

system may be priced beyond the reach of 

many customers. But along with the SEEDS 

monitoring system, SunEdison also offers a 

hands-on service that takes care of nearly 

every aspect of managing a large PV system. 

The company promises to have technicians 

monitoring systems around the clock, and 

Sharp Electronics Corp.: Stand 1401 


Attractive modules for the US market 

Easy on the eye: for now, this Sharp module is only 

available in the Americas. 

cells. The products weigh 20 kg and mea- 

sure 99 x 164 cm. While the 235 W mod- 

ule is similar to a normal Sharp module, 

the 230 W module looks different: with 

its black backsheet and black frame, the 

module is designed as a more aestheti- 

cally attractive PV solution. Sharp has no 

plans to release a comparable model for 

the European market, yet. iru, mh 

www.sharp-world.com 

SunEdison: Stand 421 

SunEdison’s SEEDS Gateway monitoring system, version 4, installed with a cellular modem in a NEMA enclosure. 

have crews on hand to send to a site if nee- 

ded. SunEdison also offers a production as- 

surance service that includes preventative 

maintenance and cleaning. Included in the 

monitoring service is access to a portal that 

displays production data, as well as ener- 

Sharp Electronics Corporation 

Elettronica Santerno SpA: Stand 2460 

Inverters from Italy 

Italy-based Elettronica Santerno SpA is set to 

bring three new inverters to the US market. 

The devices, the first in the company’s Sunway 

M XS range, are transformerless string inver- 

ters. The new models, the M XS 

5000TL, M XS 6000TL, and 

M XS 7500TL will have DC 

nominal powers of 5.2, 6.3, 

and 7.8 kW, respectively. The 

maximum conversion effici- 

ency of the three units ranges 

between 97.3 and 97.5 percent. 

The devices’ MPP voltage range 

is 330 to 700 V. A maximum of 

four strings can be connected to 

the inverter. The housing, which 

comes in red, white, blue, and gray, 

has an IP65 protection type. The 

smallest model weighs 31 kg, while 

the others weight 35 kg. iru, mh 

www.elettronicasanterno.it 

Monitoring systems - and technical crews to operate them 

gy costs and savings. The SEEDS platform 

is available in the US, Canada, Spain, and 

Italy. Pricing information for the monito- 

ring service and the production assurance 

service are not available yet. mh 

www.sunedison.com 

Elettronica Santerno’s 

new inverters are avail- 

able in four colors, one 

of which is red. 

SolarEdge Technologies 

November 2009

Tigo Energy says it is working with leading 

module manufacturers to integrate 

its power optimizer technology con- 

veniently inside the module’s junction 

box. For now, the Silicon Valley company 

offers two small devices that can be affixed 

to any module, regardless of output volta- 

ge or nominal power rating. The Modu- 

le Maximizer-ES attaches to modules that 

are connected in series. Another model, 

the Module Maximizer-EP, uses galvanic 

isolation to facilitate use with building in- 

tegrated PV, and other complex systems. 

Tigo has tried to differentiate its prod- 

ucts from similar optimizers on the mar- 

ket through their simplicity. The compa- 

ny has placed the maximum power point 

(MPP) tracking functionality to a control 

unit, which limits the number of elec- 

tronic devices on the roof. Future plans 

Princeton Power Systems’ (PPS) GTIB 

480-100 inverter received UL certification 

and went straight to market in 

June. So far, it has sold mainly in just 

four northeastern US states: New York, 

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delawa- 

re. But PPS is eyeing other venues for its 

$50,000 product, including the lucrative 

Californian market. 

The GTIB 480-100 was not developed 

exclusively for the PV industry. PPS touts 

the product’s versatility as a microgrid 

that can deliver power to military person- 

nel on the go (PPS lists several military 

projects for government agencies and pri- 

vate contractors on its website). The mi- 

crogrid might not have any commercial 

applications, but integrators and system 

operators can still benefit from the GTIB 

480-100’s versatility: its backup power 

capacity. Chris Mangone, a PPS business 

development associate, says the GTIB 

480-100 can provide about three hours of 

call for streamlin- 

ing the compo- 

nents on the max- 

imizer unit’s 

PC board 

to make it 

even sim- 

pler. Tigo 

Tigo Energy Inc.: Stand 127 

Power optimizers for any module 

hopes that fewer 

components on 

the panel will reduce 

failure rates, and bring 

down costs. Suggested retail 

price for each MM-ES and MM- 

EP maximizer is $56. Tigo offers a 

centralized monitoring and control sys- 

tem called the Maximizer Management 

Unit (MMU). This compact unit measures 

245 x 150 x 80 mm, and can support up 

to 1,000 Module Maximizers. Tigo lists 

Princeton Power Systems, Inc.: Stand 2266 

Tigo Energy’s Module 

Maximizer-ES. 

the MMU’s sug- 

gested price 

at $625. 

The com- 

pany also of- 

fers an online 

service, called 

MaxiManager Soft- 

ware, which costs $350 

for systems that are 10 kW or 

smaller. Tigo says its systems, if 

deployed together, can boost out- 

put in optimal commercial systems by 

6 to 10 percent. The company says im- 

provements for residential installations 

can be more than 20 percent. js, mh 

www.tigoenergy.com 

New inverter with backup battery power 

backup power for a system 

that’s scaled for a 100 kW 

inverter. “If you need 200 

kW, use two of them,” he 

says. PPS isn’t the only in- 

verter maker that provides 

battery backup, but the 

company is clearly staking 

out a strategic position by 

including this feature in its 

standard product. 

According to the tech- 

nical datasheet, the GTIB 

480-100 has 98 percent 

peak efficiency. PPS credits 

advanced MPPT tracking 

as well as evening auto- 

disconnect, and daytime 

auto-power-up, for the high ef- 

ficiency. The inverter comes with 

a standard user interface featuring an 

LCD screen, a keypad, and LEDs. But 

PPS has partnered with a monitoring 

The GTIB 480-100 can provide about 

three hours of backup power. 

software supplier, Noveda 

Technologies, to offer a 

more extensive communi- 

cations system capable of 

displaying real-time and 

historical data accessible 

by local network and wire- 

less internet. 

PPS has grown consid- 

erably since it was founded 

eight years ago in a Princ- 

eton University dorm 

room, and the company is 

poised for more growth in the 

near future. Mangone says PPS is aim- 

ing to open a new manufacturing facility 

in New Jersey in about three years. The 

new facility would help boost produc- 

tion almost tenfold to 96 MW. mh 

www.princetonpower.com 


Princeton Power Systems, Inc. 

ıı

Little product, 

big comeback 

An old idea shuffl es off its stale reputation 

and makes a comeback in in in a new package 

68 

November 2009



Microinverters are an old innovation, 

at least relative to the brief history of 

the PV industry. In the mid-1990s, an 

inverter that could turn a DC module 

into an AC module was a pretty 

popular concept. They gradually 

disappeared as larger installations 

required larger inverters with higher 

effi ciencies. Moreover, some prod- 

ucts’ high failure rate colored the 

reputation of the whole microinverter 

concept. By 2005, most microinvert- 

ers were long gone. Now the product 

is making a comeback, and this time 

in a fresh market – it remains to be 

seen whether it will last this time. 

Fifteen years ago Dutch engineer 

and entrepreneur Henk 

Oldenkamp developed one of 

the fi rst microinverters. Back 

then, the concept of building 

an AC module, with with an integrated junc- junction 

box and microinverter in the panel, 

made sense because many installations 

consisted of just one – very expensive – 

module, and one inverter. Combining 

the two meant the module would produce 

AC current directly, and make it easy for 

people with limited technical expertise 

to connect the unit to the grid. 

The OK4, as Oldenkamp named his 

fi rst model, sold so well that in 1997 he 

teamed up with Dutch telecommunications 

company NKF Kabel BV to expand 

manufacturing from hundreds of units 

per year to thousands. Oldenkamp met 

competition from big inverter companies 

too. They recognized market poten- 

Martin Fornage, co-founder and chief technology offi cer 

at Enphase Energy, Inc., in front of a wall of microinverters 

that are being tested. The microinverter, which can be 

clipped on or built into the back of a module, is gaining 

momentum as a trend – especially in the U.S. 

Microinverters 

Solar power systems like this one were typical in the 1990s in the Netherlands: just two PV modules on the roof 

under a solar thermal installation. 

tial, mostly for small installations. »In 

the 1990s nearly every company developed 

microinverters,« says Bruno Burger, 

who studies inverters at the Fraunhofer 

Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE) 

in Freiburg, Germany. But none of those 

products really took into account the actual 

market back then. The problem, says 

Burger, isn’t just building a reliable inverter. 

It’s engineering it cheaply enough 

to include one in every modules. 

NKF ran into some problems with 

microinverters, too. The company sold 

about 80,000 of the OK4 between 1997 

and 2003, says Odenkamp, but on the 

very day when he was to present the company 

with his second-generation model, 

the OK5, NKF pulled out. A letter went 

out to all of the customers explaining 

production of the OK4 would end. To this 

day, says Oldenkamp, he doesn’t know 

why. A former employee of NKF, who 

asked not to be named, says there were 

two reasons the company discontinued 

the product: the Netherlands’ decision to 

reduce incentives for solar power, and the 

market launch of a competing product by 

the solar division of Philips Lighting BV, 


» 

which was »very aggressive« in its marketing. 

Philips’ device also disappeared 

from the market shortly thereafter. 

Within months of NKF’s decision to 

pull the product, recalls Oldenkamp, the 

OK4 began experiencing problems in the 

fi eld. Somewhere between 10,000 and 

20,000 of them failed within months 

of installation. What exactly caused the 

problem never came to light. And while 

Oldenkamp theorizes that these failures 

were caused by shoddy manufacturing, 

it would seem the PV world’s collective 

memory suspects the microinverter concept 

itself – especially the short lifespan 

of certain components. 

Around this time, microinverters were 

becoming increasingly obsolete. Netherlands-based 

inverter manufacturer Mastervolt 

B.V. is one company that took its 

products – 120 and 130 W inverters – off 

the market just as the OK4 hit turbulence 

in the fi eld. Bouke Siebenga, general manager 

of Mastervolt’s solar division, says the 

decision was simply a refl ection of increasing 

solar module sizes. »In those days the 

120 and 130 were sitting very well in the 

market because the average solar installa- 

Anne Kreutzmann / photon-pictures.com


Microinverters currently available in the U.S. and Europe 

Dorfmüller*** Enphase* Exeltech** 

Model DMI 150/35 DMI 250/35 M200-32-240-S01/2 M200-32-208-S01/2 AC-Module # **** 

DC Part 

Nominal DC power (kW) 0.12 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.24 

Max. PV power (kW) 0.15 0.32 0.24 0.24 0.24 

Nominal DC voltage (V) 35 35 54.5 54.5 24. 36. 48 

MPP range DC (V) 28...50 28...50 44...65 44...65 optimized for the module 

Max. DC voltage (V) 55 55 80 80 optimized for the module 

Min. voltage for nominal power (V) 28 28 44 44 optimized for the module 

Inom DC (A) 3.4 7.1 3.9 3.9 optimized for the module 

Imax DC (A) 5 10.7 6 6 optimized for the module 

AC Part 

Nominal AC power (kW) 0.11 0.23 0.2 0.2 0.21 

Max. AC power (kW) 0.125 0.29 0.22 0.22 0.21 

Nominal AC voltage (V) 230 230 240 208 120 

Inom AC (A) 0.48 1 0.83 0.96 1.75 

Imax AC (A) 0.55 1.3 0.83 0.96 1.75 

Number of feed-in phases 1 1 1 3 N/A 

Grid frequency AC 50 Hz yes yes no no planned 

Grid frequency AC 60 Hz yes yes yes yes yes 

Voltage range AC (V) 184...253 184...253 211...264 183...229 108...132 

Min. cos φ 1 1 0.95 0.95 > 0.99 

Total harmonic distortion (THD %) 3 3 2.5 2.5 < 5% 

Efficiency 

Starts feeding in at (W) 2.5 3 1 1 < 4 

Max. standby consumption (W) 0 0 0.464 0.438 ~ 3 

Max. night consumption (W) 0 0 0.464 0.438 0 

Max. efficiency (%) 89 92.2 95 95 N/A 

Europ. efficiency (%) 86.6 90.2 - - N/A 

Safety 

Disconnect param. adjustable no no yes yes no 

ENS opt. opt. no no no 

All pole sensitive RCB yes yes no no no 

Isolation monitoring yes yes yes yes 

Overload behavior APV APV SR SR no 

Mechanics 

Height (mm) 80 66 38 38 44.5 

Width (mm) 200 320 267 267 165 

Depth (mm) 100 160 140 140 146 

Weight (kg) 2.8 6.3 1.8 1.8 < 1.135 

Protection type IP 65 IP 65 Nema 6 Nema 6 Nema 4 

Safety class SKL I SKL I SKL II SKL II SKL I 

Ventilation no no no no no 

Environment 

Max.noise level 35 dBA 35 dBA 0 dBA 0 dBA 0 dBA 

Ambient temperature (°C) -25...70 -25...70 -25...65 -25...65 -40...70 

Max. acceptable temp. at Pnom (°C) 40 40 65 65 80 

Ambient humidity (%) 0...95 0...95 0...100 0...100 0…100 

Display 

Display no no opt. LCD opt. LCD N/A 

Warranty/Price/Distribution 

Warranty (Years) 2. opt. 5 2. opt. 5 15 15 5. opt. 10/20 

Delivery time (Days) 3 3 1 1 N/A 

Consumer price gross ($) N/A N/A 220 175 N/A 

Consumer price gross (€) N/A N/A 150 120 N/A 

Market introduction (Month/Year) 1995 1996 8/2008 2/2008 11/2009 

Distribution (Country) EU EU USA USA USA. International 

* Enphase also offers modules with with 190 and 210 Watt AC-power, which are only slightly different from the ones shown here, ** Exeltech’s AC Module has just completed UL certification. Specifications stated herein 

were provided before testing was complete and may have changed, *** Dorfmüller offers a number of larger mini-inverters, but they exceed the power range for a single module., **** Number by design voltage 

Two generations: the Dorfmüller microinverter, which has been available in Europe since the 1990s, survived the last wave of AC module boom and bust. New products 

from companies like Exeltech and Enphase hope to gain a lasting market foothold with simplified integration, higher efficiencies, and longer warranties. 

70 

November 2009

tion was just one panel,« says Siebenga. 

»The Soladin 120 didn’t fit with the new 

modules anymore, and at the same time 

the market was asking for a more cost- 

efficient solution, meaning one single in- 

verter for the whole installation.« 

An idea whose time has come, again 

And with that it seemed the microin- 

verter’s chapter in the history of PV came 

to a premature end. But the idea may be 

more resilient than expected: Enphase 

Energy, Inc., the much-discussed com- 

pany in Petaluma, California, is leading 

the charge in what may be a microinvert- 

er comeback. The company, founded in 

2006, has been selling microinverters on 

the open market since June of 2008. In 

September 2009, they announced a mile- 

stone: 100,000 units sold. 

And Enphase is not alone. At least ten 

other companies have been founded with 

the goal of developing microinverters in 

the last few years: Enecsys Ltd. based in 

Cambridge, England, SolarBridge Tech- 

nologies Inc., in Austin, Texas, and Petra 

Solar Inc., in South Plainfield, New Jer- 

sey, are a few of them. These three com- 

panies have captured the US Department 

of Energy’s attention as manufacturers 

for potential smart grid applications. Ac- 

cording to CEO Ron Van Dell, SolarBridge 

is in discussions with »six of the eight« 

major module manufacturers to test in- 

tegrated AC modules once the company’s 

microinverter hits the market. 

Other promising start-ups include 

Accurate Solar Power Inc., and Azuray 

Technologies Inc. In early August, an- 

other company, Greenray, Inc., issued 

a press release announcing an »AC 

module« using the company’s inverter 

technology. Meanwhile, in Fort Worth, 

Texas, Exeltech has been quietly test- 

ing its own microinverters for the last 

three years. That company expects 

to be the first out of the starting gate 

with a fully-integrated PV AC module. 

Exeltech says three of its microinvert- 

ers have already been integrated into 

modules from other manufacturers. 

These products will be released as AC 

modules as soon as they complete Un- 

derwriter Laboratories Inc. 

(UL) testing. The company’s 

first batch of products was 

certified UL 1741 at the be- 

ginning of October. 

If there are any doubts that 

this trend is gaining momen- 

tum, one case is particularly 

demonstrative: SMA Tech- 

nologie AG, the world’s larg- 

est inverter manufacturer, is 

now forging plans to develop 

its own microinverter. On 

September 3, 2009, the com- 

pany issued a press release an- 

nouncing the purchase of the 

OK4All platform from Henk 

Oldenkamp. In the future, 

that platform will be devel- 

oped into an SMA microin- 

verter. This isn’t the same technology 

as the original OK4, but rather a third- 

generation model that Oldenkamp de- 

veloped independently at his own com- 

pany, OKE-Services. 

It’s not completely clear what changed 

between 2005 and now to create so much 

hype around a technology that’s actually 

not new at all. Rather than giving a defin- 

itive answer, microinverter manufactur- 

ers offer a list of reasons. One argument is 

that modules with an integrated inverter 

should be easy to install. Another expla- 

nation, proponents say, is that microin- 

verters guarantee more up-time for larger 

installations: unlike central inverters, if 

one of these devices fails, the rest of the 

installation continues to function. Fur- 

thermore, they promise to be safer in the 

event of a fire, and panel-level inverters 

enable panel-level performance monitor- 

ing. With all of these advantages, it seems 

microinverters are bound to succeed, as 

long as they offer just two more things: 

prices comparable to those of a central in- 

verter, and incredibly low failure rates. 

Lingering rumors 

Earlier this year August Goers, Vice 

President of Engineering at San Fran- 

cisco, California-based solar installer 

Luminalt Energy Corp., was on a job 

when he found himself discussing En- 


» 

Enecsys CEO Paul Engle says a microinverter’s warranty is the best predic- 

tor of its reliability. 

phase microinverters with an inspector. 

The inspector tipped him off to rumors 

circulating that Enphase was preparing 

to recall a line of inverters, thereby caus- 

ing supply shortages. 

»There’s sort of a basic engineering 

principle that you want to keep things 

simple,« says Goers, who is waiting for 

Enphase’s product to be well-vetted be- 

fore using it in his installations. Out of 

curiosity, Goers posted a thread to an 

online installer bulletin board asking 

whether other installers knew of a pos- 

sible recall. 

The response to Goers’ question re- 

vealed as much about the local rumor 

mill as it did about Enphase’s technical 

problems, real or imaginary. One installer 

noted that they had waited two months 

for an order to arrive, while others said 

they suspected that Enphase, which had 

recently signed a couple of large supply 

deals, had sold products out from under 

small installers. Another installer went 

so far as to speculate that a recall might 

be taking place on the sly. Finally, an- 

other more charitable poster claimed 

the company was actually ramping up 

production, albeit cautiously, to main- 

tain high quality standards. Enphase 

vehemently insists that none of these 

theories are true; the company simply 

underestimated demand. 

Enecsys


Filling a niche: This rooftop system, installed in 2004 in Germany, uses Dorfmüller microinverters for parts of the roof too small for strings. 

72 

For Enphase, who recently confirmed 

that an increase in production would al- 

leviate the supply bottleneck in short 

order, being the first company to mar- 

ket a new generation of microinverters 

has been a blessing and a curse. While 

its two-year lead time on other compa- 

nies and start-ups may produce a lasting 

market advantage, it also means that the 

company has a difficult task ahead: dis- 

pelling rumors about a new version of 

a technology with a spotty reputation. 

Enphase’s continued success – and that of 

any other start-up – will depend on how 

well they make their case. 

Old idea, new image 

While engineering a microinverter 

entails many challenges, there’s nothing 

revolutionary about the core technol- 

ogy. It’s simply an inverter that’s scaled 

down for low powers, while remaining 

very resilient. 

Ward Bower, who researches microin- 

verters at Sandia National Laboratories, 

a US government-owned research insti- 

tute in Albuquerque, New Mexico, recalls 

how some earlier microinverters had 40 

percent failure rates over a very short 

period of time – that did a great deal of 

damage to the concept’s reputation. The 

final blow, he says, was temperature. But 

Bower, who has studied inverters since 

1977, says he has always been a propo- 

nent of the microinverter technology. 

He simply feels that the technology has 

a few more steps to make before it can 

deliver its potential advantages. 

Werner Kleinkauf, co-founder and 

board member at SMA Technologie AG, 

also believes the new generation of mi- 

croinverters are much more promising 

than their predecessors. And Kleinkauf 

knows what he’s talking about. In the 

beginning of the 1990s he developed 

a microinverter at the Institute for So- 

lar Energy Supply Technology (ISET), 

though he abandoned the idea because 

of what he felt was the concept’s un- 

reliability. »The electronics have im- 

proved,« he says. »Obtaining compact 

components that allowed one to build 

very, very small units, and nonetheless 

meet functional requirements was a big 

problem back then.« 

In with the new 

The promise of this next generation 

of microinverters is, in fact, very exciting 

when compared to the state of the technol- 

ogy ten years ago. Enphase boasts of effi- 

ciencies as high as to 95.5 percent, which 

Bower says may be the magic number that 

ensures these products outlast their prede- 

cessors, both in terms of product lifespan 

and market viability. The higher the ef- 

ficiency, the less heat they emit, which 

means longer components lifepans. 

And to be fair, there is one company 

older than Enphase that has proven it’s 

possible to keep even less efficient micro- 

inverter products on the shelves. Dorf- 

müller Solaranlagen GmbH, founded in 

1986 in Kernen im Remstal, Germany, 

offers several module-integrated invert- 

November 2009 

Stefan M. Prager / photon-pictures.com

How a microinverter works 

Varistors (variable resistors), 

voltage – dependent, resistors 

to prevent overvoltage 

Connector (AC input), can be used to 

connect several microinverters in parallel. 

Chokes and capacitors (blue) serve as filters, 

to keep grid disturbances form interfering 

with the inverter, and vice versa. 

ers. Their 150 W product, available for 

purchase in the EU only, was released 

in 1995. Interestingly enough, Dorfmüller’s 

products have been on the market 

since 1995 with just 2 to 5 year warranties, 

effi ciencies of 89 to 92 percent, and 

no sophisticated monitoring system. The 

company’s owner, Joachim Dorfmüller, 

says the products have been used in 

a variety of different sized installations, 

but admits that demand has never been 

stronger than this year. In 2008 he sold 

3 MW, says Dorfmüller, and this year he 

sold 4 MW. He would have sold more, if 

he had been able to keep up with the fl ood 

of orders. Next year, he says, he expects 

to sell 10 MW. And Dorfmüller hopes to 

test the US market soon, too, since that’s 

where all the action seems to be. 

Where is the market? 

In truth, fi nding the right market – or 

rather, market niche – is a challenge new 

start-ups are still sorting out. Enphase is 

cozying up with everyone from Suntech, 

Transistors break up the current from the capacitors into different 

length pulses - a preliminary step toward the 60Hz-frequency 

sine waves that synchronize with the grid. 

AC output Cable 

Coils smooth the alternating current 

coming from the transistors into a clean 

sine wave form. 

DC input - the module 

is hooked up to the inverter 

with a traditional solar connector. 

who sells Enphase’s inverters along with 

its modules, to several start-ups building 

DIY kits ultimately destined for retail. The 

advantages vary according to system size. 

One of the fi rst companies to search 

for a microinverter niche was Los Gatos, 

California-based Akeena Solar, Inc., one 

of the larger US installers. The company, 

which offers a ready-to-install product 

called Andalay to private customers 

and other installers, has just completed 

a two-year test phase with Enphase microinverters. 

Now, the company is rolling 

out an Andalay AC module. CEO 

Barry Cinnamon says the microinverter 

is a key development in making solar 

power accessible to a wide market of residential 

and small commercial installations. 

Cinnamon says it has installed 

thousands of Enphase microinverters, 

and not one has failed. 

Akeena is just one of a small herd of 

companies chomping at the bit to increase 

their market shares by narrowing 

balance-of-systems costs. Solar Red, 

Electrolytic capacitors for DC input: These store 

DC power until the transistors call for it. 

Because the energy that a capacitor can hold is a 

factor of voltage and capacitance, microinverters with 

low voltage input require high capacitance. 


» 

Inc., Armageddon Energy, Inc., Ready 

Solar Inc., and Veranda Solar Inc. are a 

few early-stage companies developing 

systems with built-in AC wiring and integrated 

microinverters – systems that 

require no string-sizing calculations and 

can be purchased and built module by 

module, or even snapped together all at 

once as a full array. And each story echoes 

the next: as module prices fall, bloated 

balance-of-systems labor costs become a 

larger proportion of total system costs. 

Companies must compete to offer better, 

simpler installations. 

Enphase and other microinverter 

manufacturers are promising signifi cant 

benefi ts for non-integrated systems too. 

Much like companies that build poweroptimizer 

systems for tracking each 

module’s maximum power point – for 

instance, National Semiconductor’s SolarMagic, 

SolarEdge’s Power Box, and 

Ehw Research’s Smart Power Box – these 

micro-inverters claim to recover anywhere 

between 5 and 25 percent of a 

graphic: Udo Rohnke / PHOTON

Anne Kreutzmann / photon-pictures.com 

74 


system’s lost energy yield. The more mis- 

matched the system is due to shadows, 

dirt, or natural module mismatching, the 

more microinverters claim they can help. 

Enphase, which now offers its prod- 

ucts to a number of installers, is in high 

demand. Cinnamon says Akeena will 

buy as many microinverters as Enphase 

can supply, and an installer at Owens 

Electric & Solar, Inc. in California esti- 

mates that 70 percent of his customers 

opt for Enphase products, when offered. 

But that doesn’t mean Enphase, or any of 

these new companies, can rest on their 

laurels. They will all have to prove them- 

selves if they want to remain competitive 

with central inverters. 

More components = more failures 

At the heart of criticism of distributed 

power architecture – including power op- 

timizers and microinverters – is a logical 

rule. Even if a product has an excellent life 

expectancy, the more components you 

add to your system, the more likely one 

of them will fail at any given moment. A 

central inverter is a fairly safe bet with its 

10 to 15 year life expectancy. If it fails, 

The man that began it: Fifteen years ago in the Nether- 

lands, Henk Oldenkamp developed a microinverter that 

converterted 130 Watts DC to AC and clipped right on the 

back of a module – the OK4, one of the first devices of 

this type. He based the product on the same components 

and basic concept as a central inverter (photo right). 

you just replace a single com- 

ponent. On the other hand, if 

you have 30 microinverters in 

a system, failures – either due 

to defects or wear and tear – 

will be more numerous. 

While most start-ups have designed 

their microinverters to detach easily 

from modules or module racks – to facil- 

itate replacement – installers still doubt 

whether a microinverter can be built 

that is as reliable as the module itself. 

»Nobody wants to connect those two 

together,« says Ron Van Dell, CEO of 

SolarBridge, since microinverters have 

much shorter warranties than modules. 

»It makes no sense to connect a compo- 

nent that’s by definition going to fail 

before the thing it’s hooked to fails.« 

This is where microinverter technology 

– and marketing it – gets tricky. To be com- 

petitive, a microinverter has to be cheaper 

and more durable than a central inverter. 

Moreover, some purport, if AC PV is really 

going to take off, microinverter warran- 

ties have to match those of modules. Thus 

not only does each microinverter need to 

have a spectacular lifespan, and keep cool 

with no moving parts, but has to do it all 

while sitting on top of a roof in the blazing 

sun. »Making a microinverter to operate 

in the vicinity of a PV module is no easy 

task,« adds Bower. »It takes real engineer- 

ing. The environment is just brutal.« 

OKE-Services 

Then there’s the size of the microin- 

verter itself. If a microinverter’s efficiency 

maxes out at 96 percent, that’s 8 W of cur- 

rent that have to be dissipated for each 200 

W module. As Bower puts it: »if you put that 

in a small enough package, it’s like your 

night light, it’s hot enough to burn your 

fingers.« Since active cooling would be cost- 

prohibitive, microinverters have to rely on 

conductive cooling to distribute heat. 

And while some components can 

withstand heat, electrolytic capacitors 

are understood to be the component – 

in inverters both large and small – that 

is most likely to fail due to high tempera- 

tures. Indeed, it usually is the part that 

malfunctions, in both central and mi- 

croinverters. Enphase, who says it uses 

capacitors with a rated lifetime of 4,000 

to 10,000 hours at 105° Celsius, points 

out that the life expectancy of a capaci- 

tor doubles with every 10° Celsius drop 

in temperature. Joe Augenbraun, CEO of 

Solar Red, Inc. – a start-up using micro- 

inverters to build and install integrated 

systems – jokes that it should be called 

the »capacitor of evil.« 

The volatile outdoor envi- 

ronment, and heat dissipation 

from the nearby module aren’t 

the only factors that make en- 

gineering a reliable microin- 

verter difficult – microinverter 

itself produces heat. By the 

very nature of its technology, 

a microinverter is going to be 

less efficient than a central 

inverter, says Bower. Every in- 

verter, no matter its size, has a 

certain amount of fixed energy 

consumption. Multiply that 

by 10, or 15, or however many 

modules there are in an array, 

and as the systems size increas- 

es, efficiency falls relative to a 

system using a central inverter. 

Enphase doesn’t share this senti- 

ment. In a study from late 2008, CTO 

Martin Fornage claimed that Enphase’s 

use of electrolytic capacitors should, 

by a »conservative estimate,« allow the 

components to last for 50 years. Fornage 

suggests that Enphase capacitors have 

November 2009

longer lifespans than traditional power 

converters – which he says can be as low 

as 2,000 hours at 85° Celsius. By this mea- 

sure, the study proposes, capacitors in an 

Enphase microinverter – which peak at 

temperatures of around 65° Celsius in 

hot weather – will last significantly lon- 

ger. The relatively low voltage applied to 

the capacitor, adds Enphase, may extend 

the expected lifespan of a capacitor even 

beyond 50 years. 

Other start-ups aren’t as confident 

about capacitor lifespan. Although it 

won’t say how, SolarBridge has engi- 

neered its product in such a way as to 

eliminate electrolytic capacitors entire- 

ly. Van Dell says SolarBridge’s inverter 

design reduces capacitance needs by a 

factor of 1,000, allowing them to use 

more reliable, readily available film 

capacitors. »Electrolytic capacitors are 

the primary limitation in service life 

for these systems,« he says. 

Firms working with microinverters (in development and on the market) 

Company Market 

introduction 

Accurate Solar 

Power, Inc. 

Azuray 

Technologies, Inc. 

Direct Grid 

Technologies, LLC 

Dorfmüller Solaranlagen 

GmbH 

TBA Menlo Park, 

California, USA 

TBA Tualatin, Oregon, 

USA 

est. 2009 Ronkonkoma, 

New York, USA 

Location Distribution Approach Website 

1995 Kernen im Remstal, 

Germany 

TBA Microinverters and power optimizers, early phase, focus on 

monitoring solutions and MPP tracking 

TBA Microinverters, early phase company, may also develop other 

distributed energy harvesting product 

North America, 

planned: EU 

Enecsys TBA Cambridge, England EU, North 

America 

Enphase 

Energy, Inc. 

2008 Petaluma, 

California, USA 

Eshia S.L. 2009 San Adrián de 

Besós, Spain 

Exeltech est. 

2009-2010 

Greenray 

Solar, Inc. 

Fort Worth, 

Texas, USA 

est. 2010 Greenray, 

Massachusetts, USA 

Larankelo Inc. Closed Colorado Springs, 

Colorado, USA 

Petra Solar 2009 South Plainfield, 

New Jersey, USA 

SMA Solar 

Technology AG (OKE) 

SolarBridge 

Technologies, Inc. 

Steca Elektronik 

GmbH 

est. 

2010-2011 

Nietestal, 

Germany (NL) 

Microinverters for attachment, low-heat transformers should 

extend life-expectancy 

EU Microinverters for module integration or attachment, 89-93 

percent efficiency, 2-5 year warranties 


planned: EU 

Microinverter for module integration or possible attachment, 

>20 year warranty 

Microinverter for module integration or attachment, >95 percent 

efficiency, 20 year lifetime, 15 year warranty 

EU Microinverter attached to Gahelios 120 Wp module for Guerrilla 

Solar plug-and-play system, >90 percent efficient, 


planned: EU 

Microinverters for module integration, 95 percent efficiency, 

warranty to match module warranty 

TBA Microinverter for integration with Sanyo modules, currently in 

testing, focus on product lifetime >30 years 

N/A Microinverter for module-integration, three-phase, film capacitors, 

targeting utility applications 

North America Microinverters for pole-mounted utility, smart-grid application, 

module integration in development 


planned: EU 

est. 2010 Austin, Texas, USA North America, 

planned: EU 

est. 2011 Memmingen, Germany 

»Scary« numbers 

Bower, who has watched the rise and 

fall of several microinverter companies, 

agrees that the capacitor has been the 

single largest obstacle to creating an mi- 

croinverter with a longer lifespan. That’s 

why he was so shocked to hear what mi- 

croinverter companies are promising. 

»It’s scary to me,« Bower told PHOTON. 

Indeed, some of the numbers do look 

pretty scary. Enphase initially claimed its 

products had a 365 year »mean time be- 

tween failures« (MTBF), but the company 

has since modified the estimate down to 

331 years. Of course, that number is just 

a guess at the likelihood of that invert- 

er failing during its expected lifespan, 

not how long the inverter will last alto- 

gether. Hence, rest assured consumers, 

your inverters won’t outlive your grand- 

children; the company lists its products 

life expectancy at around 20 years, and 

backs it up with a 15 year warranty. 

Microinverter, third-generation design, for module integration or 

attachment, (OK4All) est. 95 percent efficiency and 20 year lifetime 

Microinverter for module integration, very low capacitance needs 

for greater reliability, >20 year lifetime, entering testing phase 

with six module manufacturers in 2010 

TBA Transformerless microinverter for high voltage thin-film module 

integration. > 96 percent efficiency, 20 year lifeteme, ca. 200 year 

mean time before failure (MTBF) 

More to come: of the 15 microinverter companies PHOTON researched, 10 are planning their market debut. 

www.accuratesolarpower.com 

www.azuraytech.com 

www.directgrid.com 


» 

Enphase does provide a white pa- 

per demonstrating how it calculates its 

MTBF. The number is based on statistics 

about the components and accelerated 

testing – the number itself represents 

the inverse of the yearly failure rate, 

that is, 1/331. By that calculation about 

0.3 percent of Enphase microinverters will 

fail each year. And while the company 

is open about its testing procedures, it’s 

debatable whether this is the most impor- 

tant number to keep in mind. »Some of 

them are claiming some pretty fantastic 

mean time between failures,« says Bower 

of start-up microinverter manufacturers, 

»and I think what we need to do is look 

at what the definition of what that mean 

time between failure is, so that everybody 

understands it. And that’s something that 

probably needs to be tackled in the very 

near future. It could be misleading.« 

But beyond the number itself, there’s 

the fact that Enphase’s MTBF calculations 

www.dorfmueller-solaranlagen.de 

www.enecsys.com 

www.enphaseenergy.com 

www.eshia.es 

www.exeltech.com 

www.greenraysolar.com 

www.petrasolar.com 

www.sma.de 

www.solarbridgetech.com 

www.steca.com

76 


Exeltech’s product, designed for panel integration, will hit the market soon. 

are based on just that – calculations, not 

experience. Only after these products 

have been in the fi eld for several years 

can companies advertise statistical, empirical 

failure rates. 

Comparing one microinverter company 

to the other is complicated. Currently, 

there is no single testing standard for the 

microinverter lifespan or MTBF. »Calculation 

methods vary from one manufacturer 

to another,« says Bower. »There really 

needs to be a standard.« 

That’s a sentiment shared by scientists 

and start-ups alike. »The MTBF numbers 

advertised can be widely different based 

on the assumptions made,« says Enecsys’ 

CEO Paul Engle, who would like to 

simplify matters for the end customer. 

»These products have not been out in the 

marketplace... the mean time between 

failure fi gure is purely a theoretical one,« 

says Engle. »The real clue is what warranty 

any manufacturer« provides for its 

products, he says. 

Accurate Solar has been developing its 

own equipment for standardized testing, 

and would like to put new microinverter 

models through their paces. CEO Julian 

Sweet underscored that not only can 

lifespan and MTBF estimates be fuzzy, 

but fi gures describing effi ciency enhancement 

for shaded installations have 

no fi xed measurement system. Bower 

agrees: »I see estimates from 5 to – prob- 

ably overblown – estimates of 30 percent, 

but I suspect on average you’ll see a 5 to 10 

to 15 percent improvement,« he says. 

Scaling up 

Even if the industry members cannot 

agree about a standard for testing microinverters, 

they are of the same mind 

when it comes to their expectations for 

improving this technology. This group 

often uses the analogy of the personal 

computer. It’s a compelling analogy, 

comparing the fl edgling microinverter 

industry, and its associated installer kits, 

to the early PC era – like early computers, 

microinverters are expensive, ineffi cient, 

and on the verge of breaking into a market 

that’s just waiting for the right combination 

of features at the right price. 

And price is an issue. Microinverter 

aren’t cheap. Enphase’s per unit cost for 

retail sales ranges from $200 to $220, or 

just about $1 per W. And while start-ups 

won’t reveal what they plan to charge for 

their products, there’s a canned answer 

to the question of cost: cheaper installation 

costs will save customers money 

up front. And, they add, microinverters 

ensure increased up-time, since the system 

never fails in one fell swoop, and 

enhance energy yields. Enphase also offers 

better prices to installers and integrators, 

which can result in more reasonably 

priced packages. Still, the bottom line is 

ExelTech 

ıı 

that Akeena’s Andalay AC product costs 

about $0.30 more per W than the stringinverter 

Andalay, says Cinnamon. 

Sweet, whose team of engineers began 

their careers in aerospace technology, 

eagerly emphasizes that the components 

that could make microinverters 

truly competitive do exist, and are on 

the verge of commoditization. Bower 

speculates that as soon as demand is high 

enough, microinverter manufacturers 

will achieve effi ciencies higher than 96 

percent. »Once they get their design really 

nailed down, then they can go to integrated 

circuit manufacturers and have 

a lot of the components either converted 

to digital, or put in a single package,« he 

says. This would eliminate »a lot of solder 

joints,« and match up components for optimization, 

»but you need to have a large 

market before you can really jump in,« 

says Bower. 

Proving the technology 

This, of course, leads us to the chicken 

and egg argument plaguing microinverters. 

Researchers, installers, and perhaps 

even some start-ups themselves, are skeptical 

as to whether this new generation of 

microinverters will deliver on its promise 

of reliability two, three, or ten years down 

the line. That means many of them won’t 

even touch the technology until Enphase 

has been on the open market for fi ve 

years. If that’s true, it may mean three 

more years of watching and waiting. 

But even if many of the specifi cs are 

up in the air, the hype around this new 

wave of microinverters is real. If it wasn’t 

for the recent ramp-up in production by 

Singapore-based electronics manufacturer 

Flextronics, Enphase wouldn’t have 

been able to fi ll its orders. 

Perhaps we are witnessing the rebirth 

of the microinverter. If end-users continue 

to be interested in simplifi ed installations, 

power optimization, module-level 

monitoring, and system scalability, 

the industry might have room 

for Enphase and other microinverter 

manufacturers. All they have to do is 

one simple thing that their predecessors 

didn’t – not fail. Melissa Bosworth 

November 2009

»ıı 

November 2009 77

Architecture 

Belgium 

Returning to earth 

An aerospace business park runs on solar 

electricity – well, what else? 

78 

November 2009

November 2009 


A former training center near a 

European Space Agency (ESA) 

ground station underwent elabo- 

rate reconstruction, transforming it 

into a business park for aerospace 

companies. Installing a PV system 

as part of this complex came natu- 

rally to an industry that historically 

has been one of the fi rst to employ 

PV in any sustained way. 

The impression made by the building’s exterior 

isn’t misleading: the Galaxia complex is indeed 

dedicated to aerospace technology – and PV 

»ıı » 

Sometimes, not often, images have an 

uncanny symmetry and meaning to 

them. Gazing upwards from the grounds 

outside the Galaxia Business Park in 

Libin-Transinne, Belgium just such an 

image appears suddenly and quite unexpectedly. 

There, stretched across ramrod 

straight metal poles reaching towards the 

sky is a cloth banner emblazoned with 

a picture of a satellite in orbit with PV 

panels latched to its side. 

It takes a moment to understand just 

why this scene is so powerfully appropriate. 

One reason is simply the location: 

the Galaxia Business Park sits adjacent to 

a ground station for the European Space 

Agency (ESA). This is not at all a coincidence. 

The Galaxia, which was opened 

last December, was built to be a home for 

both start-up and more mature high-tech 

businesses involved in some regard with 

space exploration. 

But there’s a deeper, albeit more subtle 

level of symmetry on display here, one that 

requires looking beyond the banner to the 

roof, and then out towards the walls. There, 

one can see parts of what amount to a massive 

440 m2 PV array, which, with a total of 

79

80 

Architecture 

November 2009


3,648 multi-crystalline modules, produces 

300 kW of power – enough to generate all 

the energy required by Galaxia’s tenants. 

The confluence of the ESA ground sta- 

tion, the satellite, and the sea of PV mod- 

ules is akin to watching a family reunion: 

after all, one of the earliest applications of 

PV panels was in outer space, where they 

were used to power satellites. For most visi- 

tors to Galaxia, this abstract reunion won’t 

be the first thing they notice. Rather, the 

building’s architecture and design are like- 

ly to be the focus. 

For some, standing inside the forest of 

metal poles – which help to support the 

weight of the PV roof – configured as they 

are in stark right angles, could give the im- 

pression of being inside a cage, although one 

that would be easy to slip out of. From the 

outside looking up at the recurring peaked 

roof of glass and PV modules, it looks some- 

thing like a futuristic greenhouse. 

As new as this structure may appear, 

that notion is misleading. For one thing, 

even though the center was officially »in- 

augurated« on June 25th, the core of the 

structure has existed for decades. In fact, 

the mass of metal, glass and PV are simply 

a covering – or an envelope, as Philippe 

Samyn of Brussels-based engineering and 

architecture firm Samyn and Partners, 

Galaxia’s designers, calls it – sheathing 

squat, block-like wooden structures that 

were used for educational purposes at the 

nearby Euro Space Center, The Euro Space 

Center is organizationally separate from 

the ESA facility next door. 

The idea for creating Galaxia as a home 

for high-tech, space-oriented businesses 

came from Idelux, the publicly funded 

development agency that seeks to lure 

businesses and create jobs in the province 

of Luxembourg, a rural area of southeast 

Belgium. Fabian Collard, the director of 

Idelux, knew that proximity to the ESA 

ground station, which will be responsible 

for controlling the Galileo satellites, would 

attract plenty of high-tech businesses. 

But when Collard approached ESA of- 

ficials about possibly sharing facilities, he 

The old, basic structure of the building: the wooden construc- 

tion inside the new shell has stood for decades 


» 

encountered a problem. »For security rea- 

sons, it was not possible for all companies 

to stay inside of the ESA ground station,« 

he says. Collard decided to create some- 

thing outside of the station but directly 

linked (via a fiber optic connection). 

That something, of course, was the 

Galaxia Business Park. And from the very 

beginning, Collard says, the idea of incor- 

porating PV into the building design was 

attractive. »We were thinking: a satellite in 

space uses the energy from the sun, so why 

don’t we do the same thing?« 

One obvious reason not to do so was 

cost. Fortunately for Idelux, they were able 

to take advantage of a package of national 

and regional incentives, including green 

certificates, which are similar to feed-in tar- 

iffs, and worth EUR 0.30 ($0.44) per kWh 

for this project; they also received subsidies 

from the Wallonoia area where Galaxia is 

located, as well as tax rebates and grants. In 

total, Collard says the incentives accounted 

for 90 percent of the cost of the PV panels. 

»If it was not possible for us to receive the 

subsidies, we would not do it,« he says. 

For Philippe Samyn, designing a build- 

ing with PV and other sustainable charac- 

teristics is something he’d been prepared 

to do for decades, ever since getting his 

masters degree in civil engineering from 

the Massachusetts Institute of Technol- 

ogy (MIT) in 1971. »When I went back [to 

Europe] from MIT in 1972, I was perfectly 

skilled to make designs answering to the 

environment,« he says. »But the clients 

were not there, nobody cared.« 

Even if they did care, the cost of PV and 

other so-called green building elements 

was prohibitive, he says. »It’s nice to talk 

[about] at cocktail parties, but it’s anoth- 

er thing to put the money on the table,« 

he says. But with Idelux getting so much 

public assistance for Galaxia, cost was not 

an issue, leaving Samyn free not only to 

suggest the use of PV, but to also come up 

with a design he felt was appropriate for the 

site. This included how to incorporate the 

existing wood buildings – which Samyn 

bemoans had the charm of a supermarket 

– and to also find ways to mitigate the noise 

and pollution from the nearby E 411 high- 

way leading from Brussels to Luxemburg.

82 

Architecture 

November 2009

November 2009 

An attractive address: the Galaxia has already leased all of its 

units; there are plans to build an additional complex 


The solution to these problems came in 

the form of a big envelope-like covering, or a 

greenhouse, as many observers call it. Importantly, 

the notion of a superstructure such as 

this also afforded the possibility, even the 

necessity, of using PV. »If you decide to make 

a big envelope, that’s big money, too, and so 

I suggested we go PV and use this envelope as 

a supporting frame for PV,« says Samyn. The 

envelope also provides insulation, which reduces 

energy consumption, and the semitransparent 

modules, with their patial shadowing 

effect, help to regulate temperature 

and light inside the buildings. 

Belgian company Issol handled the planning 

and installation of the system. Issol also 

manufactured the modules together with 

another Belgian company, cell manufacturer 

Photovoltech NV. Several prototypes were 

developed for Samyn before creating the 

customized modules that fi t the architect’s 

vision. As with the entire project, which was 

conceived in 2007 and more or less constructed 

by the end of 2008, speed was essential. 

Laurent Quittre, Issol’s CEO, recounts that 

besides meeting module specifi cations, the 

biggest challenge was the pressure to complete 

the installation quickly. The system was 

built between November 2008 and early April 

2009 – an eternity for a normal 300 kW system, 

but for a project like the Galaxia, not an 

enormous amount of time. 

For a project that came together so quickly, 

and during a time of great economic diffi 

culties, the Galaxia Business Park has come 

very close to achieving its goal. As of July, 90 

percent of the offi ces at Galaxia are occupied. 

Collard says there are already plans to build 

a second business park at the same location. 

Collard also believes that the Galaxia is 

sparking a great deal of interest in the use 

of PV in architecture. Its location on the 

highway, while a challenge for the architect, 

also ensures plenty of people see it. Already, 

Collard says, a lot of people are calling him 

and asking for more information about the 

building and its design. »It’s giving the opportunity 

to other companies to think: why 

not us, why didn’t we build such a building 

and use photovoltaic panels?« Chris Warren 

ıı 

83

84 

In Practice Proposals 

The perfect proposal 

PV veteran Bill Brooks’ nine steps to finding the right system integrator 

Determining whether it makes 

sense to install a PV system, with 

all the twists and turns of federal, 

state, and local incentives, fluctu- 

ating electricity bills, and confus- 

ing metering schemes is no easy 

task. But once you finally decide 

to purchase a system, or at least 

seriously consider purchasing, or, 

begin to consider considering... 

well, before you start wringing 

your hands in frustration, here’s 

some much needed help. 

It takes time and research to com- 

parison shop and select the right 

installer. Like any other contract- 

ing job, PV system buyers only 

hurt themselves by failing to get 

at least two or three proposals. But decid- 

ing which of these proposals is best takes 

an educated consumer. The good news is 

there are resources that help buyers de- 

cide what to purchase, and from whom to 

purchase it. A couple of basic rules should 

help you determine which proposal is 

best: make sure you are clear on what your 

installer is promising to deliver, and make 

sure you know they can deliver it. 

Good advice: Bill Brooks, active in the industry for 

more than 20 years, has helpful hints for PV system- 

owners-to-be 

code. Brooks says vetting installers is the 

best way to determine whether your sys- 

tem will deliver what they say it will. The 

more knowledgeable you are about PV the 

better, he says. Still, you need to be careful: 

it should be the installer’s responsibility, 

not the customer’s, to configure system 

size properly, and ensure it is up to code. 

If you think you know more than your 

contractor, maybe you should be thinking 

about another contractor. 

The first thing any consumer should 

do is check the solar installer’s creden- 

tials. Every installer should provide a li- 

cense number from the state contractor 

licensing board. Each state has a searchnents, too. Solar modules and inverters 

(1.) Who’s on your roof? 

able online database to verify a license’s have brand reputations just like any other 

Bill Brooks is a PV consultant who has validity. If an installer fails to provide this product. And while the most expensive 

been in the industry for more than 20 number, that should be a red flag. And if components aren’t necessarily the best, 

years, helped develop consumer guides you want to be really sure, Brooks says, your installer should be able to give you 

photon-pictures.com 

/ 

for the states of California and New York, call up the state contractor board and ask a reason for the choice of one component 

Schulten 

and has advised on the national electric if there have been any complaints. It’s also over another. There are cheap components 

Rolf 

William Brooks 

recommended to look at contractor laws, 

which can vary by state. Examining the 

requirements for your state can help you 

identify whether an installer is trying to 

offer less than what is legally required. 

(2.) Full disclosure 

Offers should include as much infor- 

mation as possible about your system, 

and should begin with an energy audit, 

says Brooks. This helps consumers look 

at electricity use patterns, figure out how 

much energy they need, and therefore de- 

termines how big the system should be. 

A conscientious installer will also tell the 

customer where they can cut use through 

efficiency measures, and the system will 

be sized accordingly. In some states an en- 

ergy audit is required by law. 

When looking into the proposal’s de- 

tails, make sure the offer is complete. It’s 

impossible to compare two different pro- 

posals if all of the specifics aren’t includ- 

ed. This means all of the essential system 

parts should be listed and described in de- 

tail (panels, inverter, meter, grid connec- 

tion, mounting system, cabling, labor). 

Manufacturer, model, warranty informa- 

tion, and quantity should be listed. 

Brooks says the care put into a proposal 

is a good sign of what to expect from an 

installer going forward. A polished, com- 

plete bid, while no guarantee that the in- 

stallation will be good, can be a sign that 

an installer is thorough and thoughtful. 

This applies to the choice of compo- 

November 2009

If you think you know more than 

your contractor, maybe you should be 

thinking about another contractor. 

and there are expensive components, and 

there are reasons to buy both. 

Brooks says even well established in- 

stallers don’t always offer this much infor- 

mation, but consumers should ask. If the 

answer is price, Brooks says, »Okay, that’s a 

good reason. That’s a reason. If that’s your 

only reason, then that’s not good enough.« 

Answers that describe the installer’s expe- 

rience with the manufacturer, or present 

results of independent studies on the prod- 

ucts, are a better indication the installer 

knows what they’re doing. 

The three most important system com- 

ponents are of course the most variable: 

the panels, the inverter, and the mounting 

system. Brooks says that while cabling or 

switches are often not described in as much 

detail, this need not be a deal-breaker. But 

you should expect precise information on 

manufacturers or models for the three most 

important components, at the very least. 

(3.) Add-ins and extras 

Aside from the essential system com- 

ponents, there are plenty of extra ser- 

vices an installer may require, or opt 

to provide, depending on the site and 

the customer. These include things like 

scaffolding and additional measures for 

grounding, or overcurrent protection. A 

good installer will address these topics, 


» 

offer solutions where needed, and include 

them in the proposal as an explanation 

of extra costs. 

An important safety net for the con- 

sumer in this case, Brooks says, is the con- 

tract: »The contract should be for a fully 

operational, installed system that has 

passed both local jurisdiction and util- 

ity inspections. Period. No hidden costs.« 

So before you go digging for engineering 

technicalities, or possible problems, just 

check the contract for fine print. 

If the system needs an addition after 

the materials have been delivered, or fol- 

lowing the city’s inspection of the plans, 

the burden is on the installer to get the 

system on grid and producing the prom- 

ised energy yield at the promised price. 

Thus, it’s in the installer’s interest to be 

as specific as possible about what extras 

come with the system. 

Brooks adds another word of caution 

when it comes to the installer’s responsi-

86 

In Practice 

Is your proposal complete? Use this checklist to determine if your installer is cutting corners 

Installer Questions for the contractor’s state license board 

Contractor license number Does my installer hold a valid license? 

References Is my installer insured for workman’s compensation? 

Customer complaints Are there any complaints filed against this installer? 

Contract Questions for your installer 

Does my installer hold a contractor’s bond, to ensure I get my money back if something happens? 

How long does my state require contractors to warranty their work? 

Service warranty Does the service warranty include an up-time guarantee? 

Payment schedule Note 

Modules Questions for your installer 

Manufacturer Why do you prefer this module? 

Model What do you know about the company? 

Nominal power 

Warranty 

Manufacturer’s spec sheet 

Inverter Questions for your installer 

Manufacturer Why do you prefer this inverter? 


Nominal power and max AC/DC power Note 

Read the fine print! Make sure that the price is for a full system, fully installed and hooked up to the grid. 

Never pay so much up front that your installer would be better off walking away. 

Hold on to a 10-20 percent retainer - written in the contract - until the system is up and running. 

Warranty Most established inverter companies have online systems where you can check whether your inverter works well with 

the type and number of modules in a system. 


Mounting system Note 

Manufacturer Why do you prefer this mounting system? 


Warranty 


Cabling, fuses etc. Note 

Manufacturer The price for individual items is not an essential component of a proposal, 

as long as the contract specifies that all these components are included. 

Model 

Yield estimate Questions for your installer 

Assumed yearly irradiation Where did you get the data for your assumptions? 

Assumed system efficiency What modeling program did you use to get these results? 

Yield guarantee Note 

Savings estimate Questions for your installer 

Many installers do not offer yield guarantees. Ask why they don’t – it’s certainly not for lack of irradiation data. 

Assumed energy prices Where did you get the data for your assumptions? 

Assumed inflation rate What modeling program did you use to get these results? 

Note 

Incentives Questions for your installer 

Use a free online estimator for a »reality check« of these numbers. 

Federal incentives Is it possible the incentives could change? 

State incentives If the installer is wrong about the incentives in the quote, who pays? 

Local incentives 

Explanation of how incentives work 

Energy audit Note 

Recommended efficiency measures This should be a courtesy offered by thorough installers, but some states require it - see if your state does. 

Model of system on rooftop Note 

Layout of all panels, surface area, direction, tilt A model confirms that they’ve thought out how the system will fit on the roof - that way you know what to expect. 

Independent meter / yield tracker Note 

Included or offered as a service This is the best way to know you’re getting what you paid for. Make sure it saves yield data, even if the system (or internet) 

goes down. 

November 2009

ilities. Licensed installers should be able 

to deal with the city. If an installer asks a 

customer to take care of the permitting 

process, they may be trying to skirt the 

law – either by working without a license, 

or by avoiding warranty requirements by 

categorizing the customer as the »owner- 

builder.« Make sure you ask questions if 

an installer does this. 

(4.) Getting technical 

In a perfect world, installers make no 

technical mistakes. In the real world, they 

make mistakes all the time. And while, 

given a proper contract, it’s the installer’s 

responsibility to fix those mistakes, no 

customer wants to deal with the hassle of 

a legal battle. 

There is one resource that can help cus- 

tomers determine whether an installer is 

on target – most established inverter com- 

panies offer free software on their websites 

for checking a system. It takes just a few 

minutes to put in the proposed inverter 

and panel models and run the software. 

Thus it doesn’t hurt for a curious con- 

sumer check the proposed system design 

online. Needless to say, if the inverter’s 

software rejects the proposed system, the 

installer has some explaining to do. 

A seemingly more straightforward, 

but far more difficult question is whether 

the number of modules in the planned 

system actually fits the roof on which 

they are to be installed. While it’s hardly 

standard practice, some installers make 

models – using sketches or rooftop images 

from Google Earth – to show consumers a 

scale drawing of what the installed system 

should look like. Brooks says this should 

absolutely be done before a system is in- 

stalled, so it might as well be included in 

the proposal. And again, any smart install- 

er will do this on their own accord – the 

more the installer has in writing, the less 

leverage the consumer has to complain, or 

ask for changes. 

(5.) Warranties 

There are three basic safety nets to 

look for when reviewing proposals: man- 

ufacturer warranties, service warranties, 

and damage or theft insurance. The last 

The contract should be for a fully 

operational, installed system that has 

passed both local jurisdiction and utility 

inspections. Period. No hidden costs. 

of these, in almost every case, is tied to 

homeowner’s insurance. In this case, it 

is the customer’s responsibility to ensure 

your homeowner’s insurance covers storm 

damage, theft, fire, or any other casualty. 

The other two warranties are the installer’s 

responsibility. 

A good installer, Brooks says, will make 

it easy for you. Proposals should include 

details on warranty duration, options for 

extension, and whether this warranty in- 

cludes repair or a system availability guar- 

antee for each component. This way, should 

something go wrong, there is no confusion 

about who should address the problem. 


» 

Then, you have the service guarantee 

– and this can be trickier than it sounds. 

Start by checking the law in your state. 

Most states have regulations about how 

long the installer is responsible for the 

system after installation, that is to en- 

sure that the system is free of defects of 

workmanship. Once that period expires, 

installers offer service packages – usually 

a 5-year guarantee followed by an option 

for yearly renewal. 

One important thing to check for 

in this service package, says Brooks, is 

whether it comes with a guarantee of sys- 

tem availability. If the inverter fails, and 

the installer doesn’t come to replace it for 

an entire month, make sure you know 

who is to compensate you for lost yield. 

(6.) Getting what you pay for 

One item that really should be stan- 

dard, says Brooks, is a guarantee that the 

system will produce within the estimated 

yearly yield in kWh. This is a simple way 

to formulate what can be a complicated 

guarantee structure, since it encompasses 

component failures as well as miscalcula- 

tions on the part of the installer. 

Many installers don’t offer this option, 

rather they simply tell their customers that 

irradiation is too difficult to predict. »That 

is the most wrong, fallacious argument that 

there is, and it shows that they fundamen- 

tally do not understand solar energy,« says 

Brooks. »Of all the things on the planet 


88 

In Practice 

that are predictable, our solar resource is consumers can input some basic infor- 

the most predictable thing we’ve got.« The mation about their system and get back 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory an estimate, complete with irradiation 

(NREL) has thirty years of irradiation sta- estimates, incentives, and savings data. 

tistics for the entire U.S., and you can check These can help you check whether your 

the local averages against your installer’s as- installer is way off target. 

sumptions. But if an installer won’t guaran- Scott Cronk, who runs Solar-estimate. 

tee system yield within 5 to 10 percent of org – one site that offers an online solar 

the estimated yield for your area’s irradia- estimator for the entire U.S. – says that 

tion levels, it has nothing to do with the customer feedback on the installer re- 

amount of sun at your location. 

Once you have all your expectations in 

order, Brooks recommends obtaining an 

independent meter that measures and records 

you’re your system’s energy yield. Inverters 

can malfunction, taking this data 

with them, and even paid online monitoring 

systems can fail sometimes. Installing 

a meter that measures and stored system 

output, will help you know if you’re getting 

what you were promised. 

views on his site is mainly pretty positive. 

(7.) Money matters 

He says that when problems do arise, they 

often result from confusion about money. 

Most installers, and especially the es- Either there is a misunderstanding about 

tablished ones, will include fi nancial in- the way incentives work, or a supply 

formation in their proposals. Figures such chain issue on the installer’s side means 

as cash-fl ow analysis, levelized cost of the customer has to pay for a system that 

electricity, payback time, and savings esti- hasn’t been installed yet. Ideally, installmates 

can be informative, but don’t forget ers should educate their customers about 

their source: the installer. It’s important incentives, but learning on your own is 

to confi rm these fi gures and decide for a good precaution. The online Database 

yourself if the investment makes sense for of State Incentives for Renewables & Ef- 

you. Keep in mind, every forward-looking fi ciencies (DSIRE), run by the North Car- 

fi nancial analysis includes assumptions olina Solar Center, is an excellent, up-to 

– things like infl ation and estimated in- date resource on federal, state, and local 

creases in energy bills. Find out what your incentives – and how they work. 

installer’s assumptions are, and where 

they got them, says Brooks, and then run (8.) Arranging the drop 

them through a »reality check.« 

Once you’ve decided which proposal 

There are several tools online where best meets your needs, there is one thing 

that absolutely 

Reality check! Plug in your system details online 

for a free evaluation at: 

must be defi ned in 

the contract, says 

Free estimate web sites 

Brooks: how much 

www.pvcalc.com 

you have to pay, 

www.solar-estimate.org 

and when. »It’s true 

www.fi ndsolar.com/index.php?page=rightforme 

of all contracting,« 

www.consumerenergycenter.org/renewables/estimator/index.html (California only) Brooks adds, »as a 

nyserda.cleanpowerestimator.com/nyserda.htm (New York only) 

www.pvwatts.org (for advanced users) 

consumer you don’t 

want to get yourself 

Company-hosted web sites (powered by Clean Power Research) 

in a position where 

www.sunwize.com/calculator/solar-system-calculator.php 

it’s more advanta- 

www.kyocerasolar.com/products/pv_calculator.html 

geous for the in- 

ıı 

staller to walk.« In other words, until the 

system is up and running, it’s a good idea to 

hold on to enough of the money to incentivize 

the installer to stay around. Brooks 

says that a customer should expect to pay 

a down payment, or »earnest money,« of 

about 5 percent, or $1000, whichever is 

larger, when signing the contract. Around 

50 percent should be paid on delivery of 

the equipment, he says, and the customer 

should always hold on to at least 10 percent 

One thing that really should be 

standard is a guarantee that the 

system will produce within the 

estimated yearly yield in kWh. 

until the system is connected to the grid. 

Absolutely never pay the full amount before 

the system is up and running. »That’s 

pretty much guaranteeing that you’ll never 

get it turned on,« says Brooks. 

(9.) After the fact 

Beyond money, one of the biggest 

problems consumers complain about in 

their online reviews, says Cronk, is aftersales 

support. And this takes us back to 

the fundamental need to review your proposals 

carefully. Make sure your installer 

is reputable before you sign, do your research, 

and ask questions. »I see all too often 

that consumers are lazy,« says Brooks, 

who insists that a customer that only gets 

one bid is testing fate. 

And, indeed, there are a number of 

readily accessible resources that can help 

you get the right bid, with an installer 

that you can trust will not to walk away 

after the contract is signed. Go Solar California’s 

website is one source where you’ll 

fi nd everything from PV technology basics 

to a user handbook for purchasing a 

PV system. The National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory’s (NREL) website also offers 

great resources and links. It may seem like 

a lot to learn, but, as with any long-term 

investment, doing your homework will 

pay off in the end. Melissa Bosworth 

November 2009

November 2009 89

90 

In Practice 

System: 

accomplished 

The Elkus’ PV system started as a challenge 

and ended in a safety code nightmare 

Rick Elkus is self-admittedly attract- 

ed to projects that tend to increase in 

scale from the initial plan. Take, for 

instance, the 3,000 gallon fish tank in 

his backyard. But when the Elkus’s 

decided to get a PV system installed, 

the scope of the project went far 

beyond anything they could have 

imagined. And far beyond the small 

town in which they live. 

Poway is a small, wealthy southern 

Californian city, just north of San Diego. 

It’s a city of hot, dry summers, where 

every few years a wildfire tears through 

the surrounding brush, sending clouds of 

deep gray smoke and ash into the air, and 

threatening the houses in its sprawling 

suburban neighborhoods. Daytime sum- 

mer temperatures in Poway average about 

90° Fahrenheit, and during a drought sea- 

son dry offshore winds can turn the city 

into a field of kindling. 

Oddly enough, it’s also the home of 

Rick Elkus, an amateur fly fisherman 

and CFO of a small San Diego company, 

who has built a backyard pond to breed, 

and eventually help repopulate, the Cali- 

fornia golden trout. The state freshwater 

fish has been gradually fished and mis- 

managed out of its habitat since the gold- 

mining days. Native to snowmelts from 

the High Sierra mountains, it can survive 

My PV system 

only in temperatures between 33 and 55° 

Fahrenheit. In Poway’s climate, Elkus con- 

sumes more than 2,000 kWh of electric- 

ity each month to cool his pond. And the 

electricity supply must be stable, even if 

nearby fires knock out the grid. »I’ve got 

some needs from a reliability standpoint,« 

Elkus says. »If the fish get warm, they die.« 

Combined with electricity to air condition 

the family’s wide ranch-style house, the 

Elkus’ consume close to 200 kWh a day 

– a sum that, under the San Diego Gas & 

Electric (SDG&E) tiered fee structure, costs 

them nearly $2,000 a month. 

That fits the scale of Elkus’ penchant 

for big projects. »The inspiration started 

off as this childhood dream,« Elkus says, 

»which as usual, as you get older, expands 

into this ridiculous fantasy that’s way out 

of control.« It took him five years to build 

and test the pond, which he built by hand, 

before he was able to put in the ten golden 

trout that are now visible through a thick 

glass window – made by the same com- 

pany that produces glass for Sea World in 

San Diego. He says the fish have almost 

doubled in size in the three years he’s had 

them. In the bottom of the pond there is 

a gravel pit, where the fish can spawn, and 

a smaller pool above is reserved for hatch- 

lings, when they arrive. 

On the side of Elkus’ house, beside a 

pathway that leads to the trout pond, is 

the system that keeps it running. Yellow, 

Rick Elkus spent five months negotiating with the 

inspector to get his system built. His 70 panel, 14 

kW system has been up and running since July. 

November 2009



» 

white, and black pipes run from a big, 

ugly, humming gray box into the ground 

and towards the pool. »That’s the chiller,« 

Elkus says, »when that little switch goes 

‘click’ two little households just popped 

on the grid at full force.« 

That’s why Elkus installed a 14 kW PV 

system with 70 Sanyo modules at 200 W 

each. The system, which is tucked into the 

valleys of Elkus’ multi-peak tile roof, was 

built to offset the costs of the trout pond, 

as well as to protect it from outages. But 

building the system turned out to be al- 

most an even bigger project than the pond 

itself. It took close to a year after Elkus de- 

cided to go solar to get a system on the 

roof. For five of those months, Elkus was 

trapped in an exhaustive controversy be- 

tween his installer, the module manufac- 

turer, the inverter company, the National 

Fire Protection Agency, a principal engi- 

neer at Underwriter’s Laboratories, the 

city inspectors and their subcontractors, 

all of which were bickering over whether 

the system Elkus proposed was safe. At 

some point, it became clear that the con- 

versation had gone beyond the question 

of the system’s design. »It had to do with 

intercommunication, trust, something,« 

says Elkus. »But it had nothing to do with 

electrical engineering.« And he’s right; it 

had to do with code. 

The impossible bid 

The view from Elkus’ roof reveals an 

expanse of red ceramic tile roofs, much 

like his own. Aside from the black mats 

for the water heating system on one neigh- 

bor’s house, the rest of the rooftops are 

clean. His PV system is the only one in 

the neighborhood. Many hesitate, Elkus 

says, because it’s difficult to install a PV 

system on a tile roof. 

Beyond that, there are aesthetic con- 

cerns. Elkus’ wife, Patty, didn’t want any 

panels facing the street. As part of a gen- 

eral rule for modifications to the home, 

she wanted to keep it comfortable and easy 

on the eyes. »She’s fairly traditional,« says 

Elkus. »She’s, you know – I don’t know 

what you would say – she’s fairly normal 

in terms of how she wants things...and her 

aesthetic is very keen.« Patty puts it more

In Practice 

bluntly: »We have this beautiful home and 

I don’t want to see any big, black, ugly 

things on the roof.« 

92 

Plus, the Elkus family couldn’t draw 

much inspiration from their neighbors. 

They don’t have any immediate neighbors 

with PV systems, and they don’t know of 

anyone else in town with one either. That 

may change pretty shortly – the city of Po- 

way approved over 100 PV permits in the 

first 10 months of 2009. 

Elkus says a big part of the final decision 

to go solar was the incentives. In 2009, the 

government removed the $2,000 cap on 

the federal tax credit Elkus could receive 

for his system, meaning Elkus could now 

receive the full 30 percent credit. Com- 

bined with a $1.88 per W state rebate for 

SDG&E customers, the system cost just 

half of its original price. Although it still 

cost over $60,000 after rebates (pre-rebate 

price $114,000), Elkus realized quickly that 

the payback time would be spectacular. 

But Elkus was interested in a PV sys- 

tem solely as a long-term investment, he 

never would have sought out quotes for 

such a large system. He spoke with sever- 

al installers, most of whom suggested he 

downsize his system. But Elkus, who had 

reviewed his energy bills since putting in 

the trout pond, would not accept a bid for 

a system if it didn’t cover 100 percent of 

his peak load. 

In most cases, the installers would have 

been right. Usually, homeowners looking 

to install a PV system in SDG&E territory 

don’t want systems that produce more 

energy than the household can consume. 

Otherwise, it’s like giving free electricity 

to the utility company. Elkus’ main con- 

cern was his fish. With Poway’s climate, it’s 

likely that wildfires will force the utility to 

shut off the grid for safety’s sake every few 

years. And while this problem could theo- 

retically be solved with a generator, and a 

store of propane, PV was the safer bet. In 

the end, Elkus chose the option of a reli- 

able off-grid system, even in the worst-case 

scenario. His worst case scenario was four 

weeks with no grid power, and no access 

to fuel for a generator. During the most 

recent wildfires, Elkus says, »we lost pow- 

er for a couple days.« »The issue became 

Elkus‘ installer, Clary Solar, used a Google Maps image to recreate his rooftop, and simulate where the panels would go. 

About this installation 

Investment Cost 

Initial cost $114,660.00 

Less CA Rebate $1.88/W AC -$23,345.00 

Federal ITC -$27,395.00 

$63,920.00 

Energy Bill Net kWh/day Change Total Bill 

Before installation (June - July) 167.6 

Month 1 (July - August) 116.2 -30.7% $1,038.49 

Month 2 (August - September) 106.6 -8.30% $582.82 

Nominal Power Modules 

14 kW DC 70 Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd. HIP-200BA19 

12.4 kW AC 

Racking Inverters 

UniRac Enphase Energy M200-32-240-S02 

Connected to Grid Estimated Annual Production 

Juli 2009 22,795 kWh/year 

Installer Warranty 

10 years from date of installation on all workmanship and materials supplied by Clary Solar 

what was the right way to protect myself.« 

Then there was the shape of his roof. 

The ranch-style design, which Elkus com- 

missioned and helped build in another of 

his do-it-yourself projects 12 years ago, 

has several peaks and valleys. Its sur- 

faces points in all directions. Then came 

Patty’s stipulation that the PV system 

could not be visible from street level. The 

complexity confounded installers: how 

could they install a 14 kW system – three 

households’ worth of PV panels – on an 

uneven tile roof, and keep it unobtrusive. 

Elkus reports that his experience with 

most installers was disappointing. »Most 

of the people I talked to didn’t under- 

stand anything about these systems ex- 

cept ‘plug the red wire into the red hole,’« 

he says. »Most of the questions I had they 

had no clue what I was talking about, or 

how to answer them.« 

Puzzle solved 

Eventually Elkus found an installer 

that, in his opinion, took as much interest 

in solving the puzzle as he did. Clary So- 

November 2009 

Clary Solar

lar, a small installer based in 

San Diego, took the job with 

gusto. Junaid Qazi, the proj- 

ect’s lead installer, says this 

was one of the most challeng- 

ing installations on which he 

has ever worked. 

The sales team at Clary 

eventually came back with a 

system design that satisfied all 

of Elkus’ demands. It consist- 

ed of seven groups of modules 

on different areas of the roof, 

all pointing in slightly differ- 

ent directions – some slightly 

to the east, and others to the 

west. The system uses micro- 

inverters, so string size is ir- 

relevant, and the panels can face in as 

many different directions as desired. The 

3D model Clary sent Elkus used a Google 

Maps image of his rooftop to simulate the 

system and what it would look like from 

the street. The house looked no different 

than before, and won Patty’s approval. Or 

as Elkus puts it, »it passed the test.« 

Before Elkus made his decision, Clary 

sent him four proposals describing en- 

ergy savings. They laid out payback sce- 

narios for a 70-panel system with and 

without the chiller, and with or without 

SDG&E’s new option for smart-meter- 

ing, which would allow varying rates 

depending on the utility company’s 

peak hours. The most appealing solu- 

tion involved a smart meter. According 

to Clary’s estimate, Elkus’ internal rate 

of return over 25 years would be 34.5%. 

At that rate, the system would be paid 

off in 6.3 years. 

Once Elkus had chosen his system, 

Clary knew the roofing side of the proj- 

ect would be tricky, but he figured the 

electrical engineering aspects would be 

routine. The next few steps should have 

been simple: an city inspector would re- 

view the plan, they would spend a week 

or two building, and then the city and 

the utility would conduct final inspec- 

tions. They submitted their plans in 

mid-January. Inspections in Poway tend 

to take just a couple of weeks, usually, so 

Clary proceeded to order materials. 

Bureaucratic mayhem 

The city’s initial response to the ap- 

plication arrived shortly. The inspector 

said the project plan was not in compli- 

ance with UL requirements, since Clary 

was using Sanyo modules with Enphase 

microinverters. The note read: »modules 

require fuse protection for listing verifica- 

tion by NRTL... Where is this fuse protec- 

tion provided?« Junaid Qazi, an installer 

at Clary who was working with Enphase 

microinverters for the first time, contacted 

the Enphase for clarification. 

The city of Poway, as it turned out, was 

using a subcontractor at EsGil Corpora- 

tion, a San Diego-based building safety 

consultancy that reviews plans in numer- 

ous San Diego County municipalities. 

When Enphase heard that a municipal- 

ity in the San Diego area might be turn- 

ing down proposals for systems with their 

technology, they got involved immediate- 

ly. »(EsGil) reviews plans for a lot of cities,« 

says Jeff Laughy, an applications engineer 

at Enphase involved in the debacle. »San 

Diego and the surrounding area is too big 

of a market to not be allowed to install 

your equipment,« says Laughy. Still, the 

city wasn’t satisfied with a response from 

the manufacturer alone. They needed 

something more official. 

»That was an ordeal,« says Laughy, who 

knows the section of UL code, 690-51, 

be heart. Next, Enphase contacted John 

Wiles, a code expert at Sandia National 

think it was forged.’« The city wanted to 

speak with someone in person who could 

verify the plan’s compliance with Nation- 

al Electric Code. 

The inspector was calling into ques- 

tion UL testing standards, specifically the 

organization’s use of CSA International, 

another testing agency, to help review 

products for listing, says Qazi. »They 

were questioning UL’s way of doing it.« 

During the five months that Elkus and 

Clary spent negotiating with the City of 

Poway and EsGil, says Qazi, the process 

repeated itself several times. The first in- 

spector »had this set of objections, and we 

worked through each one of them, and we 

got him the documents he needed,« says 

Qazi. The rejection letter cited NEC code 

690-51, and called for overcurrent protec- 

tion to be added to each module, since En- 

phase inverters lack fuses. Retrofitting the 

system to meet this code would require the 

installer to cut the cable for each module 

– 70 of them in all – and inserting a fuse. 

»Those looked like reasonable objections at 

the beginning,« says Qazi, »but once you 

go to the waivers and you look at all the ad- 

dendums that UL had issued specifically, 

it was really clear that they did not require 

it.« As the debate escalated, the conversa- 

tion moved into increasingly higher levels 

of the bureaucracy. 

The SDG&E smart meter: Elkus says the 

smart meter which adjusts electricity 

rates based on peak and off-peak hours 

has helped save money on his bills. 

»But every time that a new person 

would get involved the whole story would 

start again.« Items they have already dis- 


Melissa Bosworth / photon-pictures.com 

» 

Labs, and Tim Zgonena, Princi- 

pal Engineer in Distributed En- 

ergy Resources Equipment and 

Systems with Underwriter’s 

Laboratories, for back up. Both 

agencies sent responses to the 

city attesting to the safety of 

Enphase inverters when used 

with Sanyo modules. 

»They wouldn’t take that 

document as well,« says Qazi. 

»In fact they said ‘this docu- 

ment would be fine, we just

Elkus’ golden trout pond is the largest consumer of electricity in their household – nearly 2,500 kWh a month – and it’s the main reason they went solar. 

cussed would be brought up again. It was 

»like starting from zero,« says Qazi. »After 

a little while we started keeping a record 

of it.« On March 18, Enphase sent a docu- 

ment to Qazi and the city inspectors pre- 

senting a timeline of their correspondence 

with EsGil, and a summary of arguments 

for why the installation should proceed as 

planned. Alas, there was no end in sight. 

94 

»At one point we said, OK it’s costing 

us about $1,500 every month just to hold 

the equipment...we’ll cut every wire and 

put a fuse in each one,« says Qazi. It would 

have cost the company $5,000 to install 

the fuses, says Qazi. But that seemed pal- 

try when one considered the company’s 

debt for the $100,000 worth of PV equip- 

ment sitting in its warehouse. But Elkus, 

who as a result of his disagreement with 

the city had learned a great deal about PV 

systems, wouldn’t let them cave. »Rick’s 

whole point was ›look, you know you’re 

just adding more points of failure‹« to the 

system, says Qazi. 

Clary and Elkus had opened a dialogue 

with the inspector at EsGil, worked with his 

boss, and then gone to a city council meet- 

ing to speak with the inspector in person, 

each time explaining the same story. At a 

certain point it was out of their hands. 

»It was like this unending nightmare,« 

says Qazi. »The guys at EsGil, I have never 

dealt with bigger egos in my whole life.« By 

the time Elkus’ system was finally approved, 

Clary had already had time to install three 

other, similar projects in the San Diego area. 

The code is king 

Eric Jensen, the EsGil inspector who 

originally rejected Elkus’ plans, defends 

the position he took throughout the 

disagreement. He claims that there was 

nothing that could have been done to 

advance Elkus’ case. Jensen has reviewed 

PV plans for more than 20 years, and says 

that compliance with module overcur- 

rent ratings is one of the most important 

items he checks. »One of the UL specifica- 

tion criteria is that they test that module 

under load at a certain fuse rating that the 

manufacturer has given them,« he says. 

»As soon as they mark a module with a 

maximum overcurrent device listing, 

that’s the code, and that’s the overcurrent 

protection that has to be provided.« 

Jensen insists that he wasn’t passing 

judgment on whether the system was 

safe or not, but rather he simply was not 

comfortable permitting an installation 

that didn’t meet explicitly code require- 

ments. No reassurance from the manu- 

facturers, or even testing organizations, 

would have changed that. Jensen admit 

that the real problem is that UL code has 

fallen behind technological advances. He 

was waiting for word that NEC code would 

be updated to account for this loophole. 

Eventually, Jensen says, Mark Earley, Chief 

Engineer at the National Fire Protection 

Agency (NFPA) informed him that lan- 

guage would soon be added to the code 

that would specify that no fuses would be 

required in cases like Elkus. Jensen says 

he’s never seen a plan review escalate to 

such high levels to resolve a dispute. Since 

then, he’s approved many similar plans 

that have crossed his desk. 

And the winner is... 

On May 20, EsGil and the city officially 

approved Elkus’ installation. By July it was 

fully installed and connected to the grid. 

For Elkus and Clary, it was a triumph. »I 

think they were probably more proud of 

this installation than of any other instal- 

lation, not because there’s anything that 

unusual about it, but because of the perse- 

verance,« says Elkus. While frustrated with 

the lengthy ordeal, he says he understands 

the inspector’s motivation. They have to 

Rolf Schulten / photon-pictures.com (2) 

November 2009

In Practice ıı 

keep people safe, says Elkus, and when 

they say no, it’s usually for good reason. 

Still, that didn’t mean he wasn’t going to 

keep pushing until he got his PV system. 

»When I see something, I get interested 

in it, usually for six or seven different rea- 

sons, and I’ll push for it,« he says. »If some- 

one says no along the way, then it’s almost 

guaranteed I’m going to keep going.« In 

this case, luckily, he happened to have work 

with others with a vested interest in seeing 

his system installed. Elkus feels justice has 

been served: »like in a court of law... oppos- 

ing sides bring their best efforts until the 

truth eventually comes forward.« 

The big payoff 

Now that the Elkus family finally has 

its PV system, its latest project is to reduce 

energy consumption as much as possible. 

For Elkus, who, beyond his fish pond, 

has a fascination for complex systems, 

it’s become a game of cutting electricity 

use, while maneuvering the smart meter 

to reduce costs. He’s started cooling the 

trout pond to 49° at night, and letting it 

slowly warm to 55° over the course of the 

day, which means the energy he uses to 

cool the pond is cheaper, off-peak hour 

electricity. The family is also making an 

effort to perform power-intense activi- 

ties, like running the washer and dryer, 

in the evening rather than during the 

day. The air-conditioning is now set to 

engage earlier, so it can have a head start 

cooling the house during the cheapest 

hours. Their electricity bills have fallen 

from a jaw-dropping $2,000 a month to 

a less outrageous $500. 

»We’re still lighting the house as 

much as we ever did, keeping it about 

the same temperature as we ever did, 

and the trout are about the same tem- 

perature as they ever were, and I think 

I’ve dropped my consumption by half,« 

says Elkus, »Or damn near close to it.« 

He says it’s difficult to estimate the exact 

payoff of the PV system since the family 

altered their energy consumption. All he 

knows is that they’re saving a whole lot 

of money. 

They’ve also made adjustments to in- 

crease their house’s efficiency, not just 

lower costs. Some adjustments have been 

harder to accept than others. »It took 

me a while to understand,« says Patty, 

describing her family’s lifestyle adjust- 

ments. »Some of these fluorescent lights 

it takes a while for them to literally – 

you know – warm up and kind of glow. 

And so you’re walking into a bathroom 

that’s really dim, and then it’s like one 

thousand one, one thousand two...are 

my eyes playing tricks?« She says she’s 

gotten used to it, and agrees with the rea- 

soning behind installing fluorescents, as 

well as her husband’s decision to retrofit 

the house with less »user-friendly« ther- 

mostats over the summer. The new ther- 

Tricky tile: The installers at Clary Solar say tile 

roofs like the Elkus’ are the trickiest surfaces for 

mounting PV. 

mostats prevent Elkus’ two daughters, 

who were home from college at the time, 

from cranking up the air conditioning at 

whim during peak hours. 

And while Patty didn’t get involved in 

the permitting fiasco, she’s pleased with 

the outcome, and not only because of the 

energy savings. Patty hopes that their 

battle to build a PV system will make the 

process easier for others. »If you can fig- 

ure out what the boondoggle is, and then 

streamline it, then you just standardize 

it across the board, and you know that’s 

the way you’re going to get other hom- 

eowners to kind of embrace it,« she says. 

After all, the Elkus family’s energy use is 

higher than most of their neighbors, but 

running the air conditioning all sum- 

mer in a big house is common practice 

in this town. In fact, Elkus suspects that 

his neighbor across the street, who pays 

a similarly high electricity bill, might be 

considering buying a PV system soon. 

Down in Elkus’ backyard, the golden 

trout project is thriving. Elkus explains 

that the PV system is almost big enough 

to support the fish without a backup. The 

next step is to add an SMA Sunny Island, 

a device that can simulate the grid, al- 

lowing the system to keep running even 

when the grid shuts down. »My system 

could continue to quietly run all by it- 

self, forever,« says Elkus. Except in the 

case of a fire, of course, but he figures 

even if a fire did start taking out pan- 

els, he could lose about half of them and 

still maintain the fish habitat with the 

PV system. »Obviously at some point it 

will die too,« Elkus says, »but I figured 

at that point everybody’s dead, so what- 

ever. That’s that.« 

In the meantime, Elkus has built a 

seating area beside his aquarium, where 

a hidden speaker plays a recorded loop 

of the ambient sounds from the stream 

where he and his two daughters fished 

for golden trout three years ago. With a 

silent PV system running the pond, and 

the sound of birds chirping and burbling 

water, the fish should feel at home. Elkus 

feels quite at home too: »I could sit here 

forever,« he says. That is, until the next 

project comes along. Melissa Bosworth 

November 2009 95

Test Laboratory 

A couple of years ago, PHOTON Europe GmbH decided to build its own test lab, resulting in the creation of PHOTON laboratory, located at the 

company’s headquarters in Aachen, Germany. The lab was established as a means to perform independent evaluations of inverters and modules. 

PHOTON’s module test 2008 

Standardized monthly output in kWh/kW and monthly irradiation total (module level) in kWh/m² 

200 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

96 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Irradiation total in kWh/m 2 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Solar modules: Results of PHOTON’s output measurements 2008 

Manufacturer Module type Cell type Country of origin Output in kWh/kW* Difference from Winner 

Solarworld SW 210 poly poly Germany 1,063 Winner 

Photowatt PW 1650 mono France 1,060 0.3 % 

First Solar FS-265 CdTe USA 1,054 0.8 % 

Evergreen ES-180-RL** ribbon Germany 1,038 2.3 % 

Shell SQ 150-C** mono Portugal 1,029 3.2 % 

Evergreen EC-120** ribbon USA 1,027 3.4 % 

Shell PowerMax Eclipse 80C** CIS USA 1,024 3.7 % 

BP Solar BP 7185 S** mono Spain, India 1,016 4.4 % 

Kyocera KC170GT-2** poly Japan 999 6.0 % 

CSI CS6A-170 poly China 997 6.2 % 

Isofoton I-110/24** mono Spain 994 6.5 % 

Solar-Fabrik SF 145A** EFG Germany 994 6.5 % 

Sunways MHH plus 190** poly Germany 992 6.7 % 

Solarfun SF160 M5-24 mono China 992 6.7 % 

Schott Solar ASE 300 DG FT** EFG USA 990 6.9 % 

Sharp NT-R5E3E mono Japan 961 9.6 % 

* standardized to STC performance rating, rounded to full kWh values 

** not manufactured anymore 

New in the module test lab 

Manufacturer Module type Cell type Country of origin Testing start 

Isofoton IS 170-24 mono Spain July 2009 

Kioto Photovoltaics KPV 210 PE, poly poly Austria July 2009 

NexPower Technology NT-125AX µc-Si/a-Si Taiwan July 2009 

S-ENERGY SM-220PA8 poly South Korea July 2009 

Siliken SLK60P6L poly Spain July 2009 

SR-Solartech Deutschland SRM-180D-72-GE-IS125 mono China October 2009 

PV Power Technologies PVQ 3 poly India October 2009 

Mage Solar 225/6PJ poly China October 2009 

Winergy Solar WSP-230 P6 poly Taiwan October 2009 

Solar-Fabrik - SF 145A 

Sunways - MHH plus 190 

BP - BP 7185 S 

Sharp - NT-R5E3E 

Kyocera - KC170GT-2 

Shell - SQ 150-C 

Isofoton - I-110/24 

Photowatt - PW 1650 

Solarworld - SW 210 poly 

Schott Solar - ASE 300 DG FT 

Evergreen - ES-180-RL 

CSI - CS6A-170 

Evergreen - EC-120 

Shell - PowerMax Eclipse 80C 

First Solar - FS-265 

Solarfun - SF160 M5-24 

November 2009

Statistics 

Installed PV capacity in the USA 

MW DC 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

Annual installed capacity 

Total installed capacity 

76 91 

14 15 

299 

232 

184 

107 128 

152 

16 21 24 32 48 67 

94 108 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

393 

501 

Notes: data includes rounding; source: International Energy Agency, PHOTON 

149 

650 

210 

860 

1,216 

356 

The Un-United Solar States of USA 

(2008 PV capacity) 


(CA) 

(OR) 

(AK) 

(WA) 

(NV) 

(ID) 

(UT) 

(AZ) 

(MT) 

(WY) 

(HI) 

(CO) 

(NM) 

(ND) 

(VT) 

(NH) 

(SD) 

(MN) 

(WI) 

(MI) 

(NY) 

(MA) 

(RI) 

(CT) 

(NE) 

(IA) 

(IL) (IN) 

(PA) 

(OH) 

(WV) (VA) 

(NJ) 

(DE) 

(MD) 

(KS) (MO) 

(KY) 

(NC) 

(TN) 

(OK) 

(AR) 

(SC) 

(MS) 

(AL) 

(GA) 

(TX) 

(LA) 

> 100 MW 

21 to 100 MW 

6 to 20 MW 

1 to 5 MW 

500 to 900 kW 

< 500 kW 

Notes: 1 all data in DC MW, includes rounding and estimates for small utilities; 

source: PHOTON, Larry Sherwood, Interstate Renewable Energy Council, 

Sherwood Associates 

(FL) 

(ME) 

Industry Industry Registry Classifieds Job Opportunities Ask the Editors Internships Education Education & Training Events Statistics Test Tes Lab

Events 

From system inspection to international conventions – this is where you’ll fi nd a list of the most important PV events to take place 

in coming months 

November 

November 1, 2009 

Tucson Innovative Home Tour 

and Tucson Solar Tour 

Tucson, Arizona 

14 th Annual Tucson Innovative Home Tour, 

Tucson Solar Tour, and Next Generation 

Home Seminar. See over 20 recognized solar 

homes, speak with owners, designers 

and builders in this community non-profi t, 

non-commercial sharing of the latest practical 

and cost-effective innovations. 

Solar Institute and Community Alliance 

Paul Huddy 

phone 520-881-4772 

solarinstitute@aol.com 

www.solarinstitute.org 

November 1-2, 2009 

Southwest Florida Green Futures Expo 

and Energy Options Conference 

Punta Gorda, Florida 

Charlotte County Building Construction 

Services, in conjunction with the Economic 

Development Offi ce, is featuring this expo 

and conference for the fi rst time. The expo 

is designed to highlight the products and 

services that will benefi t consumers and 

businesses for a future of green living. 

Building Construction Services 

Ruth Buchanan 

phone 941-743-5372, fax 941-743-1213 

ruth.buchanan@charlottefl .com 

www.charlottecountyfl .com 


Southern Colorado Sustainability 

Conference 

Colorado Springs, Colorado 

The Southern Colorado Sustainability Conference 

aims to promote awareness of and education 

about sustainable living. A wide range of 

exhibitors will showcase their products, in addition 

to workshops, sessions and presentations. 

Catamount Institute 

Jan Eitel 

phone 719-471-0910 ext. 107 

eitel@catamouninstitute.org 

www.ppsbn.org 


Industry Growth Forum 

Denver, Colorado 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s 

22 nd Industry Growth Forum will highlight 

the investment and fi nancing strategies 

that are driving the commercialization of 

quality renewable energy technologies. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL) 

Lawrence Murphy 

phone 303-275-3050, fax 384-6790 

lawrence.murphy@nrel.gov 

www.nrel.gov 


Community Forum on Clean Energy 

Kirksville, Missouri 

Attendees will learn to cut energy costs by 

making effi ciency updates, discuss fi nan- 

cial incentives for solar energy, and learn 

about energy effi ciency policies that Missouri 

legislators should enact to help you 

lower your energy bills. 

Missouri Coalition for the Environment 

Erin Noble 

phone 314-727-0600, fax 727-1665 

moenviron@moenviron.org 

www.moenviron.org 


World Energy Engineering Congress 

Washington D.C. 

This event features a large, multi-track conference 

agenda, a full line-up of seminars on 

a variety of current topics, and a comprehensive 

exposition of the market’s most promising 

new technologies, with special free technology 

workshops held in the exhibit hall. 

Association of Energy Engineers 

Ted Kurklis 

phone 707-271-7869, fax 271-7981 

ted@aeecenter.org 

www.aeecenter.org 


Solar & Wind in the Classroom 

Wynantskill, New York 

This workshop introduces two educational 

programs, “A Solar Kit for the Classroom” 

and “Wind Wisdom”. The event is a free 

professional development dual workshop 

on solar and wind energy for formal and informal 

educators. 

Northeast Sustainable Energy Association 

Arianna Grindrod 

phone 413-774-6051, fax 774-6053 

agrindrod@nesea.org 

www.nesea.org 


Opportunity Green Business Conference 

Los Angeles, California 

This event confronts the challenge of changing 

common business practices. Bringing together 

the brightest innovators and leaders 

in the growing green economy, this conference 

provides a platform to forge new strategic 

partnerships, and explore the latest in 

sustainable strategies and best practices. 

Opportunity Green 

Karen Solomon 

phone 310-441-0830, fax 310-943-0482 

karen@opportunitygreen.com 

www.opportunitygreen.com 


Texas Renewables 2009 

Austin, Texas 

Texas Renewables Conference celebrates 

its 25 th year. Join them by attending presentations, 

exhibitions, and participating 

in discussions about the current state 

and the future of renewable energy in the 

state of Texas. 

Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association 

(TREIA) 

Kathryn Houser 

phone 512-436-8239, fax 345-6831 

khouser@treia.org 

www.treia.org 

Legend: Public exhibition Lectures, events, conferences Conventions and trade fairs Others 

A neighbourhood in New Orleans 

on August 29, 2005 


The Green Rebuilding of 

New Orleans Conference 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

Even today, more than four years after 

Hurricane Katrina decimated New 

Orleans, large swaths of the Big Easy 

remain in disrepair. How to reconstruct 

the city in a sustainable way, 

while preserving the unique character 

of New Orleans, is the topic for 

this inaugural event. Besides presentations 

by architects, green job experts, 

and urban agriculturalists, Rebecca 

Solnit, author of “A Paradise 

Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities 

that Arise in Disaster,” will 

speak. The event will also include a 

bus tour of green rebuilding projects 

around New Orleans. 

Louisiana Solar Energy Society 

Rebecca Lunceford 

info@lses.org 

www.lses.org 


Colorado Brownfi elds Conference: 

Revitalization in the New Economy 

Westminster, Colorado 

This conference will emphasize emerging 

opportunities and market approaches 

for the redevelopment of former brownfi 

eld sites. Topics to be addressed include: 

federal initiatives for sustainable communities, 

sustainable Colorado, and economic 

and real estate market dynamics. 

Colorado Brownfi elds Foundation 

Kirsten Grisby 

phone 303-962-0940 

info@coloradobrownfi eldsfoundation.org 

www.coloradobrownfi eldsfoundation.org 


Energy in the Northeast 

Boston, Massachusetts 

This annual conference brings together industry 

leaders and local, state and federal 

authorities to provide the latest information 

on issues facing the industry in the Northeast 

today to energy professionals at all levels. 

Law Seminars International 

Krista Bond 

phone 206/567-4490, fax 567-5058 

register@lawseminars.com 

www.lawseminars.com 


The Future of “Green Buildings”: 

2 nd German American Energy 

Effi ciency Conference 

Houston, Texas 

At this conference, German and U.S. experts, 

as well as industry representatives, 

will present current trends in 

energy effi ciency and potential projects 

around the United States. 

German American Chambers of Commerce 

(GACC) Texas Offi ce 

Julia Zimmerman 

phone 832-384-1202, fax 713-715-6599 

jzimmermann@gaccsouth.com 

www.gacctexas.com 



Columbia, Missouri 

Attendees will learn to cut energy costs 

by making effi ciency updates, discuss fi - 

nancial incentives for solar energy, and 

learn about energy effi ciency policies that 

Missouri legislators should enact to help 

you lower your energy bills. 


Erin Noble 

phone 314-727-0600, fax 727-1665 



November 11-12, 2009 

Green Business Conference 

San Francisco, California 

This conference provides a venue for greenminded 

businesses to partner with others 

that share the same values and challenges. 

Green America 

Amy Belanger 

phone 800-584-7336 

abelanger@greenamericatoday.org 

www.greenamericatoday.org 

November 11-13, 2009 

Greenbuild International Conference 

and Expo 

Phoenix, Arizona 

This event includes a conference, expo 

and residential summit that invites leaders 

in the residential green building industry 

to present information sessions, network, 

and share best practices. 

U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) 

Taryn Holowka 

phone 202-828-1144, fax 828-5110 

thowowka@usgbc.org 

www.usgbc.org 


Energy Effi ciency Conference: 

Impact on Expanding Demand 

Englewood, Colorado 

This conference will examine specific efficiency 

programs deployed by the industry 

and individual utilities. It will explore 

the impact of these programs on the expanding 

demand for electric energy. It 

will also discuss tested business models 

and technologies, and provide insight into 

how utilities can offer beneficial customer 

efficiency programs. 


Eric Gay / Associated Press GmbH 


RMEL 

phone 303-865-5544, fax 865-5548 

editor@rmel.org 

www.rmel.org 


Green Remodel Workshop 

Scottsdale, Arizona 

Attendees participating in this workshop 

will learn about the value of energy efficiency, 

and practical alternatives to traditional 

construction practices. Included 

is a 30 minute question and answer session 

with a panel of experts. 

Green Street 

phone 602-466-7444 

info@greenstreetdev.com 

www.greenstreetdev.com 



Dexter, Missouri 

Attendees will learn to cut energy costs by 

making efficiency updates, discuss financial 

incentives for solar energy, and learn 

about energy efficiency policies that Missouri 

legislators should enact to help you 

lower your energy bills. 


Erin Noble 

phone 314-727-0600, fax 727-1665 



November 12-13, 2009 

Advanced Facilities Management and 

Engineering Conference 


This year’s conference aims to educate 

and provide networking services 

to facilities managers and engineers. 

The conference tracks this year 

include: facilities management, operations/maintenance, 

energy, and green/ 

sustainability. An exhibition accompanies 

this event. 

Expomasters 

Lynn Cramer 

phone 303-771-2000, fax 843-6232 

lcramer@expomasters.com 

www.expomasters.com 

November 12-13, 2009 

Solar Energy Investment and Finance 

Summit 


This summit discusses how to overcome financial 

issues and challenges in the solar 

energy industry. Visitors can connect 

with high-level decision makers, as well as 

gather information, inspiration, and practical 

ideas. 

New Solar Today 

Tinu Isaac 

phone 207-3757206, fax 375-7576 

info@newsolartoday.com 

www.newsolartoday.com 

November 12-13, 2009 

The Fifth Conference on Clean Energy 


This conference, being held for the fifth 

time will showcase startup companies 

and present industry, finance, international 

and university panels that represent 

the cluster. 

Massachusetts Technology 

Transfer Center 

Julia Goldberg 

phone 455-455-7277, fax 774-455-7102 

jgoldberg@umassp.edu 

www.mattcenter.org 

100 

November 13-15, 2009 

Green Festival 


This festival, a joint project by Global Exchange 

and Green America, celebrates strategies 

that work in their communities - for 

people, business, and the environment. It 

features an eco-friendly marketplace, workshops, 

music, organic cuisine, and more. 

Global Exchange and Green America 

Zakiya Harris 

phone. 800-584-7336 

www.greenamericatoday.org 


Green Fair 

Tavares, Florida 

This fair, being held for the second time 

gives the community an opportunity to 

learn how to become more environmentally 

friendly. More than 1,500 visitors and 75 

exhibitors attended the first fair. 

Lake County Green Team 

phone 352-343-9647 

aking@lakecountyfl.gov 

www.lakecountyfl.gov 

November 14-15, 2009 

Enviro Expo USA 

Atlanta, Georgia 

This expo aims to motivate and educate 

people to go green. It provides an arena to 

promote the exchange of sustainable lifestyle 

and product information between 

consumers, manufacturers, researchers, 

and others with an interest in going green. 

Enviro Expo USA 

Dianne Bennett 

phone 770-517-0447, fax 591-0502 

dianne@enviroexpousa.org 

www.enviroexpousa.com/index.php 

November 15-18, 2009 

Behavior, Energy & Climate Change 

Conference 

Washington, D.C. 

This year’s conference focuses on how to accelerate 

the transition to an energy-efficient 

and low carbon economy through increased 

understanding and application of social and 

behavioral mechanisms for change. 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy and the California Institute 

for Energy and Environment 

Glee Murray 

phone 202-507-4000, fax 429-2248 

gmurray@aceee.org 

www.aceee.org 

November 16-18, 2009 

Distributed Solar Development and 

Finance Tutorial 


This one-day course will provide information 

on coverage available from PPA and 

leasing finance models, including their recent 

extension into residential. This tutorial 

will also assess the growing role of 

utilities, as well as provide a full daypPretutorial 

workshop on Financing Solar in the 

Post-Stimulus Environment. 

Infocast 

phone 818-888-4444, fax 888-4440 

mail@infocastinc.com 

www.infocastinc.com 

November 16-18, 2009 

Brownsfield 2009 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

This conference focuses on environmental 

revitalization and economic redevelopment. 

It targets newcomers to the world 

of economic and environmental redevelopment 

as well as seasoned professionals. 

ICMA 

Nancy Monahan 

phone 877-343-5374, fax 962-3500 

brownsfields2009@csc.com 

www.brownfieldsconference.org 

November 16-19, 2009 

Tribal Energy Program Review 


This event is intended as a forum for tribes 

to meet and learn from one another about 

pursuing energy sufficiency through renewable 

energy or energy efficiency. Recognizing 

the increasing interest of tribes in 

energy efficiency and renewable energy, 

and the benefit of tribes learning from 

tribes, this event is now open to Indian 

Country as a whole. 

US Department of Energy (DOE) 

Lizana Pierce 

phone 202-586-5000, fax 586-4403 

lizana.pierce@go.doe.gov 

apps1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy 


E3 2009: The Premier Energy, Economic 

& Environmental Conference 

St. Paul, Minnesota 

One of the questions this conference will 

explore is how to provide sustainable fuel, 

food, fiber and fresh water to a global population 

of 9 billion people in our lifetime? 

NREL’s Larry Kazmerski, a pioneer in the 

field of photovoltaics, will offer the keynote 

presentation this year. 

University of Minnesota 

Stephanie Szurek 

phone 612-626-1202, fax 626-1693 

sjszurek@umn.edu 

www1.umn.edu/twincities/index.php 


Green Remodel Workshop 

Scottsdale, Arizona 

Attendees will learn about the value of 

energy efficiency and practical alternatives 

to traditional construction practices. 

Included is a 30 minute question and answer 

session with a panel of experts. 

Green Street 

phone 602-466-7444 

info@greenstreetdev.com 

www.greenstreetdev.com 

November 17-18, 2009 

The Green Marketing Conference: 

Good and Green 

Chicago, Illinois 

This conference educates attendees on 

how to increase their brand’s emotional, 

cognitive, and financial connection in today’s 

“greening” consumer markets. 

PME Enterprises 

phone 860-724-2649 ext. 14, fax 371-2889 

jm.pme-events@snet.net 

www.pme-events.com 

November 17-18, 2009 

2009 NAESCO’s 26 th Annual Conference 

Los Angeles, California 

This year’s annual conference will focus on 

changing market opportunities and challenges 

faced by businesses in the energy 

efficiency and alternative energy resource 

field in today’s fragile economy. 

NAESCO 

Terry Singer 

phone 202-822-0950, fax 822-0955 

info@naesco.org 

www.naesco.org 


South Metro Sustainability Roundtable 

Rosemount, Minnesota 

This event educates attendees about the 

city’s sustainability efforts, and the city’s 

intend to share best practices with neighboring 

cities. 

Alliance for Sustainability 

Sean Gosiewski 

phone 612-331-1099 ext. 1, fax 379-9004 

www.afors.org 

November 18-19, 2009 

Advanced Energy 2009 

Hauppauge, New York 

This conference will cover a variety 

of topics and issues related to 

the energy industry. Representatives 

of business, researchers, or attendees 

with public policy interests in the 

energy industry will convene with 

leading researchers, government officials 

and legislators, policy makers, 

and environmentalists. 

AERTC (Advanced Energy Research & 

Technology Center) 

Kathleen Ferrell 

fax 631-632-8205 

kathleen.ferrell@stonybrook.edu 

www.aertc.org 

November 18-20, 2009 

New Ideas in Educating a Workforce 

in Renewable Energy and Energy 

Efficiency 

Albany, New York 

This is the third conference on renewable 

energy and energy efficiency 

workforce development featuring 

some of the best practices and teaching 

models being applied across the 

country at community colleges, technical 

high schools, skill centers, the 

trades, industry, and other training 

centers and organizations. The conference 

will be preceded by a day of 

technical workshops. 

Interstate Renewable Energy 

Council (IREC) 

Brigitte Conners 

phone 518-458-6059 

bconnors@meetingie.com 

www.irecusa.org 


CRES Monthly Meeting 


Ongoing monthly meetings for members 

of the Colorado Renewable Energy 

Society. 

Colorado Renewable Energy Society 

phone 303-806-5317, fax 806-5317 

info@cres-energy.org 

www.cres-energy.org 


Semiconductor to Solar Symposium: 

Growth Opportunities for The IC 

Industry 

San Jose, California 

This symposium focuses on the basics 

of PV-based systems, as well as addresses 

the integration of semiconductors 

and PV systems. Technical 

sessions include topics ranging from 

current trends PV industry trends to 

manufacturing challenges and PV processing. 

MEPTEC 

phone 580-529-3227, fax 866-424-0130 

info@meptec.org 

www.meptec.org 

November 2009

November 19-20, 2009 

Alternative Energy & Building Effi ciency 

West Conference and Exhibition 

Santa Clara, California 

The Alternative Energy & Building Effi ciency 

conference is a 2-day event featuring industry-leading 

companies that sell alternative 

energy and energy effi cient building products 

and services. Striving to bring energy 

usage and costs down, the conference aims 

to connect consumers with exhibitors who 

can provide building solutions. 

CardelleXpo Group 

Susan Sommers 

phone 860-707-2770 

susansommers@alternativeenergyshows.com 

www.alternativeenergyshows.com 


Planning Regional Energy Initiatives 


This summit is designed for individuals 

who are preparing or engaged in regional 

energy projects, especially those funded by 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act (ARRA). The conference will provide a 

much-needed opportunity to learn how people, 

technology and public policy feed into 

successful regional energy initiatives. 

Energy Central 

Jana Koehn 

phone 303-228-4735 

events@energycentral.com 

www.energybizforum.com 


The Third Annual Home Energy 

Conference 

Plymouth, New Hampshire 

NHSEA’s third annual event will include 

workshops, speakers and exhibitors to promote 

energy effi ciency, the use and development 

of sustainable energy, and policy 

change to encourage the shift to a sustainable 

energy economy. 

New Hampshire Sustainable Energy Association 

Madeline McElaney 

phone 603-226-4732 

madeline@nhsea.org 

www.nhsea.org 


Green Career Conference 

Berkeley, California 

Solar Living Institute’s fourth annual conference 

in UC Berkeley is a day-long event for 

those interested in pursuing a green career. 

The conference will consist of the following 

industry panels: PV, wind energy, green 

cleaning, and energy effi ciency. Discussion 

topics will include: PV, entrepreneurs, concentrating 

solar, and interview preparation. 

Free resume reviews will be available. 

Solar Living Institute 

Blair Wickliffe 

phone 707-472-2450, fax 744-1682 

blair.wickliffe@solarliving.org 

www.solarliving.org 

November 21-22, 2009 

The Green Living Expo Fall 2009 

Brentwood, New York 

This expo uses exhibitors and programs to provide 

information about and encourage a greener 

way of life among Long Island residents. 

The Morey Organization 

Lee Sommers 

phone 516-284-3305, fax 284-3310 

lsommers@greenlivingexpoli.com 

www.greenlivingexpoli.com 

December 

December 1-2, 2009 

Conference: 2 nd US Thin Film Summit 


This conference will focus on how to survive 

and thrive in the thin-fi lm market, as 

well as issues related to thin-fi lm fi nance 

and legislation. The fi rst session will cover 

market evolution and predictions for 2010. 

The second session on fi nance and legislation 

will cover securing funding, cutting 

costs, and scaling up manufacturing. 

First Conferences Ltd. 

phone +44-20-737-575-00, fax -11 

cora.ng@thinfi lmtoday.com 

www.thinfi lmtoday.com 


Conference: Photovoltaics 

Beyond Conventional Silicon 

San Jose, California 

This event will explore new technologies and 

emerging PV markets. The conference will include 

presentations by speakers from the industry 

and research institutes. Seminars, an 

investment forum, and an exhibition will occur 

in conjunction with the conference. 

IDTechEx Ltd. 

Chris Clare 

phone +44-1223-813703, fax 812400 

c.clare@idtechex.com 

www.idtechex.com/photovoltaicsusa09 

Legend: Public exhibition Lectures, events, conferences Conventions and trade fairs Others 

December 4, 2009 

GC 101: Green Careers 

South San Francisco, California 

This Solar Living Institute workshop will 

provide practical information on green jobs 

and careers. Topics will include: green basics, 

statistics, researching occupations, 

and developing a new action plan. 



phone 707-472-2450, fax 744-1682 




Opportunities for Chemicals and Materials: 

Capitalizing on Wind and Solar Energy 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

This 1-day event will present information 

about the wind and solar energy industry’s 

unmet needs for new chemical and materials. 

The event will focus on various products, 

e.g. fi lms, adhesives, coatings, lubricants, 

and structural materials, that are 

needed to produce energy in a low cost, 

effi cient, and durable way. 

Chemical Development and Marketing 

Association 

Ted Goldman 

phone 856-439-9052, fax 439-0525 

Ted Goldman 

www.pdma.org/index.cfm 


Solar Energy Focus Conference 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 

This event will showcase the growth of the 

solar energy industry, and its readiness to 

meet our nation’s energy challenges today 

and in the future. The event includes a day 

of conferences, company workshops, professional 

development, and an exhibit hall. 

Solar Energy Industries Assoc. 

(Maryland, DC, Virginia) MDV-SEIA 

Peter Lowenthal 

phone 301-530-5343 

info@mdv-seia.org 

www.mdv-seia.org 


Community-Based Approaches to 

Energy & Climate Change 

Fairlee, Vermont 

After a successful fi rst year, the University 

of Vermont Extension and the Vermont 

Energy and Climate Action Network welcome 

once again communities in Vermont 

to discuss and promote energy effi ciency 

and renewable energy. 

UVM Extension and the Vermont Energy 

& Climate Action Network 

Mary Peabody 

phone 802-223-2389, fax 656-8642 

mary.peabody@uvm.edu 

www.uvm.edu/extension 


GC 120: Find Your Green Career Niche 


This workshop features Carol McClelland, 

PhD, author of “Your Dream Career For Dummies,” 

and founder of GreenCareerCentral. 

com, and Rebecca Kieler from Kieler Career 

Consulting. Carol and Rebecca will guide participants 

through a step-by-step process to 

discover how to harness their interests and 

apply them within the green economy. 



phone 707-472-2450, fax 744-1682 




Photovoltaic System Design 

for Engineers & Designers 


This 3-day course imparts to design professionals 

the skills they need to create PV design 

documents, such as feasibility reports, 

drawings, and PV system specifi cations. 

High Sun Engineering 

Christina C. Manansala 

phone 707-869-9391, fax 869-9394 

christina@sunengineer.com 

www.sunengineer.com 


PV 200: PV Design & Installation Intensive 


This workshop provides an excellent foundation 

for individuals seeking employment 

in the PV market, or who have a personal interest 

in the industry. Workshop topics will 

include: PV markets and applications, safety 

basics, and solar energy fundamentals. 

Solar Living Institute, 


phone 707-472-2450, fax 744-1682 


Is there a PV-related event missing? 

Please send us a note about the event by 

email to editorial@photon-magazine.us, 

or fax 415/684-7767 

Editorial deadline is always the fi rst 

Monday the month before an 

issue’s publication. 



102 

PTS Europe: 

Exhibitor growth 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

110 

2007 

176 

2008 

294 

*estimate 

440 

2009 2010* 

After four successful Photovoltaic Technology Shows and the establishment 

of PHOTON USA Corp., we are now applying our successful PTS formula to the 

USA. The timing couldn‘t be better! Solar energy is a key pillar of America‘s new 

climate policy. Some experts even believe that the US could soon become the 

world‘s largest solar market. 

www.photon-expo.com 

Conference series PTS Europe 

Conference series PTS USA 

nd • 2 PV Thin Film Conference 

nd • 2 PV Start-up Conference 

rd • 3 Solar Electric Utility Conference 

th • 8 Solar Silicon Conference – The world‘s largest event covering solar 

silicon 

th • 5 PV Investors Conference – Updates from leading market-listed PV companies 

and analysts on production, markets, and prices 

th • 5 PV Production Equipment Conference (Part 1 – c-Si) – The newest 

production trends for crystalline silicon wafers, cells and modules 

th • 5 PV Production Equipment Conference (Part 2 – Thin Film) – How to 

produce inexpensive thin-fi lm modules with high effi ciencies 

th • 4 Solar Electric Utility Conference – Why an increasing number of utility 

companies are selling solar electricity, and its effect on electricity prices 

November 2009

Who should exhibit? 

• Manufacturers of production machinery and system components 

• Manufacturers of half-fi nished products and end products 

(e.g. cells, modules) 

• Manufacturers of raw materials and supplies 

(e.g. silicon, coating materials, process gasses) 

• Manufacturers of PV system components 

(e.g. inverters, modules) 

• Vendors of systems and turnkey solutions 

• Vendors of software solutions for production control, quality 

and yield control 

• Research and testing institutes with innovative projects and 

services 

Production Equipment Conference: 

Increasing attendance figures 


www.photon-expo.com 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

878 

2007 

957 

2008 

1,016 

2009 

PTS Europe is the leading trade fair for machinery and processing materials used 

in the production of wafers, cells and solar modules. Taking place alongside the 

world‘s largest conference on solar silicon, PTS Europe has established itself as 

a magnet for companies presenting new trends in the solar sector. In 2010, this 

event will take place in Stuttgart – the epicenter for German PV machinery production 

– with an extra exhibition hall for downstream products. 

Industry Registry Classifieds Job Opportunities Ask the Editors Internships Education & Training Events Statistics Test Lab

REGISTRATION FORM 

PHOTON‘s 5 th Photovoltaic Technology Show 2010 USA 

February 2 - 4, 2010, San Francisco 

TRADE FAIR 

� I would like to sign up for PHOTON’s 5th Photovoltaic Technology Show 2010 

USA and purchase one ticket for $29. 

� We would like to exhibit at the fair from February 2 - 4, 2010. Please send us a quote 

for .......... ft2 raw space. Raw space can be obtained for $3,060 per 100 ft2 (plus 

cost for package booth if requested). Space used to display machines will receive a 

50-percent discount. 

CONFERENCES 

� I would like to sign up for PHOTON‘s 2nd PV Thin Film Conference. 

(February 2, 2010). Tickets cost $840 ($740 for PHOTON International subscribers). 

� I would like to sign up for PHOTON‘s 2nd PV Start-up Conference. 


� I would like to sign up for PHOTON‘s 3rd Solar Electric Utility Conference. 


The total price to attend all three conferences is only $2,270 (or $1,970 for PHOTON International 

subscribers) instead of $2,520 (excl. conference dinner). 

Conference participants can visit the exhibition free of charge. 

EVENING RECEPTION (exclusively for conference attendees) 

� I would like to sign up for PHOTON’s PTS USA – Evening Reception. 

(February 2, 2010). The dinner costs $79 per person. 

PERSONAL INFORMATION 

Company 

� Ms. � Mrs. � Mr. First name Last name 

Street ZIP 

City Country 

Telephone number Fax number 

E-mail Website 

VAT identifi cation number 

Required only if the invoice is for a company in an EU contry. 

If your VAT ID number is not provided, your invoice will include German VAT. Changes cannot be made to the invoice later! 

I will pay after receiving the invoice by: � American Express � Mastercard � JCB � VISA � Bank transfer 

Name on card 

/ 

Expiration date (MM/YY) Number Security Code 

Date and signature 

104 

REGISTER ONLINE: 

WWW.PHOTON-EXPO.COM 

PLEASE FAX: +49 / 241 / 40 03 - 302 

OR E-MAIL: TICKET@PHOTON-EXPO.COM 

EARLY-BIRD DISCOUNT on conference fees: 

5 % until Oct. 31, 2009 (USA) 

10 % until Oct. 31, 2009 (Europe) 

5 % until Jan. 31, 2010 (Europe) 

PHOTON‘s 6 th Photovoltaic Technology Show 2010 Europe 

April 27 - 29, 2010, Stuttgart, Germany 

TRADE FAIR 

� I would like to sign up for PHOTON’s 6th Photovoltaic Technology Show 2010 

Europe and purchase one ticket for €24. 

� We would like to exhibit at the fair from April 27 - 29, 2010. Please send us a quote 

for .......... m2 raw space. Raw space can be obtained for €260 per m2 (plus cost for 

package booth if requested). Space used to display machines will receive a 50-percent 

discount. 

CONFERENCES 

� I would like to sign up for PHOTON‘s 8th Solar Silicon Conference. 

(April 27, 2010). Tickets cost €740 (€640 for PHOTON International subscribers). 

� I would like to sign up for PHOTON‘s 5th PV Investors Conference. 


� I would like to sign up for PHOTON‘s 5th PV Production Equipment Conference 

(Part 1 – c-Si). (April 28, 2010). Tickets cost €480 (€430 for PHOTON International 

subscribers). 

� I would like to sign up for PHOTON‘s 5th PV Production Equipment Conference 

(Part 2 – Thin Film). (April 29, 2010). Tickets cost €480 (€430 for PHOTON International 

subscribers). 

� I would like to sign up for PHOTON‘s 4th Solar Electric Utility Conference. 


The total price to attend all three conferences (on April 28 either PHOTON’s PV Investors 

or PV Production Equipment Conference (Part 1 – c-Si), on April 29 either PHOTON’s PV 

Production Equipment (Part 2 – Thin Film) or Solar Electric Utility Conference) is only 

€1,530 / €1,620 instead of €1,700 / €1,800 (or €1,360 / €1,440 for PHOTON International 

subscribers). 

Conference participants can visit the exhibition free of charge. 

All conference prices are listed before taxes. 

EVENING RECEPTION (exclusively for conference attendees) 

� I would like to sign up for PHOTON’s PTS Europe – Evening Reception. 

(April 27, 2010). The dinner costs €68 per person. 

November 2009

Education & Training 

Producer-independent Seminars (November 2009 – January 2010) 

Date Name of event State City Duration Costs*) Max. no. of 

attendees 

Arkansas Home Builders Association 

November 18-19, 2009 Green Buildings for Building Professionals Arkansas Little Rock 2 days $550 n/a n/a 

Registration: Amanda Leech, phone 501/663-1428, fax 663-4624, amandaleech@tcworks.net, www.arkansashomebuilders.org 

Boots on the Roof 

November 2-7, 2009 6-Day Solar PV Boot Camp California Fremont 6 days $3.195 n/a n/a 

November 9-14, 2009 6-Day Solar PV Boot Camp New Jersey Newark 6 days $3.495 n/a n/a 

November 16-19, 2009 4-Day Class: Solar for Solar Sales Professionals New Jersey Newark 4 days $2.395 n/a n/a 

November 16-21, 2009 6-Day Solar PV Boot Camp California Fremont 6 days $3.195 n/a n/a 

Nov. 30 - Dec. 5, 2009 6-Day Solar PV Boot Camp California Fremont 6 days $3.195 n/a n/a 

December 7-12, 2009 6-Day Solar PV Boot Camp New Jersey Newark 6 days $3.495 n/a n/a 

December 14-19, 2009 6-Day Solar PV Boot Camp California Fremont 6 days $3.195 n/a n/a 

January 11-14, 2010 4-Day Class: Solar for Solar Sales Professionals California Fremont 4 days $2.395 n/a n/a 

January 18-23, 2010 6-Day Solar PV Boot Camp California Fremont 6 days $3.195 n/a n/a 

January 25-30, 2009 6-Day Solar PV Boot Camp New Jersey Newark 6 days $3.495 n/a n/a 

Registration: phone 888/893-0367, fax 510/249-9125, www.bootsontheroof.com 

Energy Center of Wisconsin 

January 21, 2010 Commercial Solar Thermal Design and Installation Wisconsin Appleton 1 day $169 n/a n/a 

Registration: Kristi Kaiser, phone 608/238-4601, fax 238-0523, kkaiser@ecw.org, www.ecw.org 

Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) 

January 11-15, 2010 Installing Photovoltaic Systems Training Program Florida Cocoa 5 days $1.300 n/a n/a 

Registration: Kelly Slattery-Snavely, phone 321-638-1420, fax 638-1010, kelly@fsec.ucf.edu, www.fsec.ucf.edu 

Heatspring Learning Institute 

November 10-12, 2009 Solar Installer Boot Camp Training Connceticut Danbury 3 days $1.695 n/a n/a 

November 17-19, 2009 Solar Installer Boot Camp Training Massachusetts Boston 3 days $1.695 n/a n/a 

Registration: phone 800/393-2044, fax 393-2044, info@heatspring.com, www.heatspring.com 

Imagine Solar 

November 9-13, 2009 PV System Design and Installation Workshop Texas Austin 5 days $1.295 n/a n/a 

December 7-11, 2009 PV System Design and Installation Workshop Texas Austin 5 days $1.295 n/a n/a 

January 18-22, 2010 PV System Design and Installation Workshop Texas Austin 5 days $1.295 n/a n/a 

Registration: Noralinda Ureste, phone 512/443-5725, info@imaginesolar.com, www.imaginesolar.com 

Iowa Renewable Energy Association 

November 14, 2009 Solar Photovoltaic Workshop Iowa Hiawatha 1 day $160 n/a n/a 

Registration: phone 319/338-1076, irenew@irenew.org, www.irenew.org 

Registration 

deadline 

Minnesota Renewable Energy Society 

November 7, 2009 Careers in Renewable Energy Minnesota White Bear Lake 1 day $75 50 Nov. 7, 2009 

November 14, 2009 Introduction to Renewable Energy Options and Opportunities Minnesota St. Paul 1 day $65 30 n/a 

Registration: phone 612/308-4757, fax 866/385-0482, info@mnRenewables.org, www.mnRenewables.org 

National Audubon Society, Inc. 

November 17, 2009 Lecture Series - Solar Energy and Wind Systems Connecticut Greenwich 2.5 hrs free n/a n/a 

Registration: Jeff Cordulack, phone 203/869-5272, fax 869-4437, greenwich_center@audubon.org, www.greenwich.audubon.org 

Sage Mountain Center 

November 17, 2009 Solar and Small Wind Generation Mini-Seminar Montana Billings 2 hrs free n/a n/a 

Registration: Chris Borton, phone 406/494-9875, fax 494-9875, smc@sagemountain.org, www.sagemountain.org 

Solar Energy International (SEI) 

November 9-13, 2009 PV102 Grid-Tied PV Systems Hawaii Honolulu 5 days $895 n/a n/a 

November 16-20, 2009 PV202 Advanced PV: Design Criteria and NEC Compliance Hawaii Honolulu 5 days $895 n/a n/a 

December 7-11, 2009 PV102 Grid-Tied PV Systems North Carolina Raleigh 5 days $895 n/a n/a 

Registration: Johnny Weiss, phone 970/963-8855, fax 963-8866, johnny@solarenergy.org, www.solarenergy.org 


Industry Industry Registry Classifieds Job Opportunities Ask the Editors Internships Education Educatio Educatio Educatio & Training Events Statistics Test Tes 

Lab

106 

Producer-independent Seminars (November 2009 – January 2010) 

Date Name of event State City Duration Costs*) Max. no. of 

attendees 


November 2-6, 2009 PV 300: Advanced PV Systems Workshop California Ukiah 5 days $995 n/a n/a 

November 4-8, 2009 PV 200: PV Design & Installation Intensive California Murietta 5 days $950 n/a n/a 

November 4-8, 2009 PV 200: PV Design & Installation Intensive California S. San Francisco 5 days $950 n/a n/a 

November 8, 2009 NABCEP Entry Level Test California S. San Francisco 1 day $100 n/a n/a 

November 16-19, 2009 PV 200: PV Design & Installation Intensive California Ukiah 5 days $950 n/a n/a 

Registration: Blair Wickliffe, phone 707/472-2450, fax 744-1682, blair.wickliffe@solarliving.org, www.solarliving.org 

Important trade fairs and conferences 2010 

Date Description Location Duration Costs Max. no. of 

attendees 

PHOTON’s Photovoltaic Technology Show 2010 USA 

February 2-4, 2009 With the US PV market expected to grow significantly in 2010, the PHOTON San Francisco, 

Photovoltaic Technology Show will take place in California for the first time, presenting 

companies offering manufacturing equipment for producing solar silicon, 

ingots, wafers, cells, solar modules, and necessary materials for their production. 

California 

Registration: PHOTON USA Corp, phone +49/241-4003-146, fax -316, tanja.weber@photon.de, www.photon-expo.com 

PHOTON’s Photovoltaic Technology Show 2010 Europe 

April 27-29, 2010 PHOTON’s Photovoltaic Technology Show 2010 Europe will present manufactu- Stuttgart, 

ring equipment for making solar silicon, ingots, wafers, cells, solar modules and Germany 

related raw materials in Germany, the world’s largest PV market. Next year, the 

event will take place in Stuttgart (2009: 10,000 visitors, 294 exhibitors). 

Registration: PHOTON Europe GmbH, phone +49/241-4003-146, fax -316, tanja.weber@photon.de, www.photon-expo.com 

Intersolar 2010 

June 9-11, 2010 Intersolar is Europe's largest trade fair for solar energy – both PV and solar Munich, 

thermal. The event, held annually, is mainly visited by professionals, but also Germany 

by end-consumers (2009: 1,422 exhibitors, 60,000 visitors). 

July 13-15, 2010 This annual event, which is being held in conjunction with Semicon West, 

focuses on PV, solar thermal technology, and solar architecture (2009: 444 

exhibitors, 17,000 visitors). 

San Francisco, 

California 

3 days Trade fair: $29; 

Conference: $1,970 

to $2,250; Daypass: 

$740 to $840 

n/a 

Trade fair and 

conference: 

3 days 

Registration: Solar Promotion GmbH / Solar Promotion International GmbH, phone +49/7231-58598-0, fax -28, info@intersolar.de, www.intersolar.de 

2010 35 th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC) 

June 20-25, 2010 During this conference attendees will discuss the latest techology in the field 

of Photovoltaics. 

Honolulu, 

Hawaii 

Trade fair: €24; Conference: n/a 

Conferences: €1,700 1,200 

to €1,800; Daypass: 

€480 to €740 

3 days € 40 n/a n/a 

3 days n/a n/a n/a 


Registration: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), phone 440-234-1574, fax 440-234-1574, moe4stre@wowway.com, www.35pvsc.org 

24 th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition (EU PVSEC) 

September 6-10, 2010 The event is one of the world's three big PV conferences (together with the PV- 

SEC in Asia, and IEEE PVSEC in the US), but traditionally has the most visitors 

and the largest industry exhibition (2008: more than 30,000 visitors). 

Valencia, 

Spain 

Trade fair: 4 days; 

Conference: 

5 days 

Registration: WIP GmbH & Co. KG, phone +49/89-720-12735, fax -91, pv.conference@wip-munich.de,www.photovoltaic-conference.com 

Solar Power 2010 

October 12-14, 2010 This event is the largest US business-to-business solar conference and expo. 

Co-organized by the US solar associations SEIA and SEPA, it is likely to be the 

most important US PV event of the year. It will feature conference sessions on 

policy, finance and solar technologies, as well as an industry exhibition. 

Anaheim, 

California 

Trade fair: free; 

Conferences: €920; 

Daypass: €450 

n/a n/a 


Registration: Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA), phone 202-857-0898, fax 682-0559, ebrown@solarelectricpower.org, www.solarpowerconference.com 

Manufacturer meeting with PHOTON’s laboratory staff 

Date Description Location Duration Costs Max. no. of 

attendees 

PHOTON Module tests 

March 10, 2010 Once a year, PHOTON invites solar module manufacturers to Aachen to 

discuss testing activities in this sector. The meeting helps to further develop 

PHOTON’s product tests. A simultaneous English translation will be provided 

on request. Participation is limited to manufacturers. 

PHOTON Connector tests 

Aachen, 

Germany 

June 10, 2010 Once a year, PHOTON invites connector manufacturers to Aachen to dis- Aachen, 

cuss testing activities in this sector. The meeting helps to further develop 

PHOTON’s product tests. A simultaneous English translation will be provided. 

Participation is limited to manufacturers. 

Germany 

Registration: PHOTON Laboratory GmbH, phone +49/241-4003-107, fax -307, martina.siebmanns@photon.de, www.photon.info 

Registration 

deadline 

Registration 

deadline 

Registration 

deadline 

1 day free 100 February 26, 

2010 

1 day free 100 May 26, 2010 

November 2009

Internships 

New internships in the PV industry for high school and college students – from system installation to marketing, in the US and abroad. 

More offers available at www.photon-magazine.us 

Power Conversion 

Engineering Internship 

American Electric Technologies 

Inc. (AETI) is a multinational 

supplier of power infrastructure 

equipment and site 

services for the renewable and 

traditional energy markets. The company 

has over 300 employees and posted 

global sales of $100 million in 2008. 

AETI has an opening for a product-engineering 

intern in the area of low voltage 

power conversion for the renewable 

energy market. This position is located at 

the company’s headquarters in Houston, 

Texas. With a traditional business focus 

on the oil and gas industries, AETI continues 

to pursue incremental growth in 

its existing power conversion business, 

Sales Internship 

San Francisco, California-based software 

company Clean Power Finance Inc. 

offers a suite of applications for solar providers. 

Known as CPF Tools, this web-based 

sales platform, introduced in early 2008, 

is designed to help companies to acquire 

and manage leads, estimate and generate 

job proposals, as well as to coordinate and 

track customer fi nancing using a single 

integrated platform. The software allows 

Entrepreneurs-in-training 

Internship Program 

Fremont, California-based 

GreenVolts, Inc. was founded 

in 2005 with the goal of making 

solar power costs competitive 

with those of fossil fuel. 

The company develops con- 

centrating photovoltaic (CPV) systems, 

which generate power by harvesting 

highly concentrated sunlight through 

the use of optics, trackers, and tiny, effi 

cient multi-junction cells. GreenVolts 

signed a power purchase agreement 

with PG&E for a 2 MW pilot facility in 

northern California, and was included 

American Electric Technologies, Inc. 

AETI offers an internship at 

its headquarters in Houston, 

Texas 

while extending 

its engineering developmentexpertise 

to include new concepts in low and 

medium voltage power conversion for 

the renewable energy market. In particular, 

AETI works with the solar industry 

by collaborating with PV OEM engineers 

to develop and implement customized 

power conversion, protection 

and control equipment. Additionally, 

AETI works with solar farm developers 

and integrators to develop such things 

as substations, electrical yards and grid 

interconnection. 

users to track utility rates, incentives, and 

CEC-approved equipment for creating accurate, 

up-to-date proposals. 

The company, which has 25 employees, 

also partners with renewable energy 

experts to provide fi nancing options for 

residential and commercial projects for 

home and business owners. The company’s 

fi nancing options also offer property 

owners access to the Clean Power 

Finance installer network. 

GreenVolts seeks interns 

to provide tactical support 

in the Global 100 

list of most promising 

private clean 

technology companies 

worldwide. 

The company, which has 56 employees, 

also recently announced an agreement 

with National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL) to co-develop a next generation 

solar cell. GreenVolts continues 

to grow, and is currently seeking top engineering, 

business, and project management 

talent. 

AETI offers 

an engineering internship to recent graduates or 

current students. 

Duration 

3-6 months 

Compensation 

Unpaid 

Qualifi cations 

Recent graduate or student pursuing an MSEE or 

Ph.D. in electrical engineering with an emphasis 

in power electronics. Knowledge of power 

electronics, microprocessor-based control power 

systems, electrical controls and engineering math 

curriculums; innovative and creative prototype and 

product design skills, including the ability to read 

and develop engineering drawings; aptitude with 

MatLab, PSIM, Pspice simulation tools. 

American Electric Technologies, Inc. 

Rachel Acree 

6410 Long Drive, Houston, Texas 77087 

phone 713/644-8182, jobs@aeti.com 

www.aeti.com 

Clean Power Finance, Inc. offers 

an internship in sales. 

Duration: 3 months 

Compensation: Unpaid 


Strong interest in renewable energy, good communication 

skills, some experience in sales or 

customer service 

Clean Power Finance, Inc. 

7th Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94103 

phone 866/525-2123, fax 983-2501 

infonow@cleanpowerfi nance.com 

www.cleanpowerfi nance.com 

GreenVolts, Inc. offers 

internships for undergraduates or recent graduates 

in several areas at its San Francisco offi ce. 

Duration 

3-6 months 

Compensation 

Hourly rate 


Entry level; open to majors in Engineering, Material 

Sciences, Physics, Economics, Finance, Marketing, 

or related studies; project management skills. 

GreenVolts, Inc. 

Khoi Ho 

46400 Fremont Blvd., 

Fremont, California 94538 

phone 415/963-4030, fax 675-1094 

internship@greenvolts.com 

www.greenvolts.com 

Companies with internships... please contact us! 

Advertise your internship here free of charge! This is where you´ll connect with committed students that can support you and your project, and perhaps become future employees. 

A standardized input mask is available at www.photon-magazine.us, or send us your information by email at editorial@photon-magazine.us. 

GreenVolts, Inc. 


Industry Industry Registry Classifieds Job Opportunities Ask the Editors Internships Education Education Educatio Educatio & Training Events Statistics Test Lab

108 

November 2009

Ask the Editors 

Whether it’s about fi nancing, technology, or individual components: 

PHOTON’s editorial staff answer question about every aspect of PV in its editorial offi ce hours. 

Radioactive modules? 

? 

Since ruthenium is used as a dye in 

pigment-based solar cells, can you 

give me conclusive proof that, even if 

the material undergoes extreme stress 

due to module breaking, disintegrating, 

or splintering, no radioactivity will be 

released into the environment? 

Jan Teckelmann, 

by email 

! 

Pigment-based solar cells use a red 

compound containing the metal ruthenium 

(Ru) to absorb a specifi c portion 

of the sunlight’s wavelength. »Naturally 

occurring isotopes of ruthenium 

are not radioactive,« explains Nils Metzler-Nolte, 

who holds the chair of Inorganic 

Chemistry at the Ruhr University 

in Bochum, Germany, »so normal pigment-based 

solar cells containing ru- 

When does it pay to buy thin-film 

panels? 

? I’ve heard that thin fi lm modules are, 

on average, one-third cheaper than 

polycrystalline modules, but also only 

produce half the power. Is that true? 

Klaus Wäring, 

by e-mail 

! There is really no generic answer to 

this question, since local irradiation 

conditions must be taken into consideration. 

According to PHOTON’s module 

price comparison, the average price for 

thin-fi lm modules was roughly 20 percent 

less than the price for polycrystalline 

modules at the beginning of July. At 

the beginning of October, the difference 

was around 15 percent. 

Correspondingly, the effi ciency of 

thin-fi lm modules is generally lower 

than that of polycrystalline modules, 

which have effi ciencies of around 14 

percent. The effi ciency of cadmium telluride 

(CdTe) and copper-indium-diselenide 

(CIS) modules is around 10 percent, 

compared to 7 to 8 percent for amorphous 

microcrystalline silicon modules. 

Panels using amorphous microcrystalline 

modules would produce 33 to 50 

percent less power per m2 of module 

Not a source of radiation: pigment-based solar cells using red dye 

containing ruthenium 

thenium compounds cannot discharge 

radioactive ruthenium.« Fuel elements 

from nuclear reactors do contain small 

amounts of radioactive ruthenium iso- 

An array consisting of crystalline silicon modules 

(left), and one with thin-fi lm modules (right). Whereas 

the power yield per nominal W is quite similar for both 

technologies, thin-fi lm panels’ output per m2 of module 

surface is much lower. 

surface space than crystalline modules. 

But a panel’s effi ciency does not really 

tell you how much power you will get per 

rated W. Nominal output is measured 

under standard test conditions (STC), 

topes, but that doesn’t mean 

the element itself is always 

radioactive. Metzler-Nolte 

says there’s no greater risk 

of toxicity with these compounds 

than with alternative 

dyes that don’t contain 

metal. As a general rule, if a 

dye module containing ruthenium 

breaks, you should 

handle the debris with care 

– but that’s true of all solar 

modules. Apart from that, ruthenium 

is indispensable in 

pigment-based solar cells for 

technical reasons. »There’s 

currently no substitute dye 

that works as well, but we’re still working 

on it,« says Henning Brandt, a researcher 

at the Fraunhofer Institute for 

Solar Energy Systems. djs, ste 

which is 1,000 W of irradiation per m 2 . 

Thus this measurement only takes one 

possible set of conditions into account. 

It fails to demonstrate whether the panel’s 

performance differs under other solar 

conditions. 

The results of PHOTON’s fi rst fi eld 

test showed that CIS and CdTe modules 

surpassed their crystalline competitors 

when solar irradiation was between 45 

and 80 percent of STC. Above or below 

STC, polycrystalline modules perform 

better. Nonethelsee, depending on how 

prevalent certain solar conditions are at 

a given location, thin-fi lm modules can 

actually certainly outperform polycrystalline 

modules. According to PHOTON’s 

test, a polycrystalline and a monocrystalline 

module came in fi rst and second 

place in terms of power production for 

measurements taken throughout 2008. 

They were followed by a thin-fi lm panel, 

manufactured by First Solar Inc., which 

came in third. nw 


Roberto Mettifogo / photon-pictures.com 

Greatcell Solar SA 

Our editorial offi ce hours is a service for subscribers. 

Do you have questions about an article, or general questions 

about PV? Our experts can be reached every friday 

between 9 and 12 by phone at 415/509-5296. 

Please have your customer number available 

(it’s located on the magazine address label). 

We will answer any questions per email, letter, or fax upon 

receipt – include the keyword editorial offi ce hours 

Industry Industry Registry Classifieds Job Opportunities Ask As the Editors Internships Education Education Educatio Educatio & Training Events Statistics Test Lab

110 

November 2009

Industry Registry 

Here is information about PV installers in your area, companies in the 

renewable energy fi eld, as well as associations that offer independent consulting. 

Legend 

• Solar electricity 

Solar heating 

• 

° • 

° • 

Biomass (heat) 

Biomass (fuel) 

Heating pumps 

Block heat power plant 

Small wind power system 

Small hydroelectric plants 

Building energy consultant 

Green construction 

Heat insulation 

Air-conditioning or HVAC 

Rainwater use 

Solar / electric / hybrid 

automobile 

• Tax / legal advising 

Associations 

Register your company in PHOTON’s 

industry registry 

Yes, I want to enter our company in 

the industry registry of PHOTON - The 

Photovoltaic Magazine published in 

each issue. The order is valid for four 

consecutive issues. 

A standard entry in one category 

costs $80 for a period of four months 

and includes one line for the company 

name (max. 26 characters), two lines 

for the company address (max. 36 

characters each), one line for the 

phone and fax number. Additional 

lines cost $30 each. 

All orders are billed in US dollars. 

The order continues on automatically 

for another four months if not 

cancelled in written form (fax, e-mail 

or letter) to PHOTON USA Corp,. 

Cancellations can be made at any 

time and at no additional cost with 

effect from the next possible issue. 

* Please use proper format when 

fi lling in the form, particularly upper 

and lower case. 

AZ 

3S Industries USA Inc. 

810 E 47th St, Ste 106 Tucson AZ 85713 

Tel. 510-623-7701 Fax 520-623-7706 

3S solar group develops, produces and sells 

worldwide innovative production 

installations for the manufacture of 

solar modules. 

• 

Arizona Solar Concepts LLC 

1415E University Dr. 

Ste. A-109, Tempe, AZ 85281 

Tel. 480-446-3600 Fax 480-446-0839 

• • • ° • • 

CA 

Solar Choice Solutions 

26500 West Agoura Rd. Suites 102-769 

Tel. 818-878-9161 Fax 818-670-7859 

Design, sales and installation of 

residential and commercial PV systems. 

• 

Company* This row is in bold. 

Street 

City, country 

Phone number / fax 

Please print clearly and fax to : 

Or send an email to: 

Additional row 1 Additional rows appear between the company name and address. 

Additional row 2 





In which industry are you active? 

Solar electricity 

Solar heating 

Biomass (heat) 

Biomass (fuel) 

Aliso Electric, Inc. 

23052 Alcade •F, Laguna Hills, CA 

Tel. 949-598-0359, 877-55-ALISO, 

Fax 949-598-2349 

• 

SolarEdge Technologies Inc. 

2225E Bayshore Rr. 

Ste. 200 Palo Alto, CA 94303 

Tel. 650-320-7695 Fax 650-320-7665 

• 

Ingeteam Inc. 

5201 Great American Parkway Suite 329 

Santa Clara, CA 95054 

Tel. 408-524-2929 Fax 408-824-1327 

Manufacturers of grid-connected inverters 

for PV solar plants. 

• 

Pure Power Solutions 

1033 Vine St •279 Healdsburg CA 95448 

Tel/Fax 707-433-6556 

• 

Heating pumps 

Block heat power plant 

Small wind power system 

Small hydroelectric power plants 

CO 

aleo solar North America 

12303 Airport Way, 

Ste. 200 Broomfi eld, CO 80021 

Tel. 1-866-411-ALEO Fax 303-325-3250 

• 

OR 

Gen-Con Inc. 

PO Box 25553 Portland OR 97298 

Tel/Fax 503-245-7657 

• • 

Canada 

Xantrex Technology Inc. 

8999 Nelson Way Burnaby, BC V5A 4B5 

Tel. 604-420-1591 

• 

+1-415-684-7767 

diana.woo@photon-magazine.us 

Building energy consultant 

Green construction 

Heat insulation 

Air-conditioning or HVAC 

Hong Kong 

Jiawei Solarchina Company Ltd. 

Unit 1816 Star House No. 3 Salisbury Rd. 

Tsimshatsui, Kowloon Hong Kong 

Tel. 852-27302718 Fax 852-27302719 

• 

Italy 

Istar Solar Srl 

85050 Tito Scalo (PZ) Italy 

Tel. +39-0971-485157 Fax +39-0971-651970 

Industrial Area Tito Scalo 

• 

Taiwan 

Auria Solar Co., Ltd. 

9 Daye 1st Road Sinshih Tainan, Taiwan 

Tel. +886-6-505-8787 Fax +886-6-505-3371 

Leading supplier with 60MW capacity for 

micromorph thin-fi lm PV modules with 

stabilized 125-130Wp output power and 

effi ciency of 9.5-10%. 

TUV Rheinland 64646 & 61730, CE certifi ed. 

• • 

Rainwater use 

Solar / electric / hybrid / automobile 

Tax / legal advising 

Associations 

Please send us ________ free copies of Furthermore, we would like to subscribe to PHOTON – The Photovoltaic Magazine. I would like: 

the next issue of PHOTON – The 

12 issues (1-year subscription) PHOTON – The Photovoltaic Magazine for $42.80 (Canada $100.52; rest of the world $169.52) 

Photovoltaic Magazine with our registry 

or 24 issues (2-year subscription) PHOTON – The Photovoltaic Magazine for $68.50 (Canada $183.84; rest of the world $321.94) 

entry for distribution to our customers. 

or 36 issues (3-year subscription) PHOTON – The Photovoltaic Magazine for $94.20 (Canada $ 267.36; rest of the world $474.36) 

Please send us ________ postcards 

to request free copies of the magazine, 

which we can then include in our 

Cancellations can be made at any point after the chosen subscription period and take effect for the next but one issue. 

If the subsciption is not cancelled, it is automatically renewed for the chosen subscrition period. 

company’s emails. 

November 2009 Date Signature 

111 

Industry Registry Classifieds Job Jo Job Opportunities Ask the Editors Internships Education Education & Training Events Statistics Test Lab

Free non-commercial classifi eds 

Free non-commercial classifi eds 

Please publish the following ad 

at no charge in the next available 

issue. 

Classifi eds will be accepted for the 

next issue up to 3 weeks before the 

publication date. 

Your text should be no more than 360 

characters (including spaces); ads that 

are not related to photovoltaics or are 

commercial ads will not be published 

for free in this section. 

We strive to publish error-free ads but 

assume no liability for mistakes. 

112 

For sale 

PV system, 10 kW, rooftop system, 

completed June 2008, 

price to be negotiated 

phone +1-301-7663589 

Inverter, 1,000 W, unused, 

original packaging 

phone +1-806-3685596 

PV system, 25 kW, rooftop system, 

completed April 2005, 

price to be negotiated 

phone +1-301-7663266 

Inverter, 5,000 W, original packaging 

phone +1-806-3685596 

Wanted Job wanted 

Rooftops in California with 

500 – 800 square meter for installing PV 

systems 

Excellent, reliable leasing fee! 

phone +1-408-3456988 

Private investor seeks PV 

rooftop system (50 to 150 kW) 

Preferably, installed before the end of 

2009 

phone +1-201-9331378 

Rooftops in California with 1000 - 1500 

square meter for installing PV systems 

Excellent, reliable leasing fee! 

phone +1-408-348693 

This text will be printed 

Section 

Please printclearly print clearly and fax to: to : 

Or send an email to: 

+1-415-684-7767 

nadine.beccu@photon-magazine.us 

For sale Wanted Job wanted Cipher or picture ($30; free for subscribers) 

This text will not be printed 

Sender Last name, First name 

Address Street number, Street, City, State, Zip code 

Contact Phone or fax number 

Date Signature 

MBA with PR experience seeking 

immediate position in the PV industry 

Place your private classifi ed 

advertisement here! 

November 2009

Preview The issue 12-2009 appears at the end of November 

Would you like to provide us with information about subjects to be covered in coming issues? 

Then visit our website www.photon-magazine.us. You‘ll find a preview of topics to be covered in 

future issues one month in advance, and links for the editors responsible for each topic. 

A close look at Texas 

In Texas, a state best known for its oil and 

wind power, PV is beginning to emerge as 

a market contender – at least in some areas. 

What does the future hold for solar in the 

KG Co. 

Lone Star State? PHOTON will take a closer 

& 

look at the current PV market in Texas, inclu- 

GmbH 

ding state politics, utility incentive programs, 

press 

promising trends, and barriers to growth. action 

The dragon of Kaohsiung 

We reserve the right to delay the publication of announced articles. 

Premier Power Renewable Energy, Inc. 

Tom McGhee / photon-pictures.com 

Solar vineyards 

Over the past few decades, California winemakers 

have become renowned worldwide for their innovation, 

be it in the cultivation and processing of grapes, 

or through their savvy marketing, which has arguably 

made wine as mainstream an American drink as beer. 

Today, that innovation extends to how vineyards produce 

the energy they need for harvesting grapes, bottling 

wine, and refrigeration. In December, PHOTON 

travels to vineyards in Napa and Sonoma counties 

to explore why so many winemakers are going solar. 

Walking the »Solar Decathlon« 

At the end of October, university teams 

from around the world will compete in 

the international collegiate competition 

known as the »Solar Decathlon.« Tens 

of thousands of visitors are expected to 

visit the solar homes being constructed 

near the National Mall in Washington 

DC. PHOTON will be there. 

With its spectacular design, the new 

stadium in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, has attracted 

international attention, earning the 

nickname »flying dragon.« This multipurpose 

arena has plenty to offer for sports 

fans and fans of PV: the building has a 1 

MW nominal power integrated PV system 

Ltd. Co. 

– making it the largest PV system in the 

world to be integrated into a stadium. DelSolar 

114 

Our sister publications 

PHOTON is also published in 

Germany, Spain and Italy. 

www.photon.de 

www.photon.com.es 

www.photon-online.it 

PHOTON International 

Information for the PV industry 

(in English and Chinese) 

www.photon-international.com 

PHOTON Consulting 

Annual market analyses of demand, 

supply, and price development, 

studies (in English) 

www.photon-consulting.com 

November 2009

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

�� 

��

INTRODUCTORY SPECIAL INTRODUCTORY ... - PHOTON Info

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?