[RE-wrenches] Defective modules

Sun Jun 2 23:10:38 PDT 2013

The top 10 PV module suppliers in 2012 and their respective losses for last
year.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8369/8598487517_9537d5ed45.jpg

Top 10 list according to NPD Solarbuzz * Suntech has not reported financials
since the first quarter of 2012 when a loss of $119 million was posted. In
2011 Suntech lost $633 million. Some analysts are estimating a loss in the
$500 million range or more for 2012. ** Sharp's fiscal year ends March 31.
*** Figure for Jinko Solar for first nine months of 2012 only.

From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Carl Emerson
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 6:18 PM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Defective modules

Of interest.

This link from Forbes explains that the decline in thin film is purely cost
and not performance related.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2012/04/18/how-first-solar-struggles-
amid-decline-of-thin-film-solar-market/

This is because the world price of silicon has dropped dramatically to one
tenth of its price ten years ago, taking away thin films competitive edge.

Regards,

Carl Emerson.

Hi Carl,

Here is the link to how Photon measures each module.

http://www.photon.info/photon_lab_modul_ertragsm_en.photon?ActiveID=1289

and

http://www.photon.info/photon_lab_modul_ertragsmAD_en.photon?ActiveID=4382

Can you please tell me how they are doing it wrong, and what the test would
look like in doing it right?

Many thanks,

jay

peltz power

On Jun 2, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Carl Emerson wrote:

Jay,

The short answer is no.

These are not real world tests of energy yield under 'normal' outdoor
conditions.

Photon are setting up field tests for 2013 in Germany and the middle East.

Then they will have some useful data.

Carl E.

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

_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130602/409e8262/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 82464 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20130602/409e8262/attachment-0004.jpg>