The Denver Solar Scandal…

Back in 2005, Humboldt University’s Dr. Arne Jacobson had been mandated by the renewable energy association of Kenya to conduct testing on the amorphous silicon modules being sold there. The concern was that there were still modules which did not output the true power stated on their labels and that this could cause major issues. Think about it, people in that country depend on these panels for their LIVELYHOOD!
Comes 2006, and Humboldt University now decides to do its own testing on North American branded modules. The results were astounding to them and the attendees at Denver’s recent Solar Power Conference last week, yet held no surprise to ICP Solar which has been basically saying the same thing for about three years now. Panels which carried labels of 15Watts (made by the Chinese maker) and models made by ICP Solar which are labelled 18W max and 14W min (min power = stable power at STC) were tested over a period of several months to ensure that the “light soaking” degradation effect was relatively complete.
Out of 10 modules tested, ICP Solar’s average stable output was 14.2Watts, just slightly above the advertised level on our labels for minimum power. The other maker’s modules…well let’s just say that I’d rather write POSITIVES about ICP’s modules than negatives about anyone else’s. All 10 modules were purchased blindly by Humboldt, so as to avoid any “fix” by the makers.
ICP Solar stands tall and proud that our panels deliver on their promise…and more. You can hear a podcast, care of Ben Kenney about the particular study and what Dr. Jacobson feels should be done now. Oh yes, I get to slip in a few words in the interview as well :).
Well done team ICP. These results show we have much to be proud of.
Sass
PS> Since the report is not in final form, I was asked by the researcher not to post it for download. Remember that the “truth comes out in the end”, and there are people who obviously can be very upset by these truths, therefore Dr. Jacobson is being extremely prudent about the format in which he will publicize the documents. The same “attack and deny” strategy occurred in 2004 in Kenya, when distributors of the fake-rated panels screamed at the top of their lungs. Once things settled down, the truth showed that the intiial reports were extremely accurate not only as to the source of the modules but also to their final outputs. In the end, the solar and retail industry now knows who is making these panels and who is selling them. Their brand, and what it represents, is determined by their actions, not by their words. Studies using solar panels distributed in Kenya in 2004/2005 showed that Shenzhen Topray is the company to avoid. Say no more…