Re: [RE-wrenches] Defective modules

[Carl Emerson]

Hi Jay,

 

Thanks for that, yes, I have seen the setup you refer to and it is very
comprehensive, but I thought that your reference to the 151 modules was a
lab test at STC and not an outdoor test for energy yield.

 

Can you send the link to the outdoor test results please.

 

Many Thanks,


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"  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@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

 

___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@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

Re: [RE-wrenches] Defective modules

[Carl Emerson]

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"  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@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

 

___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@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

Re: [RE-wrenches] Defective modules

[Ray Walters]

First Solar was not performing to warranty within the first 2 years.  
They supplied more modules, but not the additional land, racking, labor, 
wiring, etc to make up for the low performance.
I've watched thin film companies come and go for 2 decades. As I said 
before, I think they have they're place for specialty situations, ie, 
shading, but overall I've had nothing but disappointments with anything 
but monocrystalline, and even then I've seen trouble (BP as you noted)  
I've seen quite a bit of under performance from polycrystalline too.


R.Ray Walters
CTO, Solarray, Inc
Nabcep Certified PV Installer,
Licensed Master Electrician
Solar Design Engineer
303 505-8760

On 6/2/2013 4:27 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" > 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@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



___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@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

Re: [RE-wrenches] Defective modules

[jay peltz]

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"  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@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
> 

___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@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

Re: [RE-wrenches] Defective modules

[Carl Emerson]

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"  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@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

Re: [RE-wrenches] Defective modules

[Carl Emerson]

Jay,

 

Are they doing a 'real world' test for each module over say 12 monts

 

Carl Emerson

 

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"  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@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

Re: [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"  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@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

Re: [RE-wrenches] Defective modules

[jay peltz]

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"  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@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