-- Scotts Contracting - StLouis Renewable Energy

Search This Blog

6.09.2010

Solar Information

Solar Panels Guide contact-

 Scotty for additional information and to schedule a Free Site Evaluation


Solar panels, mounting hardware, inverter, wiring and conduit, specialized meters: these are the components of all photovoltaic (PV) systems. But it's the solar panels themselves that not only make up the bulk of your solar quote, but whose technology, costs, and applications are the most hotly contested. People ask all the time what the differences are among panels–here's a thorough but lay-person friendly answer.

Before the overview, a quick vocab lesson:  A solar cell is the actual, wafer-thin semiconductor that produces electricity. A solar module is multiple solar cells connected to one another. A solar panel is one or more solar modules sealed up in a single object (frame) and used as part of a solar array. A solar array is the whole shebang mentioned above: the solar panels plus all the ancillary equipment necessary to not only produce electricity from sunlight, but to channel and use it.

Crystalline Solar
Crystalline solar panels have been around, in varying stages of efficiency and attractiveness, for decades. They're on space stations and satellites–they're reliable and they last for ages. The semicondutor–the element responsible for the actual electric generation–is a thin sheet of crystalline silicon. There are two kinds of crystalline solar cells, which differ in how they're manufactured, their efficiency levels, and ultimately, their end cost to the consumer.
  • monocrystalline solar cells: Literally of one crystal, these cells are wafers sliced off one large, organically grown cylindrical silicon crystal. With their nearly perfect crystalline structure, these wafers are superb conductors of electricity. Current monocrystalline solar panels on the market can turn more than 15 percent of the sunlight that hits their surface into electricity.
    • Monocrystalline Solar ModuleThe crystal growth and extrusion process is time- and labor-intensive, and there is great materials loss involved in cutting the circular crystal wafers into usable octagonal solar cells, which is why solar modules made with these cells are the most expensive ones on the market.
    • They are only cost-effective in some scenarios because their high efficiency means they produce more power over time than other, cheaper modules. Efficiency can go as high as 22 percent on the market, and just over 25 percent in the lab.
    • You can tell when you're looking at a monocrystalline solar module because you'll see little white diamonds (or black, with some manufacturers) formed by the empty space between the edges of the octagonal cells.
  • polycrystalline solar cells: These solar cells are cut from multicrystalline silicon cast in large shallow trays. There's a lot less labor, cutting, and waste involved with polycrystalline, so they're cheaper than their mono brethren. However, the casting process produces a less perfect crystalline structure, which means these cells don't transmit energy as efficiently. These are very standard solar modules: good efficiency, decent price.
    • Polycrystalline Solar ModulePolycrystalline solar modules have a uniform appearance. Their color is a prettily mottled blue-black. Efficiency is usually more like 12-15 percent. These are the go-to type of solar panel for residential installations in particular, where the slight step down from monocrystalline efficiency is more than offset by the cost savings. You'll hear monocrystalline solar panels referred to as "the best"; this isn't necessarily true. Mono- and poly-cells simply have different niches.
Amorphous or Thin-Film Solar
This is the technology that's set the industry abuzz with news of ultra-cheap solar: $1/watt or less. For the record, they're talking about manufactured costs here–by no means does that number reflect what you could expect to pay as a consumer. Super cheap solar is indeed nothing more than a rumor. It's simply fact: this is high technology. High technology costs money. Federal, state, and utility solar incentives, however, can combine to lower the net cost of solar energy systems drastically, and turn a big ticket item into one excellent investment.

But yes, it's exciting that there is a cheaper solar technology afoot, and it has some great applications. Thin film can be made of different materials, sometimes silicon based and sometimes using chemical polymers as the semiconductor.  Thin film drawbacks? Very low efficiency compared to crystalline, with rates typically in the 8-9 percent range; and dubious life expectancy. Crystalline solar panels are warrantied for 25-30 years, and history has proven that they can and will produce energy long after that range. Thin-film has no such tried and true promise of efficacy, which means it can be difficult to predict its returns over a longer period. It's also easier to damage. Crystalline solar modules, encased in glass and weather-sealed, are built to tough out the elements and have been proven to do so successfully. Additionally, thin film only works for solar installation sites where space is no object and angle no concern–either a perfectly tilted roof (best angle for solar is equal to the latitude of the install site) or a perfectly flat one.
In summary:
Monocrystalline: Most efficient; most expensive; attractive octagonal design; especially good for solar installations where space is at a premium.
Polycrystalline: Efficient; moderately priced; classic "solar panel" coloration and design; best all-around choice.
Thin film: Inefficient; cheap; best for commercial installations where higher quantity can compensate for lower quality.

 http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com for your solar systems


--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com

6.08.2010

BPs Financial Woes

BP bankruptcy ahead? Rivals 'licking their chops

BP's Worst Case Scenario Play Video CNBC – BP's Worst Case Scenario
Related Quotes
Symbol Price Change
^DJI 9,939.98 +123.49
^GSPC 1,062.00 +11.53
^IXIC 2,170.57 -3.33

Some have wondered whether BP can financially survive the disaster in the Gulf. Sure, the oil giant is a diverse, international money-making machine, but the Guardian reported Monday that BP had already spent $1.25 billion seven weeks into the oil spill, with no clear end in sight. The company will be dealing with an avalanche of lawsuits for years (a New Orleans attorney told me she expects that some local law school grads will spend the bulk of their careers working on spill-related cases) and the company's stock recently nose-dived. In spite of all this, BP CEO Tony Hayward has repeatedly insisted that his company will see the disaster through until the Gulf Coast is "made whole" again.

But New York Times financial reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin notes that many industry watchers doubt BP can survive. Rivals Exxon and Shell are already circling like buzzards in anticipation that the company may stagger into oblivion. Or, as Sorkin puts it, they're "licking their chops" hoping to acquire a BP in bankruptcy: "Flinty legal minds are dreaming up scenarios in which BP would file a prepackaged bankruptcy and separate the costs of the cleanup — and potentially billions of dollars in legal claims — into a separate corporate entity."

Sorkin reckons that the company's legal liability and long-term cleanup costs could work out to a red-ink tally of $15 billion to $40 billion. He writes: "The company has about $12 billion in cash and short-term investments, but there is already a debate about whether it should cut its dividend out of fear that it could run out of money. Of course, it could sell assets or seek loans, which in this environment is still not that easy."

Sorkin notes that Wall Streeters are already talking about a "Texaco scenario" — a buyout from an industry rival akin to the deal struck allowing Pennzoil to take over Texaco after the former firm won a multibillion-dollar jury verdict against the latter in a dispute over the sale of Getty Oil. But that was the outcome of a bare-knuckled clash of corporate chieftains, and the BP catastrophe probably won't produce any such dramatic resolution overnight. After all, Exxon — the company responsible for the Alaska Valdez disaster, which had formerly been the largest oil spill in U.S. history — is now the most profitable and highest-capitalized corporation in the country.

— Brett Michael Dykes is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News.

Obama's learning 'whose ass to kick' in oil mess

Is President Obama bowing to criticism that he hasn't shown enough emotion and outrage about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill? In an interview with the "Today" show's Matt Lauer on Tuesday morning, the president offered his bluntest response yet about the disaster, telling Lauer he's been talking to experts about "whose ass to kick" when it comes to responsibility for the mess.

[Haunting images of the oil spill]

"I was down there a month ago, before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf.  A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be," Obama said, defending his administration's handling of the spill. "And I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar; we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick."

Watch that segment of the interview here:

 

That's a pretty sharp response for a president known for his cool-headed approach to situations. In recent weeks, as Obama has been assailed for not being expressive enough in his response to the spill, White House officials has defended his reaction by suggesting that voters would prefer to see concrete actions over empty "method acting."

[Jaw-dropping political gaffes]

Yet administration officials are not ignorant of polls showing the nation less than thrilled with Obama's handling of the Gulf. According to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, more than two-thirds of those polled, 69 percent, disapprove of the federal government's handling of the spill. That's higher than the outrage over the Bush administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina.



--
Scott's Contracting
314-243-1953
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

6.07.2010

MORE BP Cover UP

BP Buys 'Oil' Search Terms to Redirect Users to Official Company Website

BP Spokesman Acknowledges Purchase 'To Make It Easier for People to Find Out More About Our Efforts in the Gulf' and Other Ways to Help

Be careful where you click, especially if you're looking for news on the BP oil spill.

TK
Screengrab of google search for "oil spill" shows BP website as first link.
(google.com)

BP, the very company responsible for the oil spill that is already the worst in U.S. history, has purchased several phrases on search engines such as Google and Yahoo so that the first result that shows up directs information seekers to the company's official website.

A simple Google search of "oil spill" turns up several thousand news results, but the first link, highlighted at the very top of the page, is from BP. "Learn more about how BP is helping," the link's tagline reads.

A spokesman for the company confirmed to ABC News that it had, in fact, bought these search terms to make information on the spill more accessible to the public.

"We have bought search terms on search engines like Google to make it easier for people to find out more about our efforts in the Gulf and make it easier for people to find key links to information on filing claims, reporting oil on the beach and signing up to volunteer," BP spokesman Toby Odone told ABC News.



--
Scott's Contracting
314-243-1953
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Connect with Scotts Contracting

FB FB Twitter LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest

Featured Post

1 Hack To Eliminate Your A/C Power Bill This Summer!