T
he winner of 2011’s test has reason to be
content: it managed to improve on the
performance that easily won it last year’s first
place. Model REC230AE, made by Norwegian
solar group Renewable Energy Corp. ASA
(REC), generated an annual yield of 1,097.9
kWh per kW on PHOTON’s module test field
in Aachen, Germany – the world’s largest of
its kind. The total was somewhat higher the
year before, at 1,150.4 kWh. But these two
fig-ures are not suited to a direct comparison – in
2011, the modules could benefit from higher
total irradiation. A better figure to compare is
the respective ratio between the potential
kilo-watt hour total and the actual one achieved,
which is the performance ratio. This was 90.8
A triple victory
percent for test year 2011, but was, in contrast,
91.4 percent for 2012. A top performance – at
least at first glance.
A closer analysis, however, reveals that this
improvement brought few benefits. The
prod-uct that set the bar for the previous PHOTON
module yield measurement only reached the
27
thspot this year (see table, p. 80). The
per-formance ratio of the REC module fell well
short of the ratio achieved by the current test
winner, SunPower SPR-327NE-WHT-D, which
exhibited a performance ratio of 95.2 percent.
That means that there were another 25
candi-dates that also trumped last year’s champion.
This is no reason for the Norwegians to get
the blues. The REC230AE is still a good solar
SunPower modules dominate the 2012
PHOTON module yield test , decisively
claiming the first three places
Text: Jochen Siemer
Highlights
The results revealed by the PHOTON
t
module yield test 2012 are
consider-ably better than those from the
previ-ous year, with the best performance
ratio this time beating the previous
test’s best performer by 4.4 percent
An increase in quality due to the large
t
number of new products in the test
field – which is three times the size
of last year’s – is a significant, but not
singular, reason for this positive
out-come
The dominance of SunPower – whose
t
modules took the the top three places
– initially seems crushing, but a closer
look reveals some strong contenders
module. And yet the decline in
its position in the overall
rank-ings clearly demonstrates that
the PHOTON module test fi eld
is not just being used to collect
row aft er row of dull and
bone-dry data. With a little pathos, one
could speak of preserving
indus-trial history – because at the end
of the day, this technology will
be an important, and probably
even an indispensable, mainstay
of our energy supply in the near
Tripling the test fi eld
Th
e sober facts of the situation
need to be addressed fi rst, however.
A fi rst, and immediately
appar-ent, reason for the upheaval in the
rankings is the growth this outdoor
test has undergone: In 2011, the
an-nual yield could be determined for
46 types of modules. A further 77
candidates underwent some
test-ing in 2012 but were added over
the course of the year, so no annual
A competitive environment: The PHOTON module test fi eld when the annual mea-surement began in January 2012.
additional 32 types of modules arrived on the
test field just in time for installation in January
2012. These modules were also included in the
2012 annual assessment. Because a total of four
modules could not be subjected to testing for
technical reasons (see box, p. 79), a total of 151
candidates remain for which the performance
ratio could be determined for 2012. In
compari-son to the previous test, the size of the field of
participants has more than tripled. Next year, to
clarify this from the start, growth is expected to
continue, but not quite as dramatically as it did
last year: Currently there are 187 different types
of modules being tested on the field, minus the
occasional problematic case that experience has
shown to be unavoidable. That means, in 12
months’ time, there will be around 180
candi-dates vying for the best annual yield.
One manufacturer in particular was clearly
able to stake its claim to be the best in 2012:
Sun-Power Corp. sent three modules in for testing in
January 2012 – and these three modules took
first, second and third place in the annual
assess-ment. With performance ratios ranging between
94.8 and 95.2 percent, the SunPower modules
seem to have entered a new dimension, beating
REC’s top mark of 90.8 percent achieved last year
by 4.4 percentage points.
However, the situation is not quite as clear-cut
as it might seem – after all, even the REC230AE
improved significantly in the current test, with a
performance ratio of 91.4 percent. And all other
modules that underwent testing in both 2011 and
2012 followed suit. A number of them even
man-aged much more substantial improvements than
last year’s winner: The SLK60P6L 230Wp made
by Spanish manufacturer Siliken SL, which took
second place after the REC module in 2011 with
a performance ratio of 86.9 percent, enhanced its
performance by 3.1 percentage points to arrive
at 92.7 percent – which ultimately only earned
it 8
thplace. Other candidates that took the spots
behind the REC module in 2011 and were able
to beat it in 2012 include the CSG180S1-35/36
made by CSG PV Tech Co. Ltd., the NT-125AX
from Nexpower Technology Corp., the
Sunmod-ule Plus SW 225 mono made by SolarWorld AG
and the Aleo S_18 225 from Aleo Solar AG.
Speaking of »approximately«
The reason for the generally higher
perfor-mance ratios in test year 2012 in comparison
to 2011 is, above all, a consistent policy of
non-interference: the modules were neither cleaned
nor cleared of snow. In 2011 they were therefore
subjected to a longer period of snow cover than
in 2012. The irradiation sensors, in contrast,
which are used to record the available quantity
of sunlight, are not as severely affected by these
conditions. The performance ratio in years with
more snow – or what is considered a lot of snow
in Aachen – therefore changes to the
disadvan-tage of the test candidates.
Furthermore, total irradiation is, of course,
never just total irradiation: Even when the
nu-merical figure for irradiation is exactly the same
in two different years – something that is
un-likely – it is still produced in different ways. Ideal
weather for solar modules, which means lots of
sunlight at low temperatures, is rather rare. The
proportion of hot, sunny days – on which
mod-ules with low temperature coefficients have an
advantage –compared to the proportion of days
with cloudy weather – on which modules with a
good weak light response do better – will always
vary. So weather will sometimes help one
prod-uct and sometimes another to achieve better
re-sults. This is exactly why an evaluation of quality
not only has to include the decisive factor
per-formance ratio, but also logging the weak light
behavior and homogeneity (see article, p. 84).
Movements in the ranking are also the
re-sult of the simple fact that even measurements
recorded exactly to the second and using
high-quality equipment are still not absolutely
pre-cise. The measuring tolerance is, in terms of the
module test device, 1.8 percent. This is a
maxi-mum value, and it would be a highly improbable
Ample growth: More than 100 new types of modules were added to PHOTON Lab’s outdoor test field over the course of 2011.
coincidence should all deviations exhaust the
tolerance in one direction or the other. However,
differences in the performance ratio of various
test candidates that are limited to +/-0.5
per-centage points may – or must – be assessed as
approximately the same result. Even if the word
»approximately« is the last one anyone wants to
hear at the test bench.
Obviously this does not change PHOTON
Lab’s claim that its module yield measurement
is not only the world’s largest, but also the most
detailed, test series of its type. And it changes
nothing about the clear victory achieved by the
SunPower modules. After all, even the last of the
winning SunPower threesome beat out the
clos-est competition – the SRP-220-6PB made by
Ser-aphim Solar System Co. Ltd. – by 1.2 percentage
points. Does this make the dark black SunPower
cells an unrivaled product?
Quality is a question of price
Manufacturers of the top-ranking modules
would, understandably, be more than happy to
interpret the test result in this way; however,
there are – of course – a number of arguments
to the contrary. The performance ratio is the
Gathering data: Each module – generally three specimens for each test product – is fitted with a meter that records the IV curve once every second.text continues on p. 83
Booth No
:
A3/140
Booth No
:
A3/140
Te l :86-519-89850166
Fax:86-519-89850100
Add:15F, Changfa Building 5, Yanzheng
UE Solar Co., Ltd.
Inter Solar 2012
,
Germany
Visit us
:
Inter Solar 2012
,
Germany
Visit us
:
Unassessed modules
The modules that remain unassessed in the
PHOTON International module yield
mea-surement for 2012 are those 27 products that
have not completed a full year of testing.
There are also a number of cases in
which a punctual start to testing still failed
to result in a complete evaluation. We
are currently having problems with all our
CIS modules, as the measurement of their
performance under STC (standard testing
conditions) has not been clearly defi ned.
This is due to the fact that the output from
a CIS module changes with the amount of
time it is exposed to the sun – it does, in
fact, increase. Because the STC
measure-ment does not include how long and to
what intensity of light a CIS module has
been exposed before tests begin, it is not
possible to compare the STC values
speci-fi ed by the manufacturers. An STC value
measured by PHOTON Lab must defi ne how
long the module has already been exposed
to the sun at the time of measuring. We
are currently discussing this matter with
CIS manufacturers but have still not arrived
at a fi nal decision. We will be addressing
this topic in one of the upcoming editions of
PHOTON International. This mainly concerns
the two CIS module types Shell PowerMax
Eclipse 80-C and Solibro SL1-95.
Two other types of modules – Latitude
P6-60/6 (235) and Mage Powertec Plus 230/6PO
– exhibited signs of potential-induced
deg-radation (PID). Because the modules on the
test fi eld are not connected in series, the
high potentials against ground that cause
this phenomenon are usually avoided. The
two module types affected were able to be
»repaired« by temporarily applying positive
high voltage or grounding them on the
nega-tive side. However, an analysis of the
an-nual yield suitable for comparison with those
made on the rest of the test fi eld could not be
made. These modules had already been
re-moved from the evaluation in 2011 following
the sudden occurrence of power losses (see
PI 2/2011); however, at the time the PID
ex-planation remained undetected.
Also remaining unevaluated is the
YL260C-30b (Panda) produced by Yingli
Green Energy. The »Panda« solar cells
used in the module have (just like the
back contact cells from SunPower) a
significantly higher capacity than other
crystalline solar cells. For these cells, the
standard test device that PHOTON Lab
de-veloped for yield measurements is too
im-precise. The time in which the measuring
unit delineates the IV curve is, at 20 to 30
milliseconds, far too short. This makes the
values measured a rather low estimate.
In order to measure high-capacitive
mod-ules, a new measuring unit has been
de-veloped. This unit has recently been used
on the SunPower modules for the very
first time. It will now also be used for the
Panda cells, allowing them to be included
in next year’s evaluation.
Incidentally, the fi rst results are highly
promising. Even a cautious estimate
sug-gests the Panda modules will seriously test
PHOTON Lab’s outdoor module tests: Results of 2012 yield measurements
Rank Manufacturer Model Productiondates*1 Installed in Yield in kWh/m² Performance ratio Yield in kWh/kW Deviation from test winner (%) 1 SunPower SPR-327NE-WHT-D – 2012 228.7 95.2% 1,144.1 – 2 SunPower SPR-320NE-WHT-D – 2012 227.6 94.9% 1,140.1 0.35% 3 SunPower SPR-245NE-WHT-D – 2012 225.3 94.8% 1,139.4 0.42%
4 Seraphim Solar System SRP-220-6PB – 2011 156.1 93.6% 1,125.5 1.63%
5 Yingli Green Energy YL240P-29b – 2012 169.2 93.1% 1,118.7 2.22%
6 ET Solar ET-P660240 – 2011 161.6 92.8% 1,115.3 2.51% 7 Sunerg Solar XP 60/156-230 – 2011 154.6 92.8% 1,115.0 2.55% 8 Siliken SLK60P6L 230Wp – 2009 158.0 92.7% 1,114.2 2.61% 9 Jinko Solar JKM190M-72 2010 2011 166.1 92.5% 1,112.2 2.79% 10 Huanghe HH230(30)P – 2012 157.1 92.5% 1,112.1 2.80% 11 Jinko Solar JKM235P-60 – 2012 156.8 92.5% 1,111.4 2.86% 12 Apollo Solar 235G6M 2011 2012 163.9 92.3% 1,109.0 3.07% 13 CSG PV Tech CSG180S1-35/36*6 2008 2010 159.1 92.0% 1,106.1 3.32%
14 NexPower Technology NT-125AX*2 2009–2010 2010 87.7 92.0% 1,105.9 3.34%
15 Linsun Renewable SK60P6 – 2011 155.8 92.0% 1,105.6 3.36%
16 Huanghe HH190(36)M – 2012 164.7 91.9% 1,104.5 3.47%
17 Nelumbo NEI 230-3VA – 2011 153.8 91.8% 1,103.7 3.53%
18 Schott Solar*15 SCHOTT PERFORM Poly 235 Since 2011 2012 139.7 91.8% 1,103.4 3.56%
19 Conergy Conergy PowerPlus 235P – 2012 162.2 91.7% 1,101.8 3.70%
20 SolarWorld Sunmodule Plus SW 225 mono 2009 2010 153.8 91.6% 1,100.4 3.82%
21 Upsolar UP-M220P 2010–2011 2011 147.8 91.5% 1,099.3 3.92%
22 Aleo Solar Aleo S_18 225 2005 2010 154.5 91.5% 1,099.3 3.92%
23 ZN Shine PV-Tech ZX250(48)MS – 2011 163.1 91.5% 1,099.1 3.93%
24 CNPV Solar CNPV-240P 2006 2011 162.9 91.4% 1,099.0 3.94%
25 Himin Clean Energy HG-190S/Ba – 2012 167.0 91.4% 1,098.9 3.95%
26 REC Premium 210 Until 2008 2011 141.2 91.4% 1,098.0 4.03%
27 REC REC230AE*2 2007–2010 2010 152.1 91.4% 1,097.9 4.04%
28 Win Win Precision Winaico WSP-250P6 – 2012 164.9 91.3% 1,097.6 4.06%
29 Chint Solar / Astronergy CHSM5612M-185 – 2012 160.6 91.3% 1,097.1 4.11%
30 V-Energy VE260PV – 2012 155.1 91.3% 1,097.1 4.11%
31 Hareon Solar HR-230P-18/Bb – 2011 156.1 91.3% 1,096.9 4.13%
32 Solar Modules Nederland TC245-MO 2010–2011 2011 165.0 91.3% 1,096.7 4.14%
33 Kinmac Solar*13 KSS-6P6A-230 2010 2011 156.5 91.3% 1,096.7 4.14%
34 Kioto Photovoltaics KPV 210 PE*2 2008–2010 2009 152.0 91.2% 1,095.9 4.21%
35 BP Solar BP 3220 T Until 2011 2011 152.4 91.1% 1,094.5 4.34%
36 Solon SOLON Blue 230/07(225) 2008 2011 151.4 91.1% 1,094.3 4.36%
37 ITS Innotech Solar EcoPlus ITS220ECU5*10 2011 2012 160.6 90.9% 1,092.2 4.53%
38 SolarWorld Sunmodule Plus SW 245 poly – 2012 160.4 90.9% 1,092.1 4.54%
39 Amerisolar AS-5M-190W – 2012 166.4 90.9% 1,092.1 4.54%
40 Win Win Precision Winaico WSP-235P6 – 2010 157.9 90.8% 1,091.7 4.58%
41 REC REC230PE 2010 2011 157.1 90.8% 1,091.0 4.64%
42 Eurener PEPV230 – 2012 153.7 90.8% 1,090.8 4.66%
43 CNPV Solar CNPV-220P 2006 2011 150.0 90.8% 1,090.7 4.66%
44 Sunlink PV SL220-20M230 – 2011 157.2 90.7% 1,090.6 4.68%
45 CH Solar CH Solar 180 mono*2 Until 2010 2010 157.1 90.7% 1,090.2 4.71%
46 China Sunergy CSUN260-60M – 2012 170.9 90.7% 1,090.1 4.72%
47 Amerisolar AS-6P30-230W – 2012 157.3 90.6% 1,089.2 4.80%
48 CNPV Solar CNPV-185M 2006 2010 164.9 90.6% 1,089.0 4.82%
49 Upsolar UP-M180M 2010–2011 2010 154.3 90.5% 1,087.9 4.91%
50 M-Prime M 235P – 2012 162.6 90.5% 1,087.4 4.95%
51 Sunflower Light SF125x125-72-M(180) – 2011 150.0 90.5% 1,087.3 4.96%
52 Risen Energy SYP185S-M – 2011 162.8 90.5% 1,087.3 4.97%
53 PV Power Technologies PVQ3 220 2008 2009 150.0 90.4% 1,087.0 4.99%
54 SWAT-International SWAT-240-PS – 2011 162.3 90.4% 1,086.2 5.06%
55 Bisol BMU-215-2/233 2009 2011 156.0 90.4% 1,086.0 5.08%
56 Conergy Conergy PowerPlus 220P 2009 2010 149.4 90.3% 1,085.8 5.09%
57 CEEG Solar*5 SST 240-60M 2005 2011 160.2 90.3% 1,085.6 5.12%
58 China Sunergy CSUN250-60M – 2012 166.4 90.3% 1,085.4 5.13%
59 Linuo LN180(36)M-185 2003 2011 162.6 90.3% 1,085.2 5.15%
60 JCS Solar*11 JCSM290M-72*12 – 2012 166.1 90.3% 1,085.2 5.15%
61 Galaxy Energy GS260m-96 – 2011 164.3 90.3% 1,085.0 5.17%
PHOTON Lab’s outdoor module tests: Results of 2012 yield measurements
Rank Manufacturer Model Productiondates*1 Installed in Yield in kWh/m² Performance ratio Yield in kWh/kW Deviation from test winner (%) 63 CEEG Solar*5 SST 265-72P 2005 2011 157.0 90.2% 1,084.1 5.24% 64 Axitec AC 236P/156-60S Until 2011 2011 152.1 90.2% 1,084.0 5.25%
65 SolarWorld Sunmodule Plus SW 225 poly 2004–2011 2011 147.5 90.2% 1,084.0 5.25%
66 Solaria Energía S6P2G225 2010 2011 154.8 90.2% 1,083.8 5.27%
67 CSG PV Tech CSG230M2-30*7 2008 2010 151.7 90.1% 1,083.3 5.31%
68 Trina Solar TSM-180DC01 2007 2009 149.1 90.1% 1,083.2 5.33%
69 Trina Solar TSM-225PC05 – 2010 153.9 90.1% 1,083.1 5.33%
70 Ningbo Solar Sun Earth TDB125x125-72-P 180W*2 Until 2010 2011 151.6 90.1% 1,083.0 5.34%
71 Vikram Solar ELDORA 220 – 2011 156.8 90.0% 1,082.2 5.41%
72 Mage Solar Mage Powertec Plus 230/6PH-US – 2011 154.7 90.0% 1,081.5 5.47%
73 Daqo New Energy DQ235PSCa – 2012 157.8 89.9% 1,080.5 5.56%
74 Magi Solar MGSM-295-D 2011 2011 163.7 89.9% 1,079.9 5.61%
75 Eging Photovoltaic Technology EGM-185 2010 2011 159.0 89.9% 1,079.9 5.61%
76 Linuo LN240(30)P-225 2003 2011 155.6 89.8% 1,079.0 5.69%
77 S-Energy SM-220PA8 – 2009 152.0 89.6% 1,076.9 5.87%
78 Bosch Solar Bosch c-Si M 60 230 2009–2010 2011 153.0 89.6% 1,076.5 5.91%
79 Frankfurt Solar FS215W-POLY – 2009 147.9 89.5% 1,075.7 5.98%
80 Zentralsolar Deutschland Genius SDM 185-10004-185 – 2011 160.2 89.5% 1,075.6 5.99%
81 Hanwha SolarOne*9 SF160-24-1M175 (scac) – 2010 153.8 89.5% 1,075.6 5.99%
82 Topray Solar TPS105T-180W – 2011 155.3 89.5% 1,075.6 5.99% 83 BP Solar BP 3280 T Until 2011 2011 155.3 89.5% 1,075.4 6.00% 84 Bisol BMU-215-2/221 2007 2010 150.2 89.5% 1,075.3 6.01% 85 Talesun Solar TP572M-195 2011 2012 164.7 89.5% 1,075.1 6.03% 86 Solarwatt M220-60 GET AK (230) 2005 2011 149.9 89.4% 1,075.0 6.04% 87 Solarbest Energy-Tech ZSB M190 – 2011 156.2 89.4% 1,074.6 6.08% 88 Jinko Solar JKM255M-96 – 2011 164.1 89.4% 1,074.3 6.10%
89 Kenmec Mechanical TKSA-23001 – 2011 153.9 89.4% 1,074.3 6.10%
90 Fluitecnik FTS-220 P – 2011 153.7 89.4% 1,074.1 6.11%
91 Runda PV RS230P-60 – 2012 155.7 89.3% 1,073.8 6.15%
92 Suntech Power STP205-18/Ud – 2011 156.2 89.3% 1,073.7 6.15%
93 Magi Solar MGSM-240D-60 – 2011 162.0 89.3% 1,073.1 6.20%
94 Sunrise Solartech SRM 180D72-GE – 2009 152.2 89.3% 1,072.9 6.22%
95 Yingli Green Energy YL210P-29b 2009 2011 141.0 89.3% 1,072.8 6.23%
96 Lilie Energie Lilie SPL 185 – 2011 155.3 89.3% 1,072.8 6.23%
97 SolarWorld Sunmodule Plus SW 210 poly*16 2004 2006 135.5 89.2% 1,072.5 6.26%
98 Zytech Engineering ZT 230P – 2011 150.9 89.2% 1,072.5 6.26% 99 Solargate SG-2350 – 2012 163.0 89.2% 1,071.9 6.31% 100 Topsolar Green TSM72-125M-190W – 2011 155.6 89.2% 1,071.6 6.33% 101 Upsolar UP-M185M 2010–2011 2011 158.3 89.1% 1,071.3 6.37% 102 CNPV Solar CNPV-240M 2006 2011 163.1 89.1% 1,071.2 6.37% 103 Sonalis*14 SL-180CE-36M – 2010 154.7 89.0% 1,070.0 6.48%
104 Scheuten Solar Multisol P6-60 – 2011 153.4 89.0% 1,069.7 6.50%
105 China Sunergy CSUN240-60P – 2012 160.9 89.0% 1,069.5 6.52%
106 Sunage SAM 96/5 – 2011 154.1 88.9% 1,068.8 6.58%
107 Ningbo Solar Sun Earth TDB125x125-72-P 160W*2 – 2011 134.8 88.8% 1,067.8 6.67%
108 Chint Solar / Astronergy CHSM-6610P-230 – 2012 152.5 88.8% 1,067.7 6.68%
109 Ferrania Solis AP 60-230 2010 2011 210.5 88.8% 1,067.3 6.71%
110 Hanwha SolarOne*9 SF160-24-1M180 – 2011 148.8 88.7% 1,066.4 6.79%
111 Sunpeak / Alpexsolar*4 ALP235W*2 2009–2010 2010 154.3 88.7% 1,066.3 6.80%
112 Jetion Solar JT230(30)P1655x992 2005 2011 151.1 88.7% 1,066.0 6.83%
113 Alex Solar ALM-190D-24 2009 2011 157.6 88.7% 1,065.8 6.84%
114 CNPV Solar CNPV-190M 2006 2011 164.3 88.7% 1,065.6 6.86%
115 Aide Solar AD195M5-Aa – 2011 164.7 88.6% 1,065.0 6.91%
116 Helios Technology H3A230P – 2012 151.5 88.5% 1,063.5 7.04%
117 Luxor Solar LX-185M/125-72+ 2007 2011 156.4 88.4% 1,062.7 7.12%
118 Axitec AC-250M/156-60S – 2012 162.1 88.4% 1,061.9 7.19%
119 Lilie Energie Lilie SPL 185-I – 2011 155.2 88.3% 1,061.6 7.21%
120 Evergreen Solar ES-E-210-fc3 – 2011 136.3 88.1% 1,058.8 7.45%
125 Sharp NU-185E1 2005 2011 148.3 87.5% 1,052.1 8.04%
126 Evergreen Solar ES-A-210-fa2 2008 2011 140.7 87.5% 1,052.0 8.05%
127 Perfectenergy PEM-180/185-72M-SCC 2008 2010 157.0 87.4% 1,050.8 8.15%
128 Hanwha SolarOne*9 SF160 M5-24 (175 W)*2 – 2007 143.2 87.4% 1,050.0 8.22%
129 Kyocera KD210GH-2PU 2009 2011 149.3 87.2% 1,048.5 8.35%
130 Sonalis*14 SL-190CE-36M – 2012 154.7 87.2% 1,047.8 8.42%
131 First Solar FS-265 2006–2011 2007 94.8 86.9% 1,043.9 8.76%
132 Emmvee Photovoltaics ES-230P60*8 2008–2011 2010 144.0 86.5% 1,039.9 9.11%
133 Schott Solar*15 SCHOTT POLY TM 220 2008–2009 2011 157.9 86.4% 1,038.1 9.27%
134 IBC Solar IBC MonoSol 240 TT Until 2011 2011 153.7 86.3% 1,036.9 9.37%
135 Suntech Power STP190-18/Ub*2 2005 2011 128.8 86.1% 1,034.8 9.55%
136 Sovello SV-X-205-fa1 – 2011 135.3 85.8% 1,030.7 9.91%
137 Calrays CPM 250-A-96 – 2011 149.7 85.3% 1,024.7 10.43%
138 Solar-Fabrik SF 130/4-130*2 2006–2010 2010 133.8 85.2% 1,023.7 10.52%
139 Evergreen Solar EC-120*2 2004–2006 2006 120.1 85.1% 1,022.7 10.61%
140 Sovello SV-X-200-fa*13 2009–2011 2011 132.3 84.9% 1,019.8 10.87%
141 Canadian Solar CS6A-170P 2007 (purchased) 2007 135.9 84.3% 1,013.4 11.43%
142 Sunways MHH plus 190 (190 Wp)*2 2003–2005 2005 141.2 83.6% 1,005.0 12.16%
143 Solar-Fabrik SF 145A*2 2003–2004 2005 118.8 83.4% 1,002.4 12.38%
144 Isofoton IS-170/24*2 2007 2009 137.5 83.4% 1,002.4 12.39%
145 Isofoton I-110/24*2 Until 2005 2006 119.4 83.3% 1,001.7 12.45%
146 Kyocera KC170GT-2*2 Until 2006 2006 140.1 83.0% 997.1 12.85%
147 ASE (now with Schott Solar) ASE-300-DG-FT (300 W)*2 1997–2006 2007 126.3 82.5% 992.0 13.29%
148 BP Solar BP 7185 S*2 – 2005 145.2 81.6% 980.6 14.29%
149 Photowatt International PW 1650-175W 2005 (purchased) 2006 125.1 81.4% 978.1 14.51%
150 Evergreen Solar ES-180-RL*2 2006–2008 2007 119.0 80.1% 962.6 15.86%
151 Sharp NT-R5E3E*2 2003 2005 137.2 79.0% 949.2 17.04%
*1 when date of production was unavailable, the date when PHOTON Lab bought the module was used (if possible)
*2 no longer manufactured
*3 referred to as Pure Power SV-X-200 (LV) in previous issues
*4 manufactured by Alpexsolar; available through Sunpeak-Vertrieb Unternehmensgruppe Ratio-Data
*5 CEEG is the manufacturing company of license holder China Sunergy
*6 previous model designation: CSG180S1-35/1589x807
*7 previous model designation: CSG230M2-30/1640x992
*8 previous model designation: ES-200-P60(230)
*9 previously manufactured by Solarfun Power Holdings Co. Ltd.
*10 previous model designation: Economy New ITS220ECU5
*11 previous manufacturer designation: JZ Solar
*12 previous model designation: JZM 290M-72
*13 company has changed its name to Inventec Energy
*14 manufactured by Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co. Ltd.
*15 company has withdrawn from crystalline silicon PV manufacturing
*16 previous model designation: SW 210 poly
PHOTON Lab’s outdoor module tests: Results of 2012 yield measurements
Rank Manufacturer Model Productiondates*1 Installed in Yield in kWh/m² Performance ratio Yield in kWh/kW Deviation from test winner (%)
0D[HIILFLHQF\ZLWK
0337HIILFLHQF\
+)WUDQVIRUPHU
$GYDQFHGPRQLWRU
2XWGRRULQVWDOODWLRQ ZLGHRSHUDWHWHPSHUDWXUH
([FHOOHQWSURWHFWLRQ
/RQJOLIHWLPHGHVLJQZLWK\HDUZDUUDQW\
6LPSOHLQVWDOODWLRQ
6RODU3RQG6HULHV
0LFUR,QYHUWHU 7HO(DUQ0RUHE\
+LJKHU(IILFLHQF\
Model:SolarPond 240HF-US 6WDQG1R6 0DUCompany takeovers, rebrandings and bankruptcies
Our editorial offi ce has become aware of a
number of insolvencies affecting
manufactur-ers represented in the PHOTON module yield
test. Some of these manufacturers have
al-ready stopped production, and the survival of
others is not guaranteed:
t
Evergreen Solar Inc.
August 2011,
suc-ceeded by Evergreen Solar (China) Co. Ltd.
t
Fluitecnik SA
January 2013
t
Siliken SL
January 2013
t
Solar Modules Nederland
BV May 2012
t
Sovello GmbH
May 2012, production
ceased in August 2012
The following companies will continue
operat-ing followoperat-ing an insolvency fi loperat-ing, have been
taken over by other companies or were created
by takeovers:
t
Hanwha Q-Cells GmbH
Insolvency of
Q-Cells SE in April 2012, takeover by Hanwha
Group with operations to continue as Hanwha
Q-Cells GmbH
t
Photowatt International SAS
Insolvency in
November 2011, takeover in March 2012 by
EDF ENR
t
Scheuten Solar Systems BV
Insolvency
in February 2012, takeover by Aikosolar,
decisive criterion for the technical quality of
a solar module, and yet technology is not the
measure of all things. Long-term stability is
equally signifi cant for a product that needs to
function well for at least 20 years. Th
ere is little
to say about the SunPower modules in relation
to this point, as they have, aft er all, only been
on the test fi eld for one year.
A candidate like the Siliken SLK60P6L 230Wp
has earned considerably more merit in this
re-gard, having been installed on the test fi eld since
2009 and having continued to perform well.
And yet it is no longer being manufactured, just
like modules made by many other candidates
– a fundamental problem in long-term tests of
products that are seldom produced for more
than 2 or 3 years. Th
e results are still interesting,
as the successor solar module series usually
fea-ture similar technology. And there is also hope
that manufacturers that manage to make a good
module have not forgotten how to do so when
they start making their newest products. In the
case of Siliken, there is, however, an additional
problem: the Spanish manufacturer has been
beset with fi nancial problems – insolvency
pro-ceedings started at the end of January.
By this point at the latest, economic
con-siderations start to emerge that no test fi eld
in the world can take into account. In the best
case scenario, as occurred in this year’s annual
evaluation, the ratio of yield to surface can be
determined – this indicator can be used to
determine the value of a solar module when
the space available for a planned array is
ei-ther very expensive or severely limited. All the
same, a factor of 2.5 forms the midway point
between the poorest value in this discipline –
87.7 kWh per m2 in 2012 for the Nexpower’s
thin-fi lm module NT-125AX – and the
mod-ule with the best result – a SunPower modmod-ule
that achieves 225.3 to 228.7 kWh per m2.
However, surface-related costs such as
property, mounting system or cables would
have to represent an exorbitant expense to
exceed the diff erence in price between a
thin-fi lm solar generator and SunPower modules.
operations to continue as Scheuten Solar
Solutions BV
t
Solarwatt GmbH
Self-administered
in-solvency in June 2012 (as Solarwatt AG),
restructuring and operations to continue as
Solarwatt GmbH
t
Solibro GmbH
Takeover by Hanergy
t
Solon Energy GmbH
Insolvency (as Solon
SE) in December 2011, takeover by Microsol
in March 2012, continuing operations as
So-lon Energy GmbH
t
Sunways AG
Takeover by LDK Solar in
January 2012
js
In comparison with other crystalline products
off ered at much cheaper prices, the situation
looks quite diff erent.
And this would describe the last quality
cri-teria, one that also cannot be determined on the
test fi eld: the price. To exemplify this, the two
test winners in 2011 and 2012 need to be
exam-ined again. Th
e diff erence in the performance
ratio values determined for the SunPower
SPR-327NE-WHT-D and the REC230AE totals 4.4
percent. Assuming they feature comparably
good properties when it comes to durability, the
diff erence in price between these two modules
should not be any larger than the diff erence in
performance ratio – although one might also
add an extra bonus for the better surface yield.
Further information
T
he most decisive factor in the PHOTON
module test is, obviously, the yield
ob-tained over the course of a year, measured in
kilowatt hours per kilowatt of output (kWh/
kW). It is directly proportionate to the
per-formance ratio, expressing the relationship
between the power yield that is theoretically
possible (factoring the efficiency in) and
the power yield that was actually obtained.
Given the irradiation actually available on
the module test field in Aachen over the year
2012, a total of 1,202 kWh/kW would have
been possible. A module with, for
exam-ple, an efficiency of 20 percent would have
equaled this sum, providing it consistently
exhibited the aforementioned efficiency of
A module’s
fingerprint
20 percent. In practice, and depending on
the prevailing conditions (irradiation,
tem-perature and light spectrum), the actual
effi-ciency determined under standard test
con-ditions (STC) usually remains unequaled,
and is very rarely exceeded. This is why not
one single test candidate reached 100
per-cent; however, this year’s test winner,
Sun-Power’s SPR-327NE-WHT-D module, with
its annual yield of 1,144.1 kWh/kW and its
performance ratio of 95.2 percent, did in
fact come quite close. The other end of the
scale – or number 151 in the rankings – was
bookended by the (no longer in production)
NT-R5E3E from Sharp, with 949.2 kWh/kW
and a performance ratio of 79 percent.
The large table showing an overview of the PHOTON
module yield tests reveals a wealth of compactly
pre-sented knowledge about each and every test candidate.
How should the figures and diagrams be interpreted?
Highlights
The PHOTON module yield
measure-t
ment for 2012 involved comparing
151 types of modules with each other
– producing the world’s largest and
most detailed analysis of its type
The table being presented over the
t
following pages shows the yield as
a numerical value, in addition to
dia-grams showing the characteristics of
each test candidate
A »fingerprint« provides insight into a
t
module’s reaction to diverse weather
situations, also largely revealing why
the module performs well, or poorly, in
the yield comparison
Non-interference: The modules on the test field are not cleared of snow and are not cleaned.
photon-pictures.com
the test field for a full year. The informative
value of those results is, by nature,
some-what limited. Furthermore, specifying the
performance ratio of these modules would
not be particularly informative, which is
why it does not appear. Only when the next
analysis appears in our February edition in
2014 will it be known how the new modules
on the test field actually performed.
For each candidate – including the new
ones – the large table includes two diagrams
alongside the data on the module and
mea-surements. The first, titled »weak light
performance,« will already be familiar to
PHOTON International readers from last year.
This diagram illustrates the
irradiation-de-pendent efficiency, or the module’s response
under varying irradiation conditions. It
also shows the performance ratio at
differ-ing irradiation values at the module level.
The measurements are taken in the solar
simulator, and are therefore not based on
the length of time the module has been
in-stalled in the outdoor test field. Those who
compare the various curves with each other
will soon notice a general trend: the higher
the module’s »starting point,« or its
perfor-mance ratio at low irradiation, and the more
uniform its progress, the better its
place-ment in the rankings.
Given the green light
The diagram showing »homogeneity« is
new this year. It breaks the module
perfor-mance down into various combinations of
solar irradiation and temperature. Viewed
from bottom to top, the diagram shows
the temperature in increments of five
de-grees (from -12.5 to +32.5 °C), from left to
right, the irradiation in 100 W increments
(from 50 to 1,050 W per m2). Each of the
90 squares stands for a specific
combina-tion of irradiacombina-tion and temperature. The
bottommost square at the left indicates
very cold and dull weather, with the one
at the right, in contrast, also indicating
very cold weather, but in this case, also
extremely sunny conditions. This weather
did not, however, materialize at the Aachen
location last year, which is why the diagram
showing all modules that completed a full
year of testing feature five gray squares at
the bottom right. Among the modules that
were only added over the course of the year,
the number and position of the gray field
depends on the time at which they started
the test: for a module added in April, for
ex-ample, there are only 19 gray boxes, while
one added in November features 58 gray
boxes instead.
The difference between the two key
in-dicators, »yield« and »performance ratio,«
is found in their comparability: the yields
from various modules only ever result in
a statement applicable for one respective
year at the same location (because 1,000
kWh/kW are, of course, a different result in
a year with poor sunlight than in one with
good sunlight), while the performance ratio
values allow several successive years to be
compared with each other by showing how
the values relate to the irradiation available
in each year. This, however, is also subject
to limitations, because an annual irradiation
total of, for example, 1,000 kWh per square
meter, can accrue in different ways, which
suits the diverse properties of the various
modules differently, for better or for worse.
A small table and a large table
To allow relationships like this to be
as-sessed better, the analysis of the PHOTON
module yield measurement 2012 does not
just include a basic ranking sorted
accord-ing to performance ratio (see table, p. 80 -
82), but also a large table, beginning on p.
89, that presents the test outcomes in more
detail. The large table also includes values
for modules that have not been installed on
ǩ ǩ ǩ ǩ ǩ ǩ ǩ ǩ ǩ ǩ ǩ
One of the reasons SunPower’s SPR-327NE-WHT-D module reaches a very high performance ratio of 95.2 percent is because its »fi ngerprint« exhibits many high values (marked in green). The module also copes with the Aachen location very well.
The weather at the Aachen location: the »fi ngerprint« shows the weighted distribution of the diverse combinations of temperature and irradiation. The scale ranges from -12.5 to +32.5 °C, divided into fi ve-degree increments going from bottom to top. From left to right, the scale ranges from 50 to 1,050 W per m², broken down in 100 W increments. The square at the bottom left therefore indicates a range of -12.5 to -7.5 °C and 50 to 150 W per m², while the square at the top right indicates a range of 27.5 to 32.5 °C and 950 to 1,050 W per m².
A particularly high homogeneity indicator is, in contrast, no guarantee for good yields: the HG-190S/Ba from Himin Solar, for example, has a very high value of 12.1 because it operates uniformly under all weather conditions. However, despite a performance ratio of 91.4 percent, the module only comes in at 25th place. The winner of the test, a SunPower
module, has an indicator of only 8.0, and operates less uniformly – but at a higher level.
photon-pictures.com (3)
Th e color of the squares, in turn, stands for
the respective performance ratio attained by
a module: red indicates a low value (60
cent), green represents a high value (110
per-cent). If a fi eld is marked with a cross, then
the performance ratio was off the scale. A
red fi eld with a cross therefore stands for
less than 60 percent, while a green fi eld with
a cross indicates more than 110 percent. A
performance ratio of more than 100 percent
results when the effi
ciency determined under
STC conditions is exceeded in certain
irradia-tion condiirradia-tions, for example in very cold, but
very sunny, weather.
Th
e homogeneity diagrams were drawn
up on the basis of values recorded on the
PHOTON International module test fi eld
once every second for the whole year, this
being the current/voltage (IV)
characteris-tic curve for a module, which is the product
of the current output, the irradiation and
the temperature. To eliminate the eff ects of
short-term fl uctuations in weather (for
ex-ample when cloud cover suddenly retreats),
only those weather scenarios were assessed
in which the relative standard deviation
from temperature and irradiation over the
preceding two minutes was less than 0.5
per-cent. Th
is allowed a specifi c »fi ngerprint« for
each and every module to be determined.
The ideal test
The weather in Aachen can be analyzed
in the same way: if this involved breaking
down the frequency of diverse
combina-tions of irradiation and temperature into 90
squares, as was done for all the test
mod-ules, this would only show half the story.
This is why the individual combinations are
weighted according to irradiation: 50,000
seconds with 1,000 W per m2 are given the
same weighting as 500,000 seconds with 100
W per m
2. Furthermore, in contrast to the
module fingerprints, fluctuating weather
conditions have not been eliminated; every
single second of the year has therefore been
incorporated into the assessment. This is
also the reason why only four squares are
shaded in gray for the fingerprint indicating
the weather in Aachen in 2012 and not five,
as was the case for the modules tested over
this period.
The position of the green squares in the
weather fingerprint indicates which
con-ditions are the most important for a solar
module installed in Central Europe:
temper-atures between approximately 7.5 and 17.5
°C at low irradiation of up to around 300 W
per m
2are of just as much significance as
the range of temperatures between 12.5 and
22.5 °C at irradiation levels between 850 and
1,050 W per m
2.
This is a significant factor for the outcome
of this year’s yield comparison. The
homoge-neity diagram showing the three SunPower
modules, which so clearly dominated the
field, is perfectly compatible with the
weath-er in Aachen. The homogeneity indicator for
the SPR-327NE-WHT-D of 8.0 (in the »Test
data« column of the table) is, in contrast,
far from a peak value: other modules
oper-ate significantly more uniformly and boast
indicators of up to 12.1, which is, however,
of little benefit when this occurs at an
exces-sively low level.
And yet a high level of homogeneity is a
worthwhile target. If the PHOTON
Interna-tional test array was, for example, located far
further north, where median irradiations
fre-quently occur at very low temperatures, then
the performance of the SunPower modules
would be less impressive in the yield
compari-son, because other modules deliver
consider-ably better results under those conditions. In
the range of high temperatures of up to 32.5
degrees, in contrast, the SunPower test
mod-ules need not shy away from a comparison – as
their good temperature coefficients also gave
reason to suspect. They would also be likely to
perform very well in locations further south,
at which considerably higher temperatures
play a larger role for the overall yield.
Arithmetically, at least, the following
question can be answered: the yield data
de-termined by PHOTON in Aachen, Germany,
could, in combination with the weather
fin-gerprint at a different location, allow a good
estimate to be made about what yield a solar
module is capable of producing there.
How-ever, this also involves two limitations: when
temperatures and irradiation values that do
not occur in Aachen at all are all too
fre-quent at the hypothetical module location,
the estimate will obviously become less
reli-able. And along with these two factors, there
are other factors that also play a role, in
par-ticular the spectral distribution of the light,
which is the result of the sun’s position and
the humidity in the air. The ideal module
yield test, with results that can be applied to
any location anywhere in the world,
there-fore remains – not just for the technicians
in the PHOTON laboratory – a hard nut that
has yet to be cracked.
Further information
Detailed results of PHOTON’s 2012 yield measurements
Module data Measurements Module characteristics Rank
Weak-light behavior Homogeneity
Aide Solar AD195M5-Aa / Mono China PsTc: 198.0 W Manufactured: – Area: 1.28 m² TC: -0.45 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,065.0 kWh/kW (-6.91%)*1 Y/module area: 164.7 kWh/m² PR: 88.6% Homogeneity: 4.6 Installed in: 9/2011 Aleo Solar Aleo S_18 225 / Multi Germany, Spain PsTc: 230.5 W Manufactured: 2005 Area: 1.64 m² TC: -0.44 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,099.3 kWh/kW (-3.92%)*1 Y/module area: 154.5 kWh/m² PR: 91.5% Homogeneity: 9.3 Installed in: 4/2010 Alex Solar ALM-190D-24 / Mono China PsTc: 187.8 W Manufactured: 2009 Area: 1.27 m² TC: -0.49 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,065.8 kWh/kW (-6.84%)*1 Y/module area: 157.6 kWh/m² PR: 88.7% Homogeneity: 10.6 Installed in: 7/2011 Amerisolar AS-5M-190W / Mono – PsTc: 195.0 W Manufactured: – Area: 1.28 m² TC: -0.45 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,092.1 kWh/kW (-4.54%)*1 Y/module area: 166.4 kWh/m² PR: 90.9% Homogeneity: 11.8 Installed in: 1/2012 Amerisolar AS-6P30-230W / Multi – PsTc: 236.8 W Manufactured: – Area: 1.64 m² TC: -0.47 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,089.2 kWh/kW (-4.80%)*1 Y/module area: 157.3 kWh/m² PR: 90.6% Homogeneity: 10.1 Installed in: 1/2012
Apollo Solar (ASEC) ASEC-235G6M / Multi Taiwan PsTc: 238.0 W Manufactured: 2011 Area: 1.61 m² TC: -0.43 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,109.0 kWh/kW (-3.07%)*1 Y/module area: 163.9 kWh/m² PR: 92.3% Homogeneity: 10.7 Installed in: 1/2012
without rating: Five of the tested modules were not rated as discrepancies occurred during last year’s measurement cycle that could not be fully explained. The modules are listed in the table but without any marks. Modules installed over the course of last year also did not receive any grades as no annual yield could be determined.
*1 deviation from test winner, *2 no longer manufactured, *3 P
sTc power specifi cation was not determined by PHOTON Lab but by the manufacturer, *
4 CEEG is the manufacturing company of license holder
China Sunergy, *5 previous model designation: CSG180S1-35/1589x807, *6 previous model designation: CSG230M2-30/1640x992, *7 previous model designation: ES-200-P60(230), *8 measurement data is
currently unavailable, *9 previously manufactured by Solarfun Power Holdings Co. Ltd., *10 previous model designation: Economy New ITS220ECU5, *11 previous manufacturer designation: JZ Solar,
Detailed results of PHOTON’s 2012 yield measurements
Module data Measurements Module characteristics Rank
Weak-light behavior Homogeneity
Axitec AC 236P/156-60S / Multi Germany PsTc: 232.9 W Manufactured: Through 2011 Area: 1.66 m² TC: -0.46 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,084.0 kWh/kW (-5.25%)*1 Y/module area: 152.1 kWh/m² PR: 90.2% Homogeneity: 4.3 Installed in: 2/2011 Axitec AC-250M/156-60S / Mono China, EU PsTc: 248.9 W Manufactured: Area: 1.63 m² TC: -0.44 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,061.9 kWh/kW (-7.19%)*1 Y/module area: 162.1 kWh/m² PR: 88.4% Homogeneity: 4.2 Installed in: 1/2012 Bisol BMU-215-2/221 / Multi Slovenia PsTc: 229.1 W Manufactured: 2007 Area: 1.64 m² TC: -0.46 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,075.3 kWh/kW (-6.01%)*1 Y/module area: 150.2 kWh/m² PR: 89.5% Homogeneity: 5.7 Installed in: 2/2010 Bisol BMU-215-2/233 / Multi Slovenia PsTc: 234.2 W Manufactured: 2009 Area: 1.63 m² TC: -0.44 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,086.0 kWh/kW (-5.08%)*1 Y/module area: 156.0 kWh/m² PR: 90.4% Homogeneity: 7.7 Installed in: 2/2011 Bosch Solar
Bosch c-Si M 60 230 / Mono Germany PsTc: 233.2 W Manufactured: 2009-2010 Area: 1.64 m² TC: -0.47 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,076.5 kWh/kW (-5.91%)*1 Y/module area: 153.0 kWh/m² PR: 89.6% Homogeneity: 7.0 Installed in: 2/2011 BP Solar BP 3220 T / Multi China PsTc: 232.5 W Manufactured: Through 2011 Area: 1.67 m² TC: -0.46 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,094.5 kWh/kW (-4.34%)*1 Y/module area: 152.4 kWh/m² PR: 91.1% Homogeneity: 2.9 Installed in: 7/2011
without rating: Five of the tested modules were not rated as discrepancies occurred during last year’s measurement cycle that could not be fully explained. The modules are listed in the table but without any marks. Modules installed over the course of last year also did not receive any grades as no annual yield could be determined.
*1 deviation from test winner, *2 no longer manufactured, *3 P
sTc power specifi cation was not determined by PHOTON Lab but by the manufacturer, *
4 CEEG is the manufacturing company of license holder
China Sunergy, *5 previous model designation: CSG180S1-35/1589x807, *6 previous model designation: CSG230M2-30/1640x992, *7 previous model designation: ES-200-P60(230), *8 measurement data is
currently unavailable, *9 previously manufactured by Solarfun Power Holdings Co. Ltd., *10 previous model designation: Economy New ITS220ECU5, *11 previous manufacturer designation: JZ Solar,
*12 previous model designation: JZM 290M-72, *13 company has changed its name to Inventec Energy, *14 module has not been evaluated continuously through this year, *15 subjected to high voltage in
June 2012 in order to revert PID; fi ngerprint showing data only after high voltage treatment, *16 company has withdrawn from crystalline silicon PV manufacturing, *17 previous model designation: SW
210 poly, *18 previous manufacturer designation: Q-Cells, *19 previous model designation: Q.SMART UF 95, *20 manufactured by Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co. Ltd., *21 based on results of our
incoming examination, multiple modules of this type entered into the yield measurement; should their yields differ, they are published separately, *22 referred to as Pure Power SV-X-200 (LV) in previous
Detailed results of PHOTON’s 2012 yield measurements
Module data Measurements Module characteristics Rank
Weak-light behavior Homogeneity
BP Solar BP 3280 T / Multi – PsTc: 287.4 W Manufactured: Through 2011 Area: 1.98 m² TC: -0.39 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,075.4 kWh/kW (-6.00%)*1 Y/module area: 155.3 kWh/m² PR: 89.5% Homogeneity: 5.2 Installed in: 5/2011 BP Solar BP 7185 S*2 / Mono Spain, India PsTc: 185.1 W*3 Manufactured: – Area: 1,25 m² TC: -0,46 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 980.6 kWh/kW (-14.29%)*1 Y/module area: 145.2 kWh/m² PR: 81.6% Homogeneity: 3.1 Installed in: 2005 BYD BYD 240P6-30 / Multi China PsTc: 243.6 W Manufactured: – Area: 1.63 m² TC: -0.42 %/K Yield in 2012: Not available Yield in December: Y/PsTc: 20.1 kWh/kW
Installed in: 9/2012 Yield 2012: not available
Calrays CPM 250-A-96 / Mono – PsTc: 244.0 W Manufactured: – Area: 1.67 m² TC: -0.45 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,024.7 kWh/kW (-10.43%)*1 Y/module area: 149.7 kWh/m² PR: 85.3% Homogeneity: 2.3 Installed in: 7/2011 Canadian Solar CS6A-170P / Multi China PsTc: 174.4 W*3 Manufactured: 2007 (purchased) Area: 1.30 m² TC: -0.50 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,013.4 kWh/kW (-11.43%)*1 Y/module area: 135.9 kWh/m² PR: 84.3% Homogeneity: 4.6 Installed in: 2007 CEEG Solar SST 240-60M / Mono China PsTc: 239.0 W Manufactured: 2005 Area: 1.62 m² TC: -0.46 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,085.6 kWh/kW (-5.12%)*1 Y/module area: 160.2 kWh/m² PR: 90.3% Homogeneity: 8.4 Installed in: 2/2011
without rating: Five of the tested modules were not rated as discrepancies occurred during last year’s measurement cycle that could not be fully explained. The modules are listed in the table but without any marks. Modules installed over the course of last year also did not receive any grades as no annual yield could be determined.
*1 deviation from test winner, *2 no longer manufactured, *3 P
sTc power specifi cation was not determined by PHOTON Lab but by the manufacturer, *
4 CEEG is the manufacturing company of license holder
China Sunergy, *5 previous model designation: CSG180S1-35/1589x807, *6 previous model designation: CSG230M2-30/1640x992, *7 previous model designation: ES-200-P60(230), *8 measurement data is
currently unavailable, *9 previously manufactured by Solarfun Power Holdings Co. Ltd., *10 previous model designation: Economy New ITS220ECU5, *11 previous manufacturer designation: JZ Solar,
Detailed results of PHOTON’s 2012 yield measurements
Module data Measurements Module characteristics Rank
Weak-light behavior Homogeneity
CEEG Solar SST 265-72P / Multi China PsTc: 281.0 W Manufactured: 2005 Area: 1.94 m² TC: -0.43 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,084.1 kWh/kW (-5.24%)*1 Y/module area: 157.0 kWh/m² PR: 90.2% Homogeneity: 11.2 Installed in: 2/2011 CH Solar
CH Solar 180 mono*2 / Mono
China PsTc: 184.4 W Manufactured: Through 2010 Area: 1.28 m² TC: -0.46 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,090.2 kWh/kW (-4.71%)*1 Y/module area: 157.1 kWh/m² PR: 90.7% Homogeneity: 8.2 Installed in: 4/2010
Chaori Solar Energy CRM240S156P-60 / Multi – PsTc: 241.0 W Manufactured: – Area: 1.63 m² TC: -0.45 %/K Yield in 2012: Not available Yield in December: Y/PsTc: 19.7 kWh/kW
Installed in: 5/2012 Yield 2012: not available
Chaori Solar Energy CRM245S156M-60 / Mono – PsTc: 246.3 W Manufactured: – Area: 1.63 m² TC: -0.46 %/K Yield in 2012: Not available Yield in December: Y/PsTc: 20.0 kWh/kW
Installed in: 5/2012 Yield 2012: not available
China Sunergy CSUN240-60P / Multi China PsTc: 243.7 W Manufactured: Area: 1.62 m² TC: -0.44 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,069.5 kWh/kW (-6.52%)*1 Y/module area: 160.9 kWh/m² PR: 89.0% Homogeneity: 5.1 Installed in: 1/2012 China Sunergy CSUN250-60M / Mono China PsTc: 248.4 W Manufactured: – Area: 1.62 m² TC: -0.45 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,085.4 kWh/kW (-5.13%)*1 Y/module area: 166.4 kWh/m² PR: 90.3% Homogeneity: 6.3 Installed in: 1/2012
without rating: Five of the tested modules were not rated as discrepancies occurred during last year’s measurement cycle that could not be fully explained. The modules are listed in the table but without any marks. Modules installed over the course of last year also did not receive any grades as no annual yield could be determined.
*1 deviation from test winner, *2 no longer manufactured, *3 P
sTc power specifi cation was not determined by PHOTON Lab but by the manufacturer, *
4 CEEG is the manufacturing company of license holder
China Sunergy, *5 previous model designation: CSG180S1-35/1589x807, *6 previous model designation: CSG230M2-30/1640x992, *7 previous model designation: ES-200-P60(230), *8 measurement data is
currently unavailable, *9 previously manufactured by Solarfun Power Holdings Co. Ltd., *10 previous model designation: Economy New ITS220ECU5, *11 previous manufacturer designation: JZ Solar,
*12 previous model designation: JZM 290M-72, *13 company has changed its name to Inventec Energy, *14 module has not been evaluated continuously through this year, *15 subjected to high voltage in
June 2012 in order to revert PID; fi ngerprint showing data only after high voltage treatment, *16 company has withdrawn from crystalline silicon PV manufacturing, *17 previous model designation: SW
210 poly, *18 previous manufacturer designation: Q-Cells, *19 previous model designation: Q.SMART UF 95, *20 manufactured by Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co. Ltd., *21 based on results of our
incoming examination, multiple modules of this type entered into the yield measurement; should their yields differ, they are published separately, *22 referred to as Pure Power SV-X-200 (LV) in previous
Detailed results of PHOTON’s 2012 yield measurements
Module data Measurements Module characteristics Rank
Weak-light behavior Homogeneity
China Sunergy CSUN260-60M / Mono China PsTc: 254.0 W Manufactured: – Area: 1.62 m² TC: -0.45 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,090.1 kWh/kW (-4.72%)*1 Y/module area: 170.9 kWh/m² PR: 90.7% Homogeneity: 6.6 Installed in: 1/2012
Chint Solar / Astronergy CHSM5612M (185 / Mono – PsTc: 187.4 W Manufactured: – Area: 1.28 m² TC: -0.45 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,097.1 kWh/kW (-4.11%)*1 Y/module area: 160.6 kWh/m² PR: 91.3% Homogeneity: 10.8 Installed in: 1/2012
Chint Solar / Astronergy CHSM6610P (230) / Multi – PsTc: 234.2 W Manufactured: – Area: 1.64 m² TC: -0.42 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,067.7 kWh/kW (-6.68%)*1 Y/module area: 152.5 kWh/m² PR: 88.8% Homogeneity: 5.7 Installed in: 1/2012 CNPV Solar CNPV-185M / Mono China PsTc: 193.8 W Manufactured: 2006 Area: 1.28 m² TC: -0.44 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,089.0 kWh/kW (-4.82%)*1 Y/module area: 164.9 kWh/m² PR: 90.6% Homogeneity: 7.6 Installed in: 3/2010 CNPV Solar CNPV-190M / Mono China PsTc: 197.4 W Manufactured: 2006 Area: 1.28 m² TC: -0.46 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,065.6 kWh/kW (-6.86%)*1 Y/module area: 164.3 kWh/m² PR: 88.7% Homogeneity: 5.6 Installed in: 7/2011 CNPV Solar CNPV-220P / Multi China PsTc: 224.2 W Manufactured: 2006 Area: 1.63 m² TC: -0.44 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,090.7 kWh/kW (-4.66%)*1 Y/module area: 150.0 kWh/m² PR: 90.8% Homogeneity: 7.9 Installed in: 7/2011
without rating: Five of the tested modules were not rated as discrepancies occurred during last year’s measurement cycle that could not be fully explained. The modules are listed in the table but without any marks. Modules installed over the course of last year also did not receive any grades as no annual yield could be determined.
*1 deviation from test winner, *2 no longer manufactured, *3 P
sTc power specifi cation was not determined by PHOTON Lab but by the manufacturer, *
4 CEEG is the manufacturing company of license holder
China Sunergy, *5 previous model designation: CSG180S1-35/1589x807, *6 previous model designation: CSG230M2-30/1640x992, *7 previous model designation: ES-200-P60(230), *8 measurement data is
currently unavailable, *9 previously manufactured by Solarfun Power Holdings Co. Ltd., *10 previous model designation: Economy New ITS220ECU5, *11 previous manufacturer designation: JZ Solar,
Detailed results of PHOTON’s 2012 yield measurements
Module data Measurements Module characteristics Rank
Weak-light behavior Homogeneity
CNPV Solar CNPV-240M / Mono China PsTc: 249.7 W Manufactured: 2006 Area: 1.64 m² TC: -0.47 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,071.2 kWh/kW (-6.37%)*1 Y/module area: 163.1 kWh/m² PR: 89.1% Homogeneity: 10.3 Installed in: 7/2011 CNPV Solar CNPV-240P / Multi China PsTc: 243.1 W Manufactured: 2006 Area: 1.64 m² TC: -0.45 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,099.0 kWh/kW (-3.94%)*1 Y/module area: 162.9 kWh/m² PR: 91.4% Homogeneity: 10.6 Installed in: 7/2011 Conergy Conergy PowerPlus 220P / Multi Germany PsTc: 224.2 W Manufactured: 2009 Area: 1.63 m² TC: -0.43 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,085.8 kWh/kW (-5.09%)*1 Y/module area: 149.4 kWh/m² PR: 90.3% Homogeneity: 7.7 Installed in: 3/2010 Conergy PowerPlus 235P / Multi Germany PsTc: 240.0 W Manufactured: – Area: 1.63 m² TC: -0.42 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,101.8 kWh/kW (-3.70%)*1 Y/module area: 162.2 kWh/m² PR: 91.7% Homogeneity: 8.9 Installed in: 1/2012 CSG PV Tech CSG180S1-35/36*5/ Mono China PsTc: 184.1 W Manufactured: 2008 Area: 1.28 m² TC: -0.46 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,106.1 kWh/kW (-3.32%)*1 Y/module area: 159.1 kWh/m² PR: 92.0% Homogeneity: 10.2 Installed in: 6/2010 CSG PV Tech CSG230M2-30*6/ Multi China PsTc: 228.3 W Manufactured: 2008 Area: 1.63 m² TC: -0.45 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,083.3 kWh/kW (-5.31%)*1 Y/module area: 151.7 kWh/m² PR: 90.1% Homogeneity: 6.0 Installed in: 6/2010
without rating: Five of the tested modules were not rated as discrepancies occurred during last year’s measurement cycle that could not be fully explained. The modules are listed in the table but without any marks. Modules installed over the course of last year also did not receive any grades as no annual yield could be determined.
*1 deviation from test winner, *2 no longer manufactured, *3 P
sTc power specifi cation was not determined by PHOTON Lab but by the manufacturer, *
4 CEEG is the manufacturing company of license holder
China Sunergy, *5 previous model designation: CSG180S1-35/1589x807, *6 previous model designation: CSG230M2-30/1640x992, *7 previous model designation: ES-200-P60(230), *8 measurement data is
currently unavailable, *9 previously manufactured by Solarfun Power Holdings Co. Ltd., *10 previous model designation: Economy New ITS220ECU5, *11 previous manufacturer designation: JZ Solar,
*12 previous model designation: JZM 290M-72, *13 company has changed its name to Inventec Energy, *14 module has not been evaluated continuously through this year, *15 subjected to high voltage in
June 2012 in order to revert PID; fi ngerprint showing data only after high voltage treatment, *16 company has withdrawn from crystalline silicon PV manufacturing, *17 previous model designation: SW
210 poly, *18 previous manufacturer designation: Q-Cells, *19 previous model designation: Q.SMART UF 95, *20 manufactured by Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co. Ltd., *21 based on results of our
incoming examination, multiple modules of this type entered into the yield measurement; should their yields differ, they are published separately, *22 referred to as Pure Power SV-X-200 (LV) in previous
Detailed results of PHOTON’s 2012 yield measurements
Module data Measurements Module characteristics Rank
Weak-light behavior Homogeneity
Daqo New Energy DQ235PSCa / Multi China PsTc: 238.0 W Manufactured: – Area: 1.63 m² TC: -0.43 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,080.5 kWh/kW (-5.56%)*1 Y/module area: 157.8 kWh/m² PR: 89.9% Homogeneity: 7.1 Installed in: 1/2012 Day4 Energy Day4 48MC 185 / Multi Canada PsTc: 186.5 W Manufactured: 2006 Area: 1.29 m² TC: -0.44 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,053.3 kWh/kW (-7.93%)*1 Y/module area: 152.3 kWh/m² PR: 87.6% Homogeneity: 8.0 Installed in: 2/2011 Eging Photovoltaic Technology EGM-185 / Mono Canada PsTc: 188.4 W Manufactured: 2010 Area: 1.28 m² TC: -0.48 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,079.9 kWh/kW (-5.61%)*1 Y/module area: 159.0 kWh/m² PR: 89.9% Homogeneity: 11.0 Installed in: 2/2011 Emmvee Photovoltaics ES-230P60*7/ Multi India PsTc: 234.0 W Manufactured: 2008-2011 Area: 1.69 m² TC: -0.43 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,039.9 kWh/kW (-9.11%)*1 Y/module area: 144.0 kWh/m² PR: 86.5% Homogeneity: 2.4 Installed in: 3/2010 ET Solar ET-M66250WW / Mono China PsTc: 248.9 W Manufactured: – Area: 1.63 m² TC: -0.43 %/K Yield in 2012: Not available Yield in December: Y/PsTc: 20.6 kWh/kW
Installed in: 12/2012 Yield 2012: not available
ET Solar ET-P660240 / Multi China PsTc: 236.1 W Manufactured: – Area: 1.63 m² TC: -0.46 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,115.3 kWh/kW (-2.51%)*1 Y/module area: 161.6 kWh/m² PR: 92.8% Homogeneity: 10.1 Installed in: 7/2011
without rating: Five of the tested modules were not rated as discrepancies occurred during last year’s measurement cycle that could not be fully explained. The modules are listed in the table but without any marks. Modules installed over the course of last year also did not receive any grades as no annual yield could be determined.
*1 deviation from test winner, *2 no longer manufactured, *3 P
sTc power specifi cation was not determined by PHOTON Lab but by the manufacturer, *
4 CEEG is the manufacturing company of license holder
China Sunergy, *5 previous model designation: CSG180S1-35/1589x807, *6 previous model designation: CSG230M2-30/1640x992, *7 previous model designation: ES-200-P60(230), *8 measurement data is
currently unavailable, *9 previously manufactured by Solarfun Power Holdings Co. Ltd., *10 previous model designation: Economy New ITS220ECU5, *11 previous manufacturer designation: JZ Solar,
Detailed results of PHOTON’s 2012 yield measurements
Module data Measurements Module characteristics Rank
Weak-light behavior Homogeneity
Eurener PEPV230 / Multi Spain PsTc: 235.3 W Manufactured: – Area: 1.67 m² TC: -0.42 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,090.8 kWh/kW (-4.66%)*1 Y/module area: 153.7 kWh/m² PR: 90.8% Homogeneity: 8.9 Installed in: 1/2012 Evergreen Solar EC-120*2 / Ribbon USA PsTc: 121.0 W*3 Manufactured: 2004-2006 Area: 1.03 m² TC: -0.51 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,022.7 kWh/kW (-10.61%)*1 Y/module area: 120.1 kWh/m² PR: 85.1% Homogeneity: 4.1 Installed in: 2006 Evergreen Solar ES-180-RL*2/ Ribbon Germany PsTc: 185.4 W*3 Manufactured: 2006-2008 Area: 1.50 m² TC: -0.46 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 962.6 kWh/kW (-15.86%)*1 Y/module area: 119.0 kWh/m² PR: 80.1% Homogeneity: 2.4 Installed in: 2007 Evergreen Solar ES-A-210-fa2 / Ribbon USA PsTc: 210.0 W Manufactured: 2008 Area: 1.57 m² TC: -0.45 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,052.0 kWh/kW (-8.05%)*1 Y/module area: 140.7 kWh/m² PR: 87.5% Homogeneity: 4.5 Installed in: 3/2011 Evergreen Solar ES-E-210-fc3 / Ribbon USA PsTc: 211.2 W Manufactured: Area: 1.64 m² TC: -0.45 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,058.8 kWh/kW (-7.45%)*1 Y/module area: 136.3 kWh/m² PR: 88.1% Homogeneity: 5.7 Installed in: 2/2011 Ferrania Solis AP 60-230 / Multi Italy PsTc: 228.8 W Manufactured: 2010 Area: 1.16 m² TC: -0.47 %/K Yield in 2012: Y/PsTc: 1,067.3 kWh/kW (-6.71%)*1 Y/module area: 210.5 kWh/m² PR: 88.8% Homogeneity: 2.1 Installed in: 7/2011
without rating: Five of the tested modules were not rated as discrepancies occurred during last year’s measurement cycle that could not be fully explained. The modules are listed in the table but without any marks. Modules installed over the course of last year also did not receive any grades as no annual yield could be determined.
*1 deviation from test winner, *2 no longer manufactured, *3 P
sTc power specifi cation was not determined by PHOTON Lab but by the manufacturer, *
4 CEEG is the manufacturing company of license holder
China Sunergy, *5 previous model designation: CSG180S1-35/1589x807, *6 previous model designation: CSG230M2-30/1640x992, *7 previous m