[RE-wrenches] Defective modules

[Bob-O Schultze]

Me too, please.
Bob-O

On Jun 2, 2013, at 7:32 AM, jay peltz wrote:

Hi Carl

Would like to see real data. 

Photon publishes their module data, and thin film are no where near the top of the list. 

Nexpower. #14
First solar. #131
Total of 151 modules in the test. 

Jay

Peltz power

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 1, 2013, at 6:20 PM, "Carl Emerson" <Carl at solarking.net.nz> wrote:

> Hi there,
>  
> Thin film is still getting bad press after early production suffered degradation issues way back in the 90’s.
>  
> There is plenty of evidence that thin film produces at least 10% more energy because it performs better at temperature and responds better to global irradiance.
>  
> Some brands may be problematic today but this is equally true of crystalline modules.
>  
> Sure the efficiency is down and more area is needed for the same rated power but some brands are delivering 20% more energy in some climates.
>  
> As for degradation, I have seen crystalline BP’s with every panel turning brown and clapping out after just 12 years in the pacific Islands.
>  
> So let’s be Brand specific and not lump all thin film together and tar it with the same brush, based on early failures 30 years ago.
>  
> Current issues backed up with hard data would be very useful…
>  
> Regards
> Carl Emerson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130602/45f28946/attachment-0004.html>