1. APEC 2012 Shatters Attendance Record As Growth Trend Continues
   
2. PSMA Annual Meeting At APEC 2012 Attracts A Crowd
   
3. Meet Your Directors
   
4. About Our Members
   
5. Welcome To PSMA
   
6. The California Energy Commission (CEC)
   
7. Debunking Solar Power Myths
   
8. INTELEC® 2012, Conference And Exhibition
   
9. Solar Energy Stock Index Q4 2011
   
10. Solar Energy DealReader Q4 2011
    
11. EMS Stock Index Q4 2011
    
12. EMS DealReader Q4 2011
    
13. PSMA Special Call For Papers
    
14. Events Of Interest – Mark Your Calendar
    

If you or anyone in your company is interested in getting on the distribution list for future issues of PSMA UPDATE, please send e-mail to: power@psma.com. Be sure to include your name and the name of your company.

Previous issues of update: Q2_2011 | Q3_2011 | Q4_2011

---

PSMA UPDATE is published and distributed via e-mail quarterly by the Power Sources Manufacturers Association. Send editorial information and comments to:

Permission to reprint information and articles as published is granted: a courtesy line is appreciated.

Membership in PSMA is open to any organization or corporation involved in the power sources and supplies industry. For membership information, visit our website or contact us by fax, telephone or email.

If you or anyone in your company is interested in getting on the distribution list for future issues of PSMA UPDATE, please send e-mail to: power@psma.com. Be sure to include your name and the name of your company.

 

y all measures, APEC 2012 in Orlando was a resounding success.  Our General Chair – PSMA’s own Frank Cirolia – and his outstanding conference committee, along with the tireless support of our conference management team at Courtesy Associates, turned in record setting performances in total attendance, total number of exhibitors, total number of professional seminars, and total number of technical papers presented.

Attendance at APEC has been growing year-on-year since 2009.  This year, our attendance figures exceeded 3,000 for the first time – easily breaking that barrier with over 3,400 engineers in attendance! Members of the global power electronics community come to APEC in growing numbers because they expect to find the highest quality presentations and world-class exhibit. And APEC has once again delivered. Here are some of the milestones that Frank Cirolia reported for APEC 2012:

• Largest number of attendees – 3,400+
• Largest number of exhibitor booths – 262  (with a total of 177 exhibitors)
• 30 student travel grants of up to $1,000 each enabling university students from all over the world to attend
• 404 Technical Paper Presentations
• Professional Seminar and Technical Session proceedings on USB drives instead of CDs
• 11 Partner firms provided added revenues – more coffee breaks, FREE Wi-Fi

Siamak Abedinpour, this year’s Program Chair, now takes over the reins as General Chair for APEC 2013. As we bask in the glow of a job well-done, work is already underway to make APEC 2013 even bigger, even better. APEC moves back to the West Coast next year, convening in Long Beach, CA March 17-21, 2013. Early indications are that we may break 200 exhibitors for the first time!

As a final note, we wish to acknowledge the efforts and tireless dedication of Don Woodard, who after many, many years as Exhibits Chair is stepping down. Thanks Don for all you have done and will continue to do for APEC and PSMA.

Provided by Greg Evans, APEC 2012 Publicity Chair

A buffet breakfast was served at 7:30 a.m. and provided an opportunity for networking and meeting colleagues. Outgoing Chairman Dusty Becker opened the meeting by welcoming all the attendees and asked each to briefly introduce themselves. Among those present were many of the 30 student recipients of the APEC Attendance Awards. This is the first year the awards were provided jointly by IAS, PELS and PSMA and attracted applicants from 37 different schools in 8 countries.

Some of the attendees at the 2012 PSMA Annual Meeting

The first item on the agenda was the election of four people to the Board of Directors. The following candidates were elected to the Board of Directors for the three-year term (2012-2015):

Don Woodard, Carl Blake, Ed Herbert and Michel Grenon

Dusty introduced Carl Blake as the new Chairman for the term 2012-2014 and also introduced the other Executive Officers who will serve for the next two years:

Dusty Becker receives his plaque from Carl Blake

Dusty Becker turns over the gavel to new Chairman Carl Blake

Before giving his report, Carl presented Dusty with a plaque to acknowledge his leadership and contributions to the Association.

Carl Blake discussed his vision for the coming year which is to expand the participation of member companies as a means to increase the value of membership. He encouraged every company representatives to promote the activities of PSMA to others in their company and inform them of the opportunities provided by each of the PSMA Technical Committees, especially the Power Technology Roadmap activities in the coming year.

Michel Grenon reports on the Association finances.

Siamak Abedinpour, APEC 2013 Program Chair

Frank Cirolia, APEC 2012 Program Chair

Following the Chairman’s Report was a financial Report from Michel Grenon and individual reports from the PSMA Committees.

Frank Cirolia, General Chairman for APEC 2012, reported that there were over 3,400 attendees – a new record! There were also a record number of exhibitor booths. APEC 2012 should be successful from both a technical and financial viewpoint

Siamak Abedinpour, who will be the General Chair for APEC 2013, reported that plans for that conference are underway and he is looking forward to another successful APEC.

The invited speaker at this year’s Annual Meeting was Brian Patterson, Chairman of EMerge Alliance. He explained what the Emerge Alliance is; who the members are and what they hope to accomplish. The purpose of the Alliance is to define new power platforms for improved economics, reliability and ecology. The membership represents all key industry stakeholders. Standards are created, vetted, voted on and used by member organizations. Brian Patterson’s presentation also included information about Net Zero Energy Buildings – buildings that produce as much energy as they consume.

Dusty Becker and Brian Patterson

Aung Tu leads the workshop preparing for the 2013 Power Technology Roadmap

The minutes from the PSMA Annual Meeting will be posted in the Members Only area of the PSMA web site together with the charts from all of the presentations.

Most of the PSMA Technical Committees held meetings during APEC 2012 to set their program for the upcoming year. The Saturday prior to the start of APEC 2012, the Power Technology Committee co-chaired by Eric Persson and Aung Tu held an organizing and planning meeting for the next Technology Roadmap, which will be available prior to APEC 2013.

The dinner for APEC Sponsors was held as usual on Sunday evening. Since this was also the night of Super Bowl XLVI, the formal dinner was replaced by a lively Super Bowl party.

Some of the APEC Sponsors enjoying the Super Bowl party

This NY Giants fan was happy with the outcome of the Super Bowl!

The Annual Meeting, PSMA Committee meetings, as well as the technical sessions, seminars, Industry Presentations, exhibits and other events kept PSMA members busy all the week. The APEC banquet, held at Harry Potter’s World, in Universal Studios, was a chance for everyone to relax and enjoy themselves.

Attendees at the Hospitality Suite seemed to enjoy the event

Harry Potter fan, Michael Horzepa, was thrilled to win a wand in Ollivanders Wand Shop

The PSMA Hospitality Suite was held again this year to introduce the Association to people from member companies who wanted to learn more about PSMA and to inform non-members about the benefits of membership.

our members of the PSMA Board of Directors are elected at the Annual Meeting held every year during the APEC conference. Each Director serves a three year term and is eligible to be reelected for one additional term.

We would like you to meet two of the newest Directors who were elected at the PSMA Annual Meeting, which took place during APEC 2012 in Orlando, FL.
 

Ed received a BEEE from Yale University in 1963 and worked as a design engineer, a project engineer, an engineering supervisor, then as engineering manager until 1985.  Since then, he has been independent, promoting his patented technologies for license.

Most recently, Ed was instrumental in rejuvenating the Capacitor Committee and as Co-Chair of the Magnetics Committee was the sponsor of the Pilot Project and the Phase II Project at Dartmouth, studying core loss. He also prepared a Supplemental Report further analyzing the data.

Ed is also active in the Alternative Energy Committee and Capacitor Committee. He has supported the past two Power Technology Roadmap reports and served as a group leader on the committee.

In running for Director, Ed stated “I have been enriched by my association with PSMA. I welcome the opportunity to give more in return.”

Provided by Ed Herbert, Independent Inventor

Don is president of Venable Instruments, which was founded in 1979 by H. Dean Venable, the pioneer of stability analysis. Don spent 25 years working in the private sector before entering the Power industry in 1999. His executive management and sales and marketing background contribute a unique perspective to his role on the PSMA Board.

Don graduated from North Texas State University (now the University of North Texas) in 1976 with a degree in business administration. A native of east Texas, Don and his wife of 27 years, Melony, have called Austin home since 1995.  They are parents to two adult children, Jerad and Maegan, and recently became grandparents to Vivienne.

The Woodards are active members of Lake Hills Church and serve on several committees and outreach programs, such as Mobile Loaves and Fishes. In his spare time, Don enjoys fly fishing, bird hunting, and all things rock and roll.

In the next issue of the Update we will introduce you to Michel Grenon, who was elected as a Director at the Annual Meeting. Michel also serves as Secretary/Treasurer. Carl Blake, Chairman of the Board, was elected to his second term at that meeting. Carl was profiled in the previous issue of the Update.

Provided by Don Woodard, President, Venable Instruments

Würth Elektronik has worldwide presence through the technical sales force and provides customer support on product designs from concept to manufacture. Their product range contains EMC ferrites, filter chokes, common mode chokes, circuit protection EMI shielding material, power inductors, power transformers, LAN and telecom transformers, RF inductors, LTCC components, connectors, switches, assembly technique and power elements.

All catalogue items are available ex-stock and samples orders will be delivered within 24 to 48 hours and entirely free of charge! Their products are fully RoHS & REACh compliant.

Würth Elektronik has 4,800 employees and a turnover in 2010 of 202 Million Euro.

As part of the Wurth Group, a family run and privately owned company employing some 65,000 staff globally with a turnover of $11 billion, you can rely on our motto “More Than You Expect”. Würth Elektronik offers more, such as sample kits with continuous free re-fills, EMC lab support, seminars, technical design books and much more!

Visit us at www.we-online.com.

Provided by Benjamin Benchimol,
Business Relationship Manager,
Wurth Electronics eiSos

Editors Note: We would like to feature your company in a future issue of the Update.
Please contact the Association Office for information about how to submit an
article for consideration.

Aerolearn
James M. Rice
13225 Madrone Mountain Way
Austin, TX 78737
E-Mail:   mrice@aerolearn.com
Web Site:  www.aerolearn.com

Aerolearn develops E-learning courses, websites, and aviation maintenance training for online presentation. Aerolearn created the Nano 100 and Nano 200 online courses, which are available, at no cost, to PSMA members, through the Nanotechnology Forum on the PSMA website.

Current Solutions
Al Johnson Jr.
21754 SR 54 Suite 101
Lutz, FL 33549
E-Mail:   sales@currentsolutions.com
Web Site:  www.currentsolutions.com

Current Solutions Inc. was founded in 1995. Their factories have over 1,000,000 ft.² of factory space, $100 million in annual sales and 2,500 employees. The facilities y range from small, highly technical, state-of-the-art, low volume to massive, high-volume, low cost commodity companies. They serve the Electronic Original Equipment Manufacturing market (EOEM) in medical, Military, Test and Instrumentation, LED Lighting, Telecom, Datacomm and Computer Peripheral.

Current Solutions Inc. brings OEM Power Source Manufacturers to the OEMs of the Southeast. Via exclusive representation
, they offer expert product support and technical assistance to the benefit of all parties.

They support their customer’s needs with years of market knowledge, technical expertise, and integrity. Their goal is to become a trusted and relied upon resource for their customer’s power requirements. They believe that professional manufacturers’ representatives are the best way to bring a product to the OEM market.

GaN Systems Inc.
Greg Klowak
300 March Road – Suite 501
Ottawa, Ontario K2K2E2
E-Mail:   gbklowak@gansystems.com
Web Site:  www.gansystems.com

GaN Systems is introducing a range of Gallium Nitride high power switching diodes and transistors for cleantech power conversion applications. Featuring exceptionally low on-resistance, near-zero forward voltage and negligible charge storage, these devices will enable switching efficiencies well in excess of current silicon based solutions and offer dramatic benefits to switching power supply designs, inverters, hybrid and electric vehicles, battery management and power factor correction .

Based on licensed process IP developed in Canada and local foundry facilities, together with breakthrough GaN Systems device design IP, these gallium nitride devices will use low cost custom silicon base wafers.

For the first time compound semiconductor devices will be cost competitive with silicon devices, while offering greatly superior performance.

In speed, temperature and power handling, gallium nitride is set to take over as silicon power devices reach their limits. GaN is the technology that will allow us to implement essential future cleantech innovations where efficiency is a key requirement.

The excitement about GaN stems from its unique material and electronic properties. GaN devices offer five key characteristics: high dielectric strength, high operating temperature, high current density, high speed switching and low on-resistance. These characteristics are due to the properties of GaN, which, compared to silicon, offers ten times higher electrical breakdown characteristics, three times the bandgap, and exceptional carrier mobility.

NextEnergy
William Siddall
461 Burroughs St.
Detroit MI 48202
E-Mail:   williams@nextenergy.org
Web Site:  www.nextenergy.org

Launched in 2002, NextEnergy is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization with a mission to become one of the nation's leading catalysts for alternative and renewable energy.

Located in Detroit, they are within easy driving distance of three major research universities and in the heartland of America's transportation, technology, and manufacturing industries.

They participate in research projects totaling millions of dollars and contribute to the development of new technologies for power-generation, transportation and fuels.

NextEnergy provides an engine for technology development and deployment, both nationally and locally. They are helping change the national conversation about Michigan, heightening awareness of the state as an alternative-energy leader and building on the state's ongoing commitment to leadership in the development of alternative and renewable energy. The State of Michigan lists alternative energy number one among rapidly growing business opportunities.

SL Power Electronics
Steve Miller
6050 King Dr Bldg A
Ventura, CA 93003
 E-Mail:   steve.miller@slpower.com
Web Site:  www.slpower.com

SL Power Electronics' (SLPE) global facilities provide local support to customers in Asia, Europe, and the Americas. SLPE was formed by the merger of Ault and Condor, industry leaders for over 30 years in their respective segments of externally and internally mounted power conversion solutions.

SLPE is a subsidiary of SL Industries, Inc., a supplier of high-reliability power conversion, motion control, and electronic protection equipment designed for medical, aerospace, computer, datacom, industrial, telecom, transportation and utility applications.

SL Power Electronics divisional headquarters are located in Ventura, California. This facility is responsible for management of divisional global environmental initiatives, sales and marketing, finance, engineering, quality assurance, and logistics and manufacturing.

This location is also responsible for administration of certification programs including ISO9001: 2008, regulatory-agency-related in-house testing programs, and registration to International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). 

Other locations are in Mexicali, Mexico and Xianghe and Shanghai, China.

Venture-Q, LLC
Zel Diel
1702-L Meridian Ave., Suite 257
San Jose, CA 95125
E-Mail:  vq@venture-Q.com

Venture-Q® is a strategy consulting specialist focusing on semiconductor power electronics.

They provide consulting services as well as market research reports on semiconductor power vendors, technologies and industry trends. Their clients include major worldwide semiconductor components and electronic system companies.

Venture-Q was founded in 2000. They differentiate themselves with quality of deliverables and personalized client services. Their website is currently under construction.

The CEC is a highly proactive agency and follows the wishes of people of California, a progressive state. In this way, the CEC wields significant regulatory power because California is a large and significant market, and its energy-related regulations are forward looking. However, even though the US DOE has not always followed CEC's recommendations and in some instances some serious legal challenges have been made to CEC's regulatory positions by various entities. But its power and influence cannot be underestimated.

The California Energy Commission (CEC) was created in 1974 as an agency within the Natural Resources Agency. Initially the charter was to certify construction or modification of any electric plant by looking into its need and the suitability. Later as energy infrastructure development diversified to include nuclear, renewable (solar) and other forms of power generating technologies, CEC charter changed accordingly. Besides focusing on the power generating side of the business, CEC has also ventured into regulating efficiency standards for various home appliances and buildings. The CEC recently passed a new regulation related to energy efficiency guidelines for mobile chargers: on January 12th, 2012, CEC voted 3-0 to have stringent regulations related to battery chargers that power mobile phones, tablet computers, power tools and many other portable equipment. It is estimated that the market in California uses about 170 million battery chargers which waste as much as 60% of energy in either standby mode when the equipment is not being charged or when it is fully charged..."

The CEC's sphere of influence is expanding and its rise in prestige and action can be attributed to one man, its former commissioner, Dr. Arthur Rosenfeld. He is one of the most revered individuals in the field of energy efficiency and widely acknowledged as "The Father of Energy Efficiency".  Dr. Rosenfeld served as the commissioner of the CEC from 2000 to 2010, an entire decade. During this time, CEC tackled issues related to power generation, transportation and efficient use of energy. Efficient use of energy became as important as producing it, without using polluting and carbon-creating fossil fuel-based power generation. Dr. Arthur Rosenfeld was instrumental in promoting energy efficiency as one of the important issues in the energy infrastructure. "Rosenfeld" is now used as a unit to measure energy savings, created in the honor of Arthur Rosenfeld. Currently, Dr. Arthur H Rosenfeld is a member of the U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu's Energy Advisory Board.

CEC wields significant clout in setting various energy goals for California. For example, it was the CEC that established its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program with a goal to increase power generated from the renewable sources to 20% by 2017.
The CEC defines its mission as "to assess, advocate and act through public/private partnerships to improve energy systems that promote a strong economy and a healthy environment".  It is a very powerful, proactive and action oriented agency that has shaped California’s energy usage for decades. At per capita level, California is the least energy consuming state in the union--(6,721 kWh vs. US average of 12,146 kWh), thanks mostly to CEC for its proactive stance in increasing energy efficiency. (This is also partly due to California's mild weather).  
The California Energy Commission is supported by many environmental and trade groups and utilities that include: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Environment California, Power Sources Manufacturers Association (PSMA), Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric.

It is advisable for any power supply company, located anywhere in the world, to monitor and follow the regulatory stance of the CEC related to energy efficiency, because the regulation has a tendency to migrate towards the entire US and then into the global energy infrastructure.

Provided by Mohan Mankikar, President, Micro-Tech Consultants

Misconceptions About Solar System Metrics Could Hamper Solar Success

At the core of this problem are several widely held misconceptions about the yield of photovoltaic (PV) systems. These beliefs concern both the metrics used to measure yield and some of the factors that influence yield. In this discussion, yield is defined as the number of kilowatt-hours delivered per year by a solar array and thus the potential number of dollars to be earned by the customer under a power purchase agreement (PPA).

To ensure the financial success of solar power installations, a clear understanding of the concepts and metrics relating to yield must be understood by those involved with the development, installation, and purchase of these systems. On the customer end, that includes investors, while on the development side it encompasses engineers responsible for subsystem components such as power inverters.

There are five particular myths concerning yield that I will try to debunk here. These concern metrics for solar array cost, how solar arrays should be amortized, efficiency versus efficacy, proper positioning of solar panels, and array mounting techniques. 

One of the key issues that will be considered is the impact of a “less than perfect” solar environment like that found in the northern and eastern United States and most of Canada. It can be argued that there are more places on the globe with marginal solar conditions than places where solar works perfectly. Overlooking this consideration can lead to sub-optimum yields for solar power installations.

Myth One: The Key Metric For Solar Array Cost Is “Dollars Per Watt”

Most domestic investors don’t understand (yet) that there are fairly large differences in the productivity of solar arrays. Therefore, it is easy to sell them the concept that “our array is the same nameplate size as that other possibly more expensive one, but it’s cheaper, so it’s better.” 

This “dollars per watt” mentality sometimes works well in jurisdictions where government incentives (which are based on so much per installed nameplate watt) make the system’s production after start-up less important. But if the investor is expecting to experience a financial return based on the quantity of electricity produced, then the overall productivity of the array is paramount. 

To illustrate, let’s imagine two similar arrays of the same nameplate size (for example, 250 kW.) We’ll call them array A and array B.

Let’s say that array A is 20% cheaper. Many will conclude that clearly this is the winner since it saves hundreds of thousands of dollars at the time of purchase. Therefore, return on investment (ROI) is higher. Yahoo!  

But let’s also assume that array B, the “expensive” one, produces 10% more electricity per year because it has a higher Capacity Factor. (The term Capacity Factor refers to the array’s ability to generate power over a wider range of operating conditions. (For more on Capacity Factor, see reference 1) Then, two questions arise: How many years will it take to recover the apparently higher cost of the array? How much difference will that extra 10% of annual production earn to the owner over the lifetime of the array?

The answers will depend on the purchase rate of the electricity, which is always in dollars per kilowatt-hour (kWh). But keep in mind the long potential lifespan of the array: a well-built array with high-end components will easily generate electricity for 30 to 40 years (see the discussion on myth two below.)

Conclusion: The metric by which arrays should be measured and compared is dollars of investment per kilowatt-hour produced over the useable lifetime of the array.

Myth Two: Solar Arrays Should Be Amortized Over The Length Of The First PPA

In terms of investment, the solar array is typically defined as the complete solar generating facility, including the land/roof, panels, racking, and electronics. When financing solar arrays, the common practice appears to be one of amortizing the project only over the length of the first power purchase agreement (PPA), which is usually 20 years. This seems to presuppose that the array loses all value at the end of the PPA. We don’t think that’s true for several reasons.

If the jurisdiction that is offering the PPA needs the electricity now, isn’t it reasonable to assume they will still need it 21 years from now? Aren’t they likely to offer another PPA? Who thinks the cost to generate—and therefore the retail price—of electricity is actually decreasing? Even if the PPA rate decreases, the array will have long since paid for itself and will continue to earn income at whatever PPA rate is then available.

Most solar panels are guaranteed for 25 years. Will they suddenly disintegrate after that or is it more likely that they will keep generating for many years thereafter, even if at a degraded rate? A decent solar panel could generate electricity for at least 30 to 40 years.

How long will the inverter last? Reputable companies offer 10- to 20-year warranties, and even after that the electronics should work well. To relate this to an older industry, compare solid-state solar inverters to solid-state uninterruptable power supplies (UPSs) developed for data centers.

The electronics and componentry of both devices are very similar. In fact, some are made by the same people in the same plants. There are currently many UPSs still in service after 30 to 35 years. Two of the major factors in the life of the inverter are maintenance and its operating environment. These are very much overlooked elements in the cost of operation, and are both preventative measures against premature inverter failure.

Conclusion: It is entirely technically reasonable to amortize the financing of a well-engineered solar array over 30 to 40 years, not just 20.

Myth Three: The Important Metric In PV Power Electronics Is “Efficiency”

Efficiency is a measure of the energy lost by any device, compared to the energy passed through or provided to the load. In the case of power electronics, efficiency is the measure of electricity lost as heat. While important, efficiency is not as critical as efficacy, which is defined as how well or effectively the machine does its job with all of the available energy presented to it.

Well, aren’t efficiency and efficacy the same thing? 
No! Efficiency measures losses—efficacy measures yield. Efficiency only comes into play when the inverter is actually running. Efficacy is measured over the whole conversion cycle over the whole year. An inverter that is “on” longer and more often during the year will potentially generate more electricity. Therefore. its efficacy will be higher. For an in-depth discussion, please see reference 2.

To illustrate the difference, the graph below shows the output of a typical array on a typical day—during which the sun is occasionally obscured by clouds (insolation vs. illumination.) For most areas outside any “sun belt” region, many days throughout the year will show this less-than-perfect illumination.

Figure. Electricity production as a function of time,
solar irradiation levels, and inverter performance.

• The main body of the graph in yellow shows the sun’s irradiation, unimpeded by ground-based weather.
• The gray area shows the illumination at the ground, after occlusion by typical weather.
• The pale yellow line shows how much dc power is generated by the PV panels from the illumination available at the ground.
• The pink area shows the total kilowatt-hours generated by a conventional inverter with standard efficacy. Notice that even though the PV panels are generating dc energy, the inverter power output does not truly follow that potential-power line. The inverter turns on later in the day, turns off earlier in the afternoon, and often turns off when the clouds pass over.
• The larger blue area represents the total kilowatt-hours generated by an enhanced inverter with higher efficacy. It turns on sooner, stays on later, and still generates some electricity even under the cloud cover.

Simply put, a high-efficacy inverter like the enhanced inverter referenced in the graph will be “on and running” more of the time. It will “wake up” earlier in the morning as the illumination increases, will stay on later in the day as the illumination decreases, and will stay on longer when a cloud passes over. In addition, a high-efficacy inverter will stay on more days in the fall, winter, and spring when the days are shorter and illumination is decreased. 

Clearly, the longer an inverter is converting power, the more power it will generate, and the higher the annual yield of the complete PV system. We have documented head-to-head comparisons where the enhanced inverter generates 30% more per year than a conventional inverter on an identical array. For a discussion of how enhanced inverters work, see reference 3.

It should be noted that there is an established way to measure efficacy of an entire PV system whereby efficacy is expressed as “kilowatt-hours per year, per dc installed kilowatt.” This figure is often provided by “prediction” software like PVWatts and RETScreen.

The problem, of course, is that this software does not take into consideration the possibility of an enhanced inverter that will turn on and stay on at lower voltages. Thus, the maximum “acceptable” efficacy (in Ontario) is often believed to be about 1000 to 1100 kWh per year per dc installed watt. However, we have several arrays running in which the efficacy is often greater than 1300 to 1400 kWh per year per dc installed watt.

Conclusion: If you care about how much money the array earns, pick an inverter with high efficiency, but more importantly, one with higher efficacy.

Myth Four: Aim The Panels High (Low Tilt Angle) To Capture The Summer Sun.

One practice which seems logical but which is inimical to yield is to aim the panels high to optimize the capture of energy during the summer when the sun path is higher in the sky.

Our contention is that this practice wastes yield over the total year for the following reasons:

• The farther you are from the equator, the shorter the summer is. At the latitude of the northern states or southern Canada, true summer is only about three months long. 
• Summer can be one of the worst times for PV solar energy production. Check the specifications of your solar panels—their performance decreases by 0.35% to 0.55% for each additional degree of ambient temperature above 25°C. Worse still, some panels perform even more poorly than their specifications detail under these circumstances. On hot summer days, PV panels are generating much less energy than on cool spring or autumn days with similar irradiation.
• If the PV system produces up to 30% less energy due to the panel’s temperature coefficient on hot summer days, and then over-produces by as much as 20% on cool days, that means there is a delta of up to 50% in instantaneous energy production on a hot day versus a cold day under the same irradiation.  
• Many PV arrays do not generate sufficient dc voltage on hot days to ‘turn on’ conventional inverters.

Instead of aiming the panels high, consider aligning the panels to optimize the annual yield with an eye to the effects of the ambient temperature. The normal recommendation is an angle equal to the latitude. Then, an enhanced inverter can capture energy effectively all year long, and even a conventional inverter will perform better in these situations. 

We have found and continue to observe that the best time to generate PV power from commercially available PV panels is spring and fall. Cool but still relatively long days with bright sunshine mean the panels are operating well, and an enhanced inverter can gather the energy for long periods since there are many more fall, winter, and spring days than summer days.

We have even shown that short snowy northern winter days will still provide energy if the PV panels are correctly aligned and coupled to an enhanced inverter. See reference 4 for a discussion of snow on PV panels.

Conclusion: Angle the panels correctly and optimize electricity generation all year long to earn more annual yield.

Myth Five: On Rooftops, It Is Better To Ballast PV Arrays Than To Mount With Perforations

Because building owners are understandably sensitive to “holes in the roof”, many PV installers and many racking manufacturers focus on this and suggest ‘ballasted’ and self-ballasted systems. Such systems sit directly on the roof surface, in a variety of ways, and it’s claimed that these systems do not perforate the roof surface. 

This approach is typically a very inexpensive way of installing PV on a roof. Proponents of this belief will argue to keep capital cost low and keep panel angles low (thus sacrificing yield as discussed above) on the basis that high angles increase load on the building and are expensive. They will further argue that a perforation to connect to the building may cause roof leaks. 

The reality is that once a building owner drills down through the rhetoric, they will find that most systems, (ballasted or self ballasted) do require additional anchoring or roof perforations. Granted these may be comparatively few, but perforations are required just the same. Certainly, it seems that any system with a panel tilt angle in excess of 20 degrees will require anchors (perforations).

Let’s examine the real issues with building loading. To be sure, many buildings are not built and designed to support the dead weight load or the wind loading occasioned by a PV array. At Hybridyne, we never install (or even quote) an array on a rooftop until the building has been examined by a civil engineering firm. But even if the building is strong enough, what about the roof itself?

Please remember that the top of a building is two separate things:

• The upper structure (usually steel girders) that holds the building together.
• The roof surface that waterproofs the building. The roof surface is almost never designed to support any extra weight beyond the expected loading due to snow and/or rain.

The engineering surveys for new buildings at 40-degree plus latitudes almost always reveal that the roof surface cannot support much additional dead load. So, does it make sense to add to that load with the significant weight of the PV panels, plus the weight of the racking, plus the weight of ballast to hold it down in the wind? Moreover, all this weight would be sitting on the fragile roof surface. 

Consider thousands of pounds of new dead load pressing down on the thin rubber or asphalt roof membrane.  Then, add the wind vibrating that weight, grinding the ballast stones or point-load locations into the membrane.  And then consider that, in higher latitudes, cold weather can make that membrane brittle. We have seen how this practice can lead to hundreds of unintentional roof perforations, which invariably leak since they are unintentional and therefore not waterproofed.)

We have found that one appropriate solution is to mount the array to the structure of the building, which often can support the load, while the roof usually cannot.

 “Aha!” say the ballasting proponents—now you’re going to put holes in the roof! True. But please consider that most roofs already have many deliberate perforations for vents, wiring, ducting, and so on. Does anybody seriously think that the roofing industry has been doing these perforations for the last century or so without learning how to make a deliberate perforation waterproof? 
We hold that making a few perforations carefully during installation and then properly waterproofing them is far superior to having many perforations made accidentally by ballasted systems in cold weather. Please see reference 4 below for a deeper discussion on this point.

Conclusion: If you are a would-be solar customer or investor, beware of PV systems that simply sit on a roof surface, which is usually not designed to support the load. Beware of installers who propose a PV array at too low an angle (thus significantly sacrificing yield) because of the myth that “any perforations are bad.” Beware of racking manufacturers who express an unwillingness to produce and certify a system for wind loading at high angles of incidence for higher latitudes. 

Instead, look for a solar proponent who does the following:

• Insists on a engineering survey of the building (paid for by the owner of the array) before proposing a solution.
• Offers a realistically low annual power output expectation in the case a low-tilt-angle solution associated with a ballasted or self-ballasted solution. This is for the case where a building analysis has shown that a building will support additional roof-based dead-load and a ballasted or self-ballasted solution can be offered within that load restriction. In this scenario, using a conventional inverter at the 43-degree latitude, it is unlikely that annual power output will reach or exceed 1050 kWh/dc kW installed.
• Does not add the extra weight of ballasting when perhaps the more-appropriate solution is to attach the array to the structure of the building with properly engineered perforations and thus avoid hundreds of accidental perforations over time.
• In so doing #3 above, pitches the PV panels at the correct angle to provide the maximum yield. When using an enhanced inverter, the incremental yield will more than offset the additional capital cost of the perforations and custom racking.

References  

More in-depth and technical discussions of some of the points above can be found in the following white papers, which can be downloaded at http://www.hybridynepowerelectronics.com/Page_21.08.htm.
1. EMKWHPR0001—The Renewable Energy System Equation.   
2. EMKWHPR0002—Accurately Predicting and Optimizing Yield Factors which impact Financial Efficacy of Solar Arrays 
3. EMKWHPR0003—Mitigation of Revenue Loss on Solar Arrays from Cloud Cover and other Atmospheric Obstructions   
4. An in-depth discussion of rooftop mounting methodologies can be found at http://www.hybridynepowergeneration.com/Page_05.05.htm.
Provided by Richard Leverton, Hybridyne Power Electronics, Newmarket, Ontario, Canada

About The Author

Richard Leverton has a degree in Applied Mathematics and Theroretical Physics from McMaster University. After graduation, he joined IBM and spent 19 years primarily on the technical side of the house, rising from programmer to software systems architect, along with several years as an instructor. After IBM, Leverton served as marketing director for Proteo Systems, a software company.

Nearing retirement, Leverton then went back to school, pursuing what he proudly describes as his “postgraduate degree”—a Certificate in Industrial Woodworking. In short, he became a cabinetmaker and operated a furniture-making shop until his retirement. 

However, Leverton came out of retirement to join Hybridyne after hearing from Thomas Cleland, Hybridyne's founder and a long-time friend, about the 50-year plan of the company. Leverton is now enjoying his first chance to significantly improve the world.

Editor’s Note: This article was first published in the January 2012 issue of How2Power Today (www.how2power.com/newsletters).

INTELEC©, the International Telecommunications Energy Conference, is the annual world-class technical forum which presents the latest developments in communications energy systems and related power-processing devices and circuits.  This Conference, which serves the broad community of researchers, suppliers and operators, explores new technologies of power conversion, energy storage and systems for telecom applications and environment. For more information on INTELEC please see www.intelec.org

INTELEC 2012 will feature a technical exhibition. If you manufacture, distribute, sell or service products related to telecommunications or computer energy systems the INTELEC 2012 exhibit is the place for you. You will have the opportunity to engage with decision makers and engineers in areas such as, advanced energy storage systems and technologies, DC systems for central office and outside plant, green power solutions, energy efficiency, powering through disasters and many others that are critical to operational success.  INTELEC 2012 is introducing two new avenues for technical communications.

• The Student Program – Provides opportunities for new professionals entering the industry to share the latest research from academia and meet with their peers.
• The Exhibitor Seminar Track – Provides opportunities to preview key solutions being offered, introduced, or presented at the conference exhibition.

The conference program will include key note and plenary sessions, technical presentations, workshops and poster sessions. Manuscripts of accepted papers will be included in the conference proceedings.

The tutorial program will include several sessions on Batteries, Energy, and Power Systems for Communications.

An extensive social program will include two exhibit receptions, afternoon tour, banquet and a comprehensive partner program.

For information including Call for Papers brochure, Patron Opportunities and Exhibitor Information please go to http://www.intelec.org/intelec2012/

Provided by Donovan Davidson,
INTELEC 2012 Publicity Chair

• Quarterly performance of the Solar Energy Stock Index versus the S&P Index
• Relative market valuations of each Solar Energy Category
• Current financial data for each company in the index

solar_energy_stock_index_4q11.pdf (100k pdf)

This data is included with the permission of Lincoln International. For more information, you may contact John McManus (jmcman@optonline.net) or the Association Office.

• Solar Energy Industry 2011 deal volume comparison by total transactions, deal type, geography, and sector of the target company
• Recent Solar Energy transaction announcements
• Summary of Q411 Solar Energy transactions    

solar_energy_deal_reader_4q11.pdf (100k pdf)

This data is included with the permission of Lincoln International. For more information, you may contact John McManus (jmcman@optonline.net) or the Association Office.

• Quarterly performance of the EMS Stock Index versus the S&P Index
• Relative market valuations of each EMS Tier
• Current financial data for each company in the index

ems_stock_index_4q11.pdf (75k pdf)

This data is included with the permission of Lincoln International. For more information, you may contact John McManus (jmcman@optonline.net) or the Association Office.

• Q4 2011 deal volume comparison by total transactions, deal type, geography and size
• Recent EMS transaction announcements
• 2011 EMS transaction summary

This data is included with the permission of Lincoln International. For more information, you may contact John McManus (jmcman@optonline.net) or the Association Office.

ems_deal_reader_4q11.pdf (60k pdf)

This data is included with the permission of Lincoln International. For more information, you may contact John McManus (jmcman@optonline.net) or the Association Office.

APEC 2013

Twenty-eighth Annual
IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition

March 17- 21, 2013     Long Beach Convention Center     Long Beach, CA USA

PEC 2013 continues the long-standing tradition of addressing issues of immediate and long-term interest to the practicing power electronic engineer. Outstanding technical content is provided at one of the lowest registration costs of any IEEE conference. APEC 2013 will provide a) the best power electronics exposition, b) professional development courses taught by world-class experts, c) presentations of peer-reviewed technical papers covering a wide range of topics, and d) time to network and enjoy the company of fellow power electronics professionals in a beautiful setting. Activities for guests, spouses, and families are abundant in the Long Beach area. 

Papers of value to the practicing engineer are solicited in the following topic areas:

(Please see the APEC 2013 website for a more detailed description by subtopic.)

The following PSMA Committee Chairs may be contacted to provide guidance to prospective Authors in the preparation of their abstracts and papers:

The Association Office will provide contact information on request.

If you or anyone in your company is interested in getting on the distribution list for future issues of PSMA UPDATE, please send e-mail to: power@psma.com. Be sure to include your name and the name of your company.