Did you know that all amorphous silicon solar panels, which constitute the majority of panels under 20watts being sold by retailers in the USA, Canada, Europe and Australia, suffer from a reduction of power after soaking in light for periods of time?
In fact, the effect begins the second these panels see light. Within a few months, power output of such panels is reduced. In some cases, “sun-forced” degradation is almost 45% (according to University of California testing). In ICP’s thin film panels, it’s under 25%.
Now assuming you want to use your panels for years, it means that if you want to know your power needs for your application, you may need to increase your panel needs by up to 25% to be safe. This does not apply to the crystalline (blue) panels which are pre-stabilized in the manufacturing process. (The flip side is that ICP’s thin film creates up to 20% more amps per watt than crystalline in real life so there is a balance which is close to net-zero with ICP panels).
This is why ICP is adopting a new labelling protocol which shows both initial and stable power (labelled as “max” and “min” under Standard Test Conditions). This is a huge shift for an industry that prefers to advertise its initial power simply because it looks like you are getting more for less. This is yet another step towards our “truth in advertising” mantra that you have seen me pushing for a while.
When we presented this to our major clients, they were concerned about how the customer would be educated. Some asked why we are still showing the “max” rating if it only lasts a short while, to which we responded that until the governments mandate the “min power” rating only, we can’t be the lone wolf out there doing this.
Don’t get me wrong, I will be delighted the day that the solar associations in America wake up and enforce such rating protocols! Meantime, we have to help retailers evolve to the truth while maintaining their perceived competitive position in the marketplace in which they play.
I know that legitimate solar manufacturers in the marketplace are applauding this position, so tis’ not the sound of one hand clapping that you hear…
Sass
PS> No insult meant by the title to any martians reading this entry.
2 Comments
This has been an ongoing concern to the professional solar industry for years. Most large “known” manufacturers (those who produce a wide range of module sizes) will “derate” their thin-film modules to reflect the true operational performance. However there are many manufacturer’s that produce solely for the consumer market (under 20 watt) who do not “derate.” Not a problem where the consumer is aware of this as an issue – but a problem where the products are sold through large chain store whose staff may not be knowledgable.
Good work ICP for taking the lead on this!
Rob McMonagle
Executive Director – Canadian Solar Industries Association
Sass:
I am excited by your leadership approach in marketing to consumers the true performance of your products. Manufacturers that puff up their numbers are just training their consumers to not believe in the product and it performance. Not the way to build a lasting profitable brand or business.
I am interested in you experience in testing. I understand that it is very costly to have NREL certified, spectrally accurate test equipment – which makes me wonder what is typically used for ratings and whether the performance is certified relative to actual AM1.5G spectral illuminance.
Aaron L. Wadell