http://www.wellbeinggreen.com.au

I rarely get asked about the underlying technology other than the customer wants to know we are using commercially available product from a reputable manufacturer.

As a little guy (I am not big enough to buy a MW of thin film yet), thin film is still not quite there, so we sell the “old technology”. At the end of the day, it is the price per watt, or cost per KWH generated that counts, not whether you have a Ford or Chevy.

But do watch thin film, because their efficiencies are starting out where silicon is finishing! When I can “print” a thin film cell onto an umbrella, or shingle or sheet of glass, solar as we know it will be a horse and buggy.

8-9% efficiency is not typical for thin film modules. First Solar’s thin-film production, in megawatts, accounted for more than 50% of the thin-film modules made in 2009 (possibly more, but numbers are still finalized). The second-largest thin-film module maker in the world, Sharp, likely produced just 15% of the MWs that First Solar’s made in 2009.

First Solar’s FS-280 module is not 10.9%-rated, it is 11.1%-rated, and First Solar is obviously the industry standard in thin film, as it is the only thin-film company that is profitable and growing.

The “other” thin-film efficiencies are all over the place, actually. We have the 1.7%-efficient Konarka KT 3000 modules, the 3.2%-efficient Flexcell Sunboard 27 modules, the 5.8%-efficient QS Solar QS90SGU modules, the 6.3%-efficient Unisolar PVL-136 modules, the 10.0%-efficient Sharp’s NA-V142H5 modules, the 12.1%-efficient Avancis Powermax module, and the 12.2%-efficient Solibro SL2 module, etc.

When people ask me about thin film, they will use either that phrase or “amorphous”. In each case they are curious about the same technology group though they may not know that the one (amorphous) is a sub-group of the other (thin film): this is why I separate out crystalline from “amorphous or thin film” solar, which seems to be confusing you. While CDte, the semiconductor used in First Solar thin film, is indeed a non-amorphous crystalline compound formed of two different elements (cadmium and tellurium), that is besides the point for my classification purposes. When people say “amorphous” with respect to thin film they are referring to amorphous silicon in particular, not to the other light-absorbing chemical compounds that can be used. It’s the easiest way to differentiate between types of silicon-based modules: “crystalline” refers to standard modules, while “amorphous” will always be thin film–hence the breakdown above. Hope that helps!

This post was mentioned on Twitter by GetSolar: New blog post: A Guide to Solar Panels http://www.getsolar.com/blog/a-guide-to-solar-panels/3246/...