The government has recently introduced a new certification program for sustainable energy products. Called the ‘Micro-generation Certification Scheme’ (or MCS), the program is designed to protect customers by ensuring good quality in both products and installation. The scheme works by putting manufacturers and installers through an inspection process in which the applicant has to demonstrate a certain level of competency in the technology they offer, provide a documented, quality management process and show an example of a finished product or installation. In order to incentivize the industry to sign up to the certification scheme, the government has declared that customers may only apply for grants or feed-in-tariffs if their system is entirely covered by MCS which means there is little point in buying an installation without MCS accreditation.

Preventing cowboys from entering green-industry and exploiting customers trying to do their bit for the environment is essential. However, concerns have been raised regarding the real impact of the scheme on customers and regarding the credibility of the certification process itself.

Since this is solarfeedintariff.co.uk, let’s look at the certification requirements for solar energy as an example. In order to claim the UK solar feed-in-tariff arriving next April, you have to install solar panels that have been through the MCS process. At this stage however, few manufacturers have obtained MCS accreditation for their products. In many cases it is simply because they haven’t heard of the UK’s MCS program yet. In other cases, manufacturers who have been told about the scheme may not immediately decide to go for it. To get accredited, you have to pay a private certification center (that in turn has been ‘accredited’ by the MCS administrators) to inspect its product and facilities. This is a costly and time-consuming process. In many cases, someone from the accreditation center has to be flown (at the expense of the manufacturer) to a factory in Europe or Asia so that it can be ‘inspected’ often by someone with little or no experience of the photovoltaic industry. Once you have MCS, the rewards for manufacturers are not clear. In the world of solar energy the UK barely even registers. I am often met with surprise (or worse still, laughter) when I say I’m from the UK at solar conferences. The German market will be over 200 times greater than the UK market this year. There is not a single ground mounted PV power plant in the UK. This means there is no guarantee that investment in MCS will be worthwhile.

The second issue is that certification processes for solar modules already exist. The most prominent is the IEC certification process that can be administered only by a handful or institutions worldwide. This is a rigorous performance and reliability procedure that tests the energy output of a solar panel under controlled conditions, and puts it through a large number of stress tests. These include the damp-heat test (thermal cycling in a humid chamber) and the hail-test (bombarding the module with pellets of ice fired from a canon). IEC tests are designed and continually improved by a committee of international solar energy experts. Wisely, the MCS recognizes IEC accreditation and requires it as part of its inspection. This does lead to the amusing situation where a UK inspector will visit mulit-billion dollar factory that has been supplying solar panels to the rest of the world under the IEC has ‘approve’ that everything in order.

In a photovoltaic system, there are many different components besides the solar panel, however MCS applies only to the solar panel. This is hard to explain. The other expensive part of a PV system is the inverter, which converts the direct current produced by the solar panels into mains 50Hz alternating current so it can be used by most appliances in a building or sold to the grid. The inverter is therefore critical to the good functioning of a system and is known to be significantly less reliable than solar panels which are normally guaranteed for 20 years compared to just 10 for the inverter. Why then is the inverter not covered by MCS?

The MCS for installers in the UK has a clearer role. Many people are familiar with cowboy builders or decorators providing shoddy service, and MCS could be an excellent way to reduce this. Questions remain about the implications for accessibility of micro-generation however. Does MCS mean that a competent DIYer interested in building their own micro-generation system is denied access to government support because they haven’t forked out for an MCS installer?

The main concern is that MCS reduces the amount of competition in the UK, limiting the choice consumers have when it comes to products and installers. Prices of Solar PV systems in the UK are already shockingly high compared to Germany (up to twice the price) and MCS risks being a barrier to entry so that certain manufacturers can now charge even higher prices to UK customers. The MCS could be hurting those it is designed to protect, to the benefit of the manufacturers and installers already within its program.

Certainly the intentions of the MCS are good and with time it could play a key role. The MCS needs to be very careful however not to stunt the growth of the UK solar industry from its current insignificant size. The biggest barrier to that growth is cost, so any measures that may increase costs to the end customer must be rigorously justified.

If you’ve ever carried a solar panel you’ll know that they’re pretty heavy (about 25kg for a 1.5sqm panel), and if you add on the racking that’s required it makes things even heavier. This is a bit of a problem for roofs that can’t support large weights, and for the installers who have to get the stuff up there.

As with many things in life however, technology has a solution on the way. In this case the solution comes in the form of flexible solar panels. This new type of solar panel doesn’t use glass as the supporting material; it uses transparent, flexible plastic sheets. They can be rolled up like carpets and unfurled across a low-sloping roof. This process is much quicker and easier than normal solar panel installation. The solar panels just need to be tacked down at the edges, rather than have heavy metal racking bolted into the frame of the roof. The material is also light enough so that any roof can support its weight.

This technology is spreading quickly but has yet to win dominance in the market. This is for several reasons. Firstly – only one company in the world is making flexible solar panels in large volumes. That company is UniSolar, based in Michigan, USA. UniSolar have developed their own proprietary process for depositing thin-film solar cells (see discussion “REF TO previous article”) on flexible plastic sheets.

In order to increase efficiency of the panels, their design in fact uses three solar cells stacked one on top of the other. Each solar cell responds to a different part of the sun’s spectrum so it maximizes the amount of energy converted to electricity. Despite this compmexity, these solar panels are significantly less efficient than traditional, crystalline silicon solar panels. They are made from ‘amorphous’ silicon and are currently around 6-8 percent efficient, compared to 16 percent for crystalline silicon panels. This means you have to cover a larger area of the roof.

A number of companies claim to have more efficient versions of the technology on the way. Companies such as US based Advent Solar, claim to have flexible solar panels that will soon reach over 10 percent efficiency while other companies, such as G24 Innovations in Wales claim to have lower manufacturing costs for this technology.

Given the success of UniSolar with their low efficiency and complex design, any company that can make an improvement is likely to have success with flexible solar panels. Let’s wait and see…

The date has been announced for the ‘Introduction to solar markets and technology’ course to be held in London between 14 & 15 October 2009. The Green Power Academy which will be hosted in conjunction with the highly successful Green Power Conferences will seek to shed some light on the essential basics of the emerging UK photovoltaic (PV) industry.

The course will offer information and debate on the various commercial advantages which potentially be gained from the solar industry. Highlighting case examples, figures and various business models, attendees will have an opportunity to analyze and compare the different options available to those planning on investing in the UK solar industry. Similarly, the conference will provide detailed and expert evaluations of the various ways of harnessing the sun’s energy for the purposes of energy generation. With a focus on both PV and solar thermal technologies the presentations will give advice as to the respective advantages and disadvantages of each technological field.

Regarding photovoltaic technology the course will cover key areas such as PV material and design looking at the components involved in the manufacture of these materials. From a manufacturing point of view, attendees will be given information on the procurement of solar material along with the costs involved with supplies. Information about grid connectivity and efficiency will all be given using relevant case examples giving attendees a valuable insight into how the PV market has worked elsewhere.

The thermal solar market will be looked at giving specific information regarding Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) and Thermal Energy Storage (TES) solutions for the market and ideas as to where it will be moving in the future. Case studies and figures will be used to give ideas as to the various benefits this technology will provide for potential investors in this sector. The sector will also be analyzed in terms of future market trends and of course regulations which could effect the industry in the future.

Green Power Academy has a history of successful renewable energy courses and will continue the trend in London next month. Dr. John Massey, the training director for the course will use his extensive experience in the solar industry to offer attendees an invaluable resource whether they be new to the industry or new investors wishing to join the emerging sector in its infancy.

If you wish to find out more about this event please visit:

www.greenpoweracademy.com

The New York Times has run an editorial highlighting mistakes made by the Spanish government in subsidising their solar industry in recent years. While Spain was held up as an example of how strong feed-in tariff (FIT) laws can greatly encourage investment and growth within up and coming renewable industries, amendments made by President Zapatero’s government have caused a crash in the photovoltaic market in Spain.

The essential problem of the Spanish tariff which was introduced back in 2007 was that it had no long term provisions or ideas of how to be market reactive in the case of various investment paterns. The generous tariff offered 0.44 euros per kW of energy fed back in to the national grid. The Spanish government anticipated a steady investment pattern over a period of years, however, the media interest along with the high yields made possible by the tariffs caused a short term boom in the solar industry.

In response to the inundation of solar installations across Spain, the government was forced to make changes to the tariff system. With many already signed into investment scheme the government pulled the rug out from under them by reducing the tariff incentives by 30%. With investors already tied into long term deals and with large quantities of PV equipment already being shipped from manufacturing bases in China, many had there fingers burnt by a solar industry which had been created artificially over a short period of time.

Santiago Seage, the CEO of Abengoa Solar SA commented on the situation saying, “What’s important for the regulation of solar is stability. Unfortunately, up to now, we have had too many changes and if the context changes, you can make mistakes in business decisions.”

The Spanish lesson, as set out in the New York Times indicates clearly the need for a tariff which both encourages strong growth of the industry but also offers long term stability by not creating an artificial market with tariff levels which are too high. Germany perhaps offers the best example of long term stability with a healthy PV market capable of being market reactive.

With regards to market stability, Julie Blunden from the US company SunPower Corp was quoted in the New York Times as saying,

“The most important lesson, which everyone has learned, is that if you’re going to establish a feed-in tariff, you need to figure out how to make it market-responsive.”