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" <c...@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@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
