I've been to Solyndra's head office myself, and they are planning an IPO next year, in the worst of times for IPO. Now they have $1.2B worth of contracts. Solyndra's solar panels are 100% made or manufactured in the USA. That is one of their major selling points.


[b]Solyndra Reshapes Solar Panels for Commercial Rooftops[b]
Proprietary Solar Panels Designed to Provide Higher Electricity Output Per Rooftop and Significantly Reduced Installation Costs; Company Announces More Than $1.2 Billion in Customer Contracts

Last update: 12:00 a.m. EDT Oct. 7, 2008
FREMONT, Calif., Oct 07, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Solyndra, Inc. today announced a new solar photovoltaic (PV) system for the commercial rooftop market. Solyndra's PV system is designed to generate significantly more solar electricity on an annual basis from typical low-slope commercial rooftops with lower installation costs than conventional flat panel PV technologies. Commercial rooftops represent a vast, underutilized resource and huge opportunity for generating solar electricity. Since its founding in 2005, Solyndra has been developing technology and ramping manufacturing capacity to produce its proprietary CIGS-based thin film PV system. Solyndra is currently shipping its systems, comprised of panels and mounting hardware, to fulfill more than $1.2 billion of multi-year contracts with customers in Europe and the United States.....

Complete Article:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/solyndra-reshapes-solar-panels-commercial/story.aspx?guid={8F2D6413-353B-45D1-9CF3-61C2631BFB39}&dist=hppr

Here's more info about Solyndra

Fremont's Solyndra goes from stealth to solar star

By Matt Nauman
Mercury News
Article Launched: 10/06/2008 09:00:00 PM PDT


http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site568/2008/1006/20081006__ssjm1007solyndra~1_Gallery.JPG

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site568/2008/1006/20081006__ssjm1007solyndra~2_Gallery.JPG


The company, based in Fremont in a series of large buildings visible from Interstate 880, says it has orders for $1.2 billion worth of its solar panels over the next five years. It has raised more than $600 million and already has 500 employees. And it plans to construct a second, larger plant in Fremont next year.

Solyndra comes to market with an innovative design, making cylindrical solar cells that resemble fluorescent bulbs. It uses a combination of elements — and not silicon— to create the semiconductor material used in its photovoltaic solar cells. And it targets a specific market — the flat roofs atop thousands of commercial buildings around the world.

"There's a vast underutilized resource for generating solar power, and it's right over our heads," Chris Gronet, Solyndra's chief executive officer, said in an interview. "There's over 30 billion square feet of large, flat commercial rooftop space (in the United States). If we covered that with our solar panels, that would generate 150 gigawatts, enough electricity to generate power for 15 percent of U.S. homes."


Complete Article: http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_10653270?source=rss

Whenever Solyndra hits retail, it really would make nice patio cover or trellis cover. It could be used also as an elevated covering over swimming pool to give partial shade while generating power.

Another is for many nursery growers that require shade houses with partial sun.

Konarka just opened a plant to produce 1 GW of organic photo voltaic panels per year. I could be mistaken, but I believe they are the ones who use various levels of C60 molecules to absorb different wavelengths of light in multiple layers of their plastic films.

Link (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20081007005342&newsLang=en)

Thin films are about to push silicon panels off a cliff.

Thin films are about to push silicon panels off a cliff.

Now, that is an overstatement of the thin film industry. It is only partially correct. Times have changed too, when the silicon manufacturers suddenly have projections of over-production. The regular silicon and polysilicon companies are fighting back, now that there is no big problem in supply chain. Many silicon type plants are coming into production especially next year, lowering the price of silicon.

What this means is a lowered price for many of us when the regular silicon panels fights back at thin film.

While thin film is excellent for applications with very wide and cheap real estate available, it is a problem with most urban residential where the price of land is at a premium. You simply have to max out efficiencies per unit sunlit area. No commercial thin film come close to even just half the overall efficiency of polysilicon based panels at the moment.

But this price war is welcome.

And Solyndra's PVs are actually thin film CIGS!


Original Article:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10059988-54.html?tag=mncol;title



http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20081007/Solyndra_FPO_rooftop_for_press_release_540x409.jpg
Solyndra's series of tubes offer a unique angle on solar power.
(Credit: Solyndra)


October 7, 2008 9:50 AM PDT
Posted by Candace Lombardi Post a comment

Solyndra, a start-up making thin-film photovoltaic systems, has secured $600 million in funding.

It's additionally secured $1.2 billion in contracts from clients in the U.S. and Europe, the Fremont, Calif.-based company revealed Tuesday.

What start-up gets that kind of funding and client promise? Basically, one that's invented thin-film solar panels shaped like old-school fluorescent lightbulbs.

Since 2005, Solyndra has quietly been developing a proprietary CIGS-based thin film photovoltaic (PV) system and a staff of more than 500 employees.

CIGS is a material that includes a combination of copper, indium, gallium, and selenide. It's now being used by quite a number of companies to make thin-film solar cells among other things.

Solyndra's cylindrical PV panels don't have to be spaced to leave room for rotation toward the sun as with flat solar panels. The panels are actually rows of cylindrical tubes which are installed horizontally and close to one another.

The tubes can "capture sunlight across a 360-degree photovoltaic surface capable of converting direct, diffuse, and reflected sunlight into electricity," according to Solyndra.


http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20081007/Solyndra_more-electricity_270x184.jpg
Solyndra panels consist of tubes that can absorb sunlight from all angles.
(Credit: Solyndra)


The company also says that because of this unique shape and mounting system, more productive solar surface area can be packed onto one roof than with conventionally shaped panels. Subsequently, its system is able to generate "significantly more solar electricity on an annual basis" compared with flat panels, according to the company.

Because Solyndra's tube panels are lighter and allow wind to pass through them easily, there is less construction needed in terms of rooftop anchoring or shoring up a roof for significant weight-bearing. Because of this, according to Solyndra, its system is significantly cheaper to install than flat-panel systems

While solar power may not be considered the complete solution to U.S. energy woes, many commercial, industrial, and public facilities are looking at using solar photovoltaic systems as a supplement to their facilities' energy diets. In April, for example, the landmark Staples Center in Los Angeles announced it will be covering its 24,196-foot roof with photovoltaic modules.

Thin-film solar cells, particularly CIGS panels, have been attracting a lot of attention and funding. SoloPower, NanoSolar, and Ava Solar are thin-film solar companies that have announced funding in the hundreds of millions over the last few months. Even IBM is getting into CIGS solar cells through a partnership with a Japanese semiconductor equipment manufacturer.

Solyndra's funding comes from a mix of venture capital and private equity investments totaling $600 million to date. Solyndra investors include Virgin Green Fund, the Abu Dhabi-based Masdar, Rockport Capital Partners, and Argonaut Capital, according to a company spokeswoman.

The company has already been expanding its current plant, Venture Beat reported early Tuesday morning.

Solyndra counts Solar Power, the company contracted to do the Staples Center, and Phoenix Solar, a large solar power integration company in Europe, among its satisfied customers.

"By eliminating the need for roof-penetrating mounts and wind ballasts, PV arrays with Solyndra panels can be installed with one-third the labor, in one-third of the time, at one-half the cost. For commercial rooftops, PV module installation time can now be measured in days, not weeks. For flat commercial rooftops this is game-changing technology," Manfred Bachler, chief technical officer at Phoenix Solar, said in a statement.

Candace Lombardi is a journalist who divides her time between the U.S. and the U.K. Whether it's cars, robots, personal gadgets, or industrial machines, she enjoys examining the moving parts that keep our world rotating. Email her at CandaceLombardi@gmail.com. She is a member of the CNET Blog network and is not a current employee of CNET.

Wow, the US still makes stuff?

:D

Wow, the US still makes stuff?

:D

You betcha! One of their selling points especially in these tough economic times.

Was really wondering how much power will these panels produce the entire typical day. It is quite unfair to rate them based on their peak capacity as they are more efficient than flat panels when the sky is cloudy or when the sun is at low angle in the morning or afternoon or during the winter. A fair comparison amongst these various solar panels, including those with tracking, would be what is the total electric energy output per total system sunlight intercepted area per year and compare alongside with total cost of installation and maintenance.

Bob Lutz in his announcement of their plans to put a solar panel on the Volt gave some numbers that put into perspective the low energy output of of a solar cell compared to other sources. He said that if the Volt sat in an airport parking lot in the hot sun for three days it would take the charge from 1/4 to 1/3 or 1/12th of a full charge. Just using the 1/12th number, ignoring what percent of usable charge this would be, that would be 1/12 x 40 miles or 3.33 miles or 1/12 x 80 cents for a charge (about 7 cents). I think I would rather put my Volt under cover to save the paint and upholstery.

The CEO of EXXON tried to put solar cells in perspective as a gasoline alternative. He said that to replace one of the larger EXXON stations in LA with equivalent solar cells you would have to cover the entire LA county with solar cells.

I hope that the solar cell technology will become competative but it is not nearly there yet. If the solar cell for the Volt is a priced option, I doubt that I would take the option. It would be good for trickle charging but not as a primary source of power. As one of my workmates said "I just cannot afford all of this free energy"
I think GM is only considering the political correctness of solar cells.

Bob Lutz in his announcement of their plans to put a solar panel on the Volt gave some numbers that put into perspective the low energy output of of a solar cell compared to other sources. He said that if the Volt sat in an airport parking lot in the hot sun for three days it would take the charge from 1/4 to 1/3 or 1/12th of a full charge. Just using the 1/12th number, ignoring what percent of usable charge this would be, that would be 1/12 x 40 miles or 3.33 miles or 1/12 x 80 cents for a charge (about 7 cents). I think I would rather put my Volt under cover to save the paint and upholstery.

The CEO of EXXON tried to put solar cells in perspective as a gasoline alternative. He said that to replace one of the larger EXXON stations in LA with equivalent solar cells you would have to cover the entire LA county with solar cells.

I hope that the solar cell technology will become competative but it is not nearly there yet. If the solar cell for the Volt is a priced option, I doubt that I would take the option. It would be good for trickle charging but not as a primary source of power. As one of my workmates said "I just cannot afford all of this free energy"
I think GM is only considering the political correctness of solar cells.





Of course you would not buy the solar option. You have no clue about solar power or what the benefits are. You dismiss the amount of energy stored in the oil contained in those large tanks under that Exxon station likes it's a small amount of energy. Do the calculations and you will be amazed. Oil is a beautiful energy source that will be very hard to replace. However, replace it we must or face the consequences when the milk from Mother Earth's breast begins to dry up.

I would be wasting keystrokes trying to explain the other uses of having a remote way to add energy to your Volt but you just will never get it until you experience it. It's like trying to explain to a perspective homebuyer how nice the house will look while walking through the framing. They just can't make the jump until they see the fruit in the basket on the table.

In addition to what Texas said, challenge me with realistic numbers:

Let us assume a Chevy Volt as a good example. It only needed 8 kWH to recharge its batteries. Typical grid-tied solar residential PV panels have between 4 kW to 8 kW peak capacity, with a typical average equivalent full sunshine hours of 5.6 (for our area, but better or poorer in others) per day. If I install 6 kW peak capacity system, I would obtain 33.6 kWH/day, and the Chevy Volt needed only 8 kWH/40 mile range assuming typical driving profile.

If I were to do the installation of a 6kW capacity panel, it would cost me around $34,000 before rebates for all the panel cost and inverters and payment to electrician for the hookup. With the currently approved solar tax credits and California's rebate, the net cost to me would only be $13,000. It is going to give me electric energy of around 12,264 kWH/year.

The Chevy Volt uses 200 Wh/mile. If I were to use the power from my panels for transportation, then the mileage that I will get from my solar panels would be 61,320 miles/year! No biofuel in the world, or even the famous algae can beat such efficiency. The 6 kW peak capacity occupies an area of only 404 square feet! If we were to convert miles per acre per year, that would be 6,617,426 miles Chevy Volt travel/acre/year.

So there is more than enough power from a 404 square feet of south facing roof to get you 61,320 miles per year. Of course, I only go about 15,000 miles/year, and the other electricity I use for other appliances in the house. Thus solar PV and battery powered electric vehicles are a perfect match for a non-polluting solution that can be feasible soon!

Covering the entire LA?

You needed only an area of less than 89 miles by 89 miles covered with solar power capturing setup to supply all of US transportation needs if it were to electrify all of its commuting needs. The Mojave dessert is 50,400 square miles.

Come to think of it, to produce the electric energy equivalent of 1 cubic mile of oil, you needed only 34,068 square miles of the earth's surface, this area is smaller than the Mojave desert. The world is using roughly 1 cubic mile of oil, after the economic slowdown. The whole world's demand for energy can be met by solar along with appropriate storage mechanisms.

What solar does best is that it is distributed nicely, so no need to sacrifice one place. For your driving needs with the Volt, an area of only 404 square feet can give you 61,320 miles, and using a not so efficient solar panels! Typical lot sizes are surely greater than that size, and surely not an entire LA. Whoever stated such disinformation should go back to school.

For the entire world's needs: 34,068 square miles covered in solar is merely 0.3184% of the world's total desert areas.

To be fair, I didn't pull those desert numbers out of thin air. I got them from National Geographic archives:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial_na.html#desert

Arranged by group and numbers are shown in square miles:
Neartic
Baja California desert 30,000
Central Mexican matorral 22,900
Chihuahuan desert 196,700
Colorado Plateau shrublands 126,000
Great Basin shrub steppe 129,700
Gulf of California xeric scrub 9,100
Meseta Central matorral 48,400
Mojave desert 50,400
Snake-Columbia shrub steppe 84,200
Sonoran desert 86,100
Tamaulipan matorral 6,300
Tamaulipan mezquital 54,600
Wyoming Basin shrub steppe 51,100

Australasian
Carnarvon xeric shrublands 34,900
Central Ranges xeric scrub 108,800
Gibson desert 60,200
Great Sandy-Tanami desert 317,800
Great Victoria desert 163,900
Nullarbor Plains xeric shrublands 75,400
Pilbara shrublands 69,400
Simpson desert 225,700
Tirari-Stuart stony desert 145,500
Western Australian Mulga shrublands 177,800

African
East Saharan montane xeric woodlands 10,800
Eritrean coastal desert 1,700
Ethiopian xeric grasslands and shrublands 58,800
Gulf of Oman desert and semi-desert 24,100
Hobyo grasslands and shrublands 10,100
Kalahari xeric savanna 227,100
Kaokoveld desert 17,600
Madagascar spiny thickets 17,100
Madagascar succulent woodlands 30,800
Masai xeric grasslands and shrublands 39,000
Nama Karoo 135,600
Namib desert 31,200
Namibian savanna woodlands 87,100
Red Sea coastal desert 21,700
Somali montane xeric woodlands 24,000
Southwestern Arabian foothills savanna 106,100
Southwestern Arabian montane woodlands 33,600
Succulent Karoo 39,700

Indo Malayan
Deccan thorn scrub forests 131,400
Indus Valley desert 7,500
Northwestern thorn scrub forests 188,500
Thar desert 92,200

NeoTropic
Araya and Paria xeric scrub 2,000
Atacama desert 40,600
Caatinga 283,600
La Costa xeric shrublands 26,400
Paraguana xeric scrub 6,200
San Lucan xeric scrub 1,500
Sechura desert 71,400
Tehuacán Valley matorral 3,800

PaleArtic
Afghan Mountains semi-desert 5,300
Alashan Plateau semi-desert 260,000
Arabian Desert and East Sahero-Arabian xeric shrublands 714,800
Atlantic coastal desert 15,400
Azerbaijan shrub desert and steppe 24,700
Badkhiz-Karabil semi-desert 51,600
Baluchistan xeric woodlands 111,500
Caspian lowland desert 103,200
Central Afghan Mountains xeric woodlands 53,800
Central Asian northern desert 255,800
Central Asian southern desert 218,800
Central Persian desert basins 224,300
Eastern Gobi desert steppe 108,800
Gobi Lakes Valley desert steppe 53,800
Great Lakes Basin desert steppe 60,700
Junggar Basin semi-desert 117,500
Kazakh semi-desert 261,900
Kopet Dag semi-desert 10,200
Mesopotamian shrub desert 81,500
North Saharan steppe and woodlands 646,800
Paropamisus xeric woodlands 35,800
Persian Gulf desert and semi-desert 28,000
Qaidam Basin semi-desert 74,100
Red Sea Nubo-Sindian tropical desert and semi-desert 251,500
Rigestan-North Pakistan sandy desert 107,100
Sahara desert 1,791,500
South Iran Nubo-Sindian desert and semi-desert 135,700
South Saharan steppe and woodlands 425,400
Taklimakan desert 286,400
Tibesti-Jebel Uweinat montane xeric woodlands 31,700
West Saharan montane xeric woodlands 99,700

Oceania
Fiji tropical dry forests 2,700
Hawaii tropical dry forests 2,500


Total Square miles: 10,698,600
Global solar sq miles for 1 cu mile oil: 34,068
% of total: 0.3184%

Yeah, please don't bother reading what someone at Exxon has to say about solar power. The world is changing and they only want to slow it down.

You don't have to necessarily use desert space for solar panels. You can put them on barges and float them too.

You don't have to necessarily use desert space for solar panels. You can put them on barges and float them too.

Exactly right! I mentioned them on other posts too. For example, you can float them over lakes and ponds, aside from the sea. If you float them over water storage structures, it helps minimize evaporation loss of freshwater, so that the dam will produce more than double power. During the day, it will produce electricity from solar PV floating on the water, and then augment the electricity produced with hydro to match demand. So you conserve both water and power.

Over here in Napa, California, some grape growers float solar panels over their water storage ponds. It supplies them 75% of their electric needs and minimize water losses as it keeps the water temperature down at the same time less surface area to evaporate.

From: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9954667-54.html?tag=mncol



Floating solar farm juices up winery
Posted by Martin LaMonica


http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20080529/Floatovoltaic_270x202.bmp
(Credit: Sharp Solar Systems)


Napa Valley winery Far Niente on Tuesday commissioned what it says is the first floating solar farm.

Called a "floatovoltaic" solar array, it is a collection of almost 1,000 solar panels hitched to pontoons that float in the vineyard's irrigation pond.

In tandem with another 1,300 panels next to the pond, the entire array will generate about 4.000 kilowatts of energy at peak time, covering the winery's annual electricity use.

The panels in Far Niente's solar array, made by Sharp Solar Systems, were installed by SPG Solar.

Solyndra just closed another sale for $320 million:

Link (http://earth2tech.com/2008/11/17/solyndra-signs-320m-deal-for-cooler-solar-roofs/)

This brings them up to $1.52 billion in booked sales.

Floating solar panels to reduce evaporation! Eureka! Do you know what the biggest efficiency loss for pumped storage hydro is? Yes, evaporation. Why didn't I think about just putting more solar panels on the surface of the water to not only help with the evaporation but also get great sun resources? I guess it would come down to a cost / benefit analysis. The floating panels would be more expensive and harder to maintain but they could really cut down on evaporation (especially in desert locations) and make the use of the land more efficient. Brilliant! Now if we could only make the solar panels look like the ground surrounding the pumped storage hydro facility. You would not even know the power plant was there. ;)

Not a climatologist by any stretch but doesn't rainfall originate from evaporation? I guess maybe a few hydro dam reservoir size areas wouldn't affect rainfall too much.

Not a climatologist by any stretch but doesn't rainfall originate from evaporation? I guess maybe a few hydro dam reservoir size areas wouldn't affect rainfall too much.

Ah, compared to the area of our oceans? No, not that much.

I think rather than covering up swaths of deserts with solar panels, cities would be a more logical location. Parking lots, roof tops to start with. They could work well over city streets by providing shade when it's sunny and protection from the elements when it's not. Plus, if the energy is generated where it's being used, transmission losses are much lower.

I think rather than covering up swaths of deserts with solar panels, cities would be a more logical location. Parking lots, roof tops to start with. They could work well over city streets by providing shade when it's sunny and protection from the elements when it's not. Plus, if the energy is generated where it's being used, transmission losses are much lower.





I think both are good. It's just a question of costs and benefits. In the desert you get many days of very intense sun. America has some of the best solar resources around. The transmission losses might turn out to be much less than the inefficiencies of trying to lease building space, maintenance, reduction of solar hours, inability to completely track the sun, etc. Again, they both have their place but the desert farm can pump out massive amounts of energy and the land is not used very much. I saw a picture of a solar farm in Germany and it looked so nice I wanted to have a picnic there. How many fossil fuel power plants have grounds that would inspire that kind of thinking?