The photovoltaic solar market has grown exponentially in recent years, not only in Brazil, but worldwide.
As in any growing market of this level, there are always new companies being created in order to “surf the wave” of growth – not that this is bad at first, as competition in any market is healthy – but the problem begins when This competition is not as healthy as expected.
Specifically in our market, this occurs throughout the chain with the emergence of integrator companies, distributors and, of course, equipment manufacturers.
In the middle of all this is the end customer – most of the time with good intentions, to buy quality and reliable equipment – but who is unaware of the technology, the robustness of the manufacturer behind the equipment, the solidity of the integrating company that is carrying out the sales and installation, among others.
This is because, in the proposals that this client received, on paper they all generate the same energy/savings, so it would seem simple to choose the most economically advantageous one – read the cheapest proposal.
Obviously we (yes, you and I, a serious company in the market, who is reading this) know that this is not true and that, no matter how much a proposal claims to generate the same energy, several factors will impact the real savings of the end customer.
The objective of this article is to present some fundamental points that need to be clearly demonstrated to our customers, so that they understand the added value that is linked to the proposal they are receiving, that the equipment is not “all the same” and that, in a financial investment long-term (> 25 years), companies are expected to be here to respond to requests and guarantees that may eventually be necessary, as there is no point in having a term on a paper saying that module X has a 25-year guarantee, If in 5 years this manufacturer will not even exist to serve you.
So, how can I choose a PV module safely, with reliability over time in mind?
To do this, unlike analyzing a datasheet, looking at power, technical data and compatibility, we will present some classifications (technical and financial) that will help the customer make the decision.
And for this we will start by explaining the best known within the photovoltaic market – List Bloomberg Tier1.
For a period, it was used widely and, somewhat erroneously, as a certificate of quality of the photovoltaic module, with the photovoltaic module itself Bloomberg does not recommend that investors use the list provided by them as a certificate of technical quality.
This study, in fact, provides a financial opinion on the company analyzed, whose products are manufactured directly by the company and which were used in at least 6 large projects financed by international banks.
However, it alone does not give me confidence that a manufacturer, JUST because it is listed as Tier 1, can be chosen without reservations – See the list below with 47 companies on this list.
An important point to be analyzed in this list is the second column where, in addition to highlighting the manufacturer classified as Tier 1, shows its annual production capacity – See that we have manufacturers such as Longi (95GW/year), Trina (75GW/year) and JA Solar (65GW/year) in the same list of manufacturers with 210MW/year – 0,2% of Longi's annual capacity for example.
The second body that we will present is PVEL – PV Evolution Labs – which is a laboratory located in California that carries out studies and research regarding technologies and their reliability and that has carried out, annually since 2014, several resistance tests on products – seeking to ascertain whether only the information from the datasheet but, mainly, the behavior of these modules in real operating conditions over time (accelerated degradation in the laboratory). Among the tests carried out are:
- Thermal Cycling (TC600): This test evaluates the ability of the photovoltaic module to withstand wide temperature changes, contracting and expanding without causing damage beyond what is expected to maintain its performance;
- Damp Heat Test: It simulates the long-term degradation and failure that are typical in high temperatures and high humidity conditions, where this can weaken the materials that hold the photovoltaic module together;
- Mechanical Stress Sequence: Assess whether the module will suffer microcracks under mechanical pressure and if this is lost, it will lose performance/energy.
- PID: Induced potential degradation;
- LID and LeTID: Light-induced degradation (LID) and light-elevated temperature-induced degradation (LETID) are cell-based phenomena triggered by light exposure that are often incorporated into energy production models;
- PAN Performance: Evaluates the reliability and security of the PAN file (used for generation simulations in the PVSyst software) in relation to real conditions, that is, with the parameter variations that will occur - as the pvsyst simulation is used in investments to attest to the reliability of that energy will be produced. In the Brazilian market, we have problems with PAN files of poor quality or reliability, producing yield data that will not occur in practice, burdening the investor;
- Backsheet Durability Sequence: Assess the risks of damage to the photovoltaic module backsheet, which could harm its efficiency throughout its useful life;
- Hail Stress Sequence: Analysis of the impact of hail on the modules.
At the end of these tests, PVEL publishes a list of products/manufacturers that were approved in these tests and that represent an expected quality of ability of these products under real conditions and operating limits – this is a report that we can base ourselves on to consider the quality of the photovoltaic module, highlighting that it alone does not represent a 100% certificate of reliability from the manufacturer – but it is a good indication.
More important than analyzing who is in the latest report, it is essential to understand the manufacturers that, year after year, continue to these tests – with poly, mono, perc, bifacial modules, etc.
Whatever the technology applied, they are reliable. In a long-term investment, this is exactly what we need.
Another recognized laboratory for studying and testing photovoltaic modules is the RETC – Renewable Energy Test Center (leader in PV products and batteries), recommended by Bloomberg as quality, whose objective is to carry out several tests in conjunction with the IEC's designated for photovoltaic modules and attest – test by test separately – which manufacturers have been validated in this regard.
At the end, they also announce the Top Performers of the year in question, which are the manufacturers qualified in most or even all of the procedures performed. As examples of tests, we can mention:
Reliability Performance and quality
- Thresher Test – BOM – The components of the photovoltaic module are tested
- LeTID Resistance
- Pan File Performance
- Damp Heat Test
- Dynamic Mechanical Load Test
- Thermal Cycle Test
And as mentioned, at the end, they disclose the Overhall High Achievement Manufacturing – in other words, an excellent manufacturing process.
What can we with the information above?
There are some manufacturers who repeat themselves in practically all tests carried out, providing further information on the technical quality of the products they supply – for those not mentioned, there are two options: either they were not approved, or their modules were not sent for analysis from a third, independent laboratory.
As the last point to be mentioned in this article as an aspect of reliability when we talk about PV modules, we bring the body PVTech, an institution that has published quarterly since 2015 the main financial and manufacturing metrics of the main PV module players on the market, making it possible to understand, classify and compare their bankability status.
That is, just as the Bloomberg Tier1, evaluates the financial robustness and reliability of these suppliers, classifying them into indices within a financial pyramid – similar to that used in the financial market, for example, to classify investment risks, among others.
In it, the higher up the pyramid (closer to AAA – maximum level), the more financially secure and reliable this company is.
Filtering for the first report – Bloomberg Tier1, we see that only 47 of these, around 20%, are classified in this way. However, of these 47, only 25 also have a classification certified by PVEL, according to the body mentioned in the article.
Reliability pyramid
As we can see from the information cited throughout the article, there are several ways to assess the quality and especially the financial strength of a company. However, individually, it does not provide us with such reliable data because, in each list, there are companies that are not mentioned in the others, for various reasons.
Therefore, the ideal is to cross-check information from all these institutes and look for companies that are classified in all of them since, if different independent bodies attest to the quality and robustness of a supplier, it is natural to conclude that there is a higher level of reliability of this company. .
The manufacturer JA Solar created a “reliability pyramid” for a supplier of photovoltaic modules using these 4 institutes that we mentioned throughout the text. What we can see is that, today, there are around 150-200 PV module manufacturers on the market.
Next, when carrying out an even more careful filter, we see that of these 25 manufacturers, only 6 were certified as Top Performers in the last year (2022) of RETC – only 15% of suppliers on the list Tier 1 or less than 3% of the total number of manufacturers.
Finally, if we look at which of these 6 are also classified at the highest level of financial security by PVTech, we arrive at only 4 listed as AAA – less than 2% of the existing total.
We know that comparing PV modules from different manufacturers just using their technical data contained in the datasheet has become complicated, as the information in it is similar in the vast majority of cases.
But as we can see above, it is unfair (and mainly inaccurate) to compare a manufacturer like JA Solar, Trina Solar and Longi Solar – 3 of the 4 mentioned above, with any XYZ manufacturer present on the market and which does not have all this security – whether technical or financial.
They are not the same product, they do not have the same reliability. One way to prove this occurred with some reports of flash test that circulated in WhatsApp groups recently (source unknown) where several modules normally sold in our market were tested in credible laboratories in Brazil and showed power well below that contained in the datasheet – incalculable damage to customers' energy generation.
: We are talking about a product that has a 25-year (or 30) warranty and, in general, has a useful life longer than that. How sure are you and your client that this company will exist in 3, 5, 15 years, to meet the guarantee proposed by him?? There are some manufacturers that were on our market in 2015-2018 that no longer exist.
Who will these customers request the guarantee from since they didn't even have a CNPJ in Brazil at the time? In many cases they will take legal action and there is a possibility that the integrator will be held tly responsible for this. Is it worth the risk? I do not think so.
References
https://marketresearch.solarmedia.co.uk/reports/pv-moduletech-bankability-ratings-quarterly-report/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzabN83X42ygXnxTmspx7xw
The opinions and information expressed are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the author. Canal Solar.
Answers of 2
This note is enlightening.
Thiago, my friend, excellent text of great importance. Thanks