• No results found

A triple victory. The winner of 2011 s test has reason to be

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "A triple victory. The winner of 2011 s test has reason to be"

Copied!
48
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

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

th

spot 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

(2)

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.

(3)

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

th

place. 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.

(4)
(5)

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

(6)

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

(7)

PHOTON Lab’s outdoor module tests: Results of 2012 yield measurements

Rank Manufacturer Model Production

dates*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%

(8)

PHOTON Lab’s outdoor module tests: Results of 2012 yield measurements

Rank Manufacturer Model Production

dates*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%

(9)

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 Production

dates*1 Installed in Yield in kWh/m² Performance ratio Yield in kWh/kW Deviation from test winner (%)

(10)

‡0D[HIILFLHQF\ZLWK

‡0337HIILFLHQF\

‡+)WUDQVIRUPHU

‡$GYDQFHGPRQLWRU

‡2XWGRRULQVWDOODWLRQ ZLGHRSHUDWHWHPSHUDWXUH

‡([FHOOHQWSURWHFWLRQ

‡/RQJOLIHWLPHGHVLJQZLWK\HDUZDUUDQW\

‡6LPSOHLQVWDOODWLRQ

6RODU3RQG6HULHV

0LFUR,QYHUWHU 7HO

(DUQ0RUHE\

+LJKHU(IILFLHQF\

Model:SolarPond 240HF-US 6WDQG1R6 0DU

Company 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

(11)

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

(12)
(13)

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

(14)

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.

(15)

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

2

are 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

(16)

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,

(17)

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

(18)

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,

(19)

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

(20)

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,

(21)

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

(22)

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,

(23)

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

References

Related documents

Due to the exceptional situation caused by the health crisis of the COVID-19 and taking into account the security measures related to the development of the

If not specifically mentioned, check the “Other” box, enter the type of entity and the type of return that will be filed (for example, common trust fund, Form 1065). Do not

1) We perform a thorough comparative evaluation of the physical beamforming performance of compact array de- signs. Uniform arrays are for the first time compared based on the two

Agreeing to use a particular forum means waiving certain legal rights. In a permissive agreement, the parties waive their objections to litigating in a particular court.

Bless This Mess Cancelled at ABC ABC is cleaning up each act canceling Bless This out after two seasons TVLine has learned News of Bless you Miss' cancellation comes on the heels of

In the moderately fertile soil, compost addition significantly increased plant height, leaf number, and corn yields (Table 7)+. Plant height at the highest rate was about two

The clean screen is not available for HMI devices with touch screen and function keys. In this case, configure a screen without operator controls,

In fact, we do not recommend training people in techniques of embryo recovery and transfer until they are proficient in artificial insemination (meaning that they have