ENERGY

2018 PV MODULE
RELIABILITY SCORECARD
Defining Quality. Guiding Industry.

SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

Authors:

Tara Doyle Tristan Erion-Lorico Ryan Desharnais

Head of Business Development Head of PV Module Business Head of Engineering
and Project Management [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]

Contributors:
Ken Sauer, Senior PV Engineer, [email protected]
Adam Gushansky, Project Manager, [email protected]
Steve Jones, Business Line Director - Renewables Advisory North America, [email protected]
Jackson Moore, Head of Solar Technology, [email protected]
Raymond Hudson, Senior Principal Consultant, [email protected]
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION __________________________________________________________________ 05

SOLAR TIMELINE ____________________________________________________________06

PV MODULE AGING MECHANISMS _________________________________________________ 08

PV MODULE RELIABILITY & TESTING ________________________________________________ 09

THE PV MODULE PRODUCT QUALIFICATION PROGRAM _________________________________10

THE RESULTS _____________________________________________________________________ 13

Thermal Cycling Overview & Results.................................................................................................................14
Damp Heat Overview & Results......................................................................................................................... 16
Mechanical Load + Thermal Cycling + Humidity Freeze Overview & Results..............................................18
Potential Induced Degradation Overview & Results....................................................................................... 20
CASE STUDY: PID PERFORMANCE __________________________________________________ 22

CASE STUDY: PAN & IAM PERFORMANCE ___________________________________________ 23

INTERPRETING THE RESULTS _______________________________________________________24

FACTORY LOCATIONS _____________________________________________________________26

THE HISTORICAL SCORECARD _____________________________________________________ 27

DNV GL BEST PRACTICES __________________________________________________________ 28

CONCLUSION ____________________________________________________________________ 30
04 ENERGY 2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard
INTRODUCTION

here has never been a more exciting time in the solar industry. Buyers are faced with
T increased technological advances, which test our understanding of what makes a
module “proven”, while energy pricing continues to fall, compressing project margins. 
Technologies that have been developed over recent years, including bifacial modules and PERC
cells, are now available from many of the top module suppliers. India, China, Brazil, Mexico and
Egypt are examples of some of the fastest growing PV markets that are themselves experiencing
an emergence of new manufacturers. We no longer think about production in terms of
megawatts per year, but in gigawatts.

Excitement can be equally joined with uncertainty.  In the case of the solar industry, risk is often
associated with new technologies and rapid development.  New technologies mean uncharted
territory in terms of module performance and long term reliability.  The speed and volume at
which these developments are introduced result in new risks associated with poor quality
module construction, increasingly complicated logistics and limited field history.

In these exciting and sometimes challenging times, the industry moves forward by leaps and
bounds.  With 98 GW installed globally, up 29 percent from 2016, 2017 was another record
year for new solar capacity.  We expect 2018 to continue this record-setting growth, easily
eclipsing the 100 GW milestone. At DNV GL’s Energy Labs, our experts have experienced the
shift in the industry just as you have, and we remain one step ahead. We have tested everything
from proven technologies to prototypes, with results ranging from reliable to risky, sometimes
counter to conventional wisdom and expectations.

DNV GL first published this Scorecard in 2014 to show you, the market, what we found and
learned through our testing. We are proud to present our fourth annual PV Module Reliability
Scorecard.

Ditlev Engel
CEO
DNV GL - Energy

2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard ENERGY 05

 SOLAR TIMELINE

1982
1905 The first megawatt-scale
Albert Einstein PV array goes on-line in
explains the California, USA
photoelectric
1958
The Vanguard I
effect based
space satellite
on the photon
uses a small
theory of light 1964
(< 1 W) array
to power its NASA launches
radios the first Nimbus
satellite, able to
1839
run entirely on
19 year old
470 W of solar
Edmund
Bacquerel of
France 
discovers the
creation of 1954
voltage when The modern
certain  solar cell is
material is invented by 1977
exposed to 1963
Bell Labs, with Japan installs Global PV 1999 2004
light ~6% efficiency manufacturing
the world's Cumulative Annual global
largest PV array, production worldwide capacity additions
242 W on a capacity installed exceed 1 GW for
lighthouse exceeds photovoltaic the first time
500 kW capacity reaches
1 GW

1956 1975 1987 2004

Solar cell c ost Solar cell cost Solar cell cost Germany
per watt = per watt = per watt = introduces
~$300 ~$100 <$10 their
Feed-in-Tariff
program
for solar at
$457/MWh

06 ENERGY 2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard

 2012 2015 2017
PVEL, now DNV GL, develops the module China becomes first World's first 1 GW array connects
Product Qualification Program (PQP) to country to install to the grid in India
support the downstream solar community. more than 15 GW of
PV in a single year

2017
98 GW of PV
2012 installed in one
2017 year, more than
World's largest array connects to the Largest ever PV
grid - 145 MW in Germany 2016 the net addition
World's largest manufacturing of all coal, gas,
array connects to capacity additions and nuclear
the grid - 648 MW announced in a power plants
in India single quarter at combined.
40 GW (Q4)

2008 2012 2014

Cumulative Cumulative
World's largest
worldwide worldwide 2016
array connects to
installed PV installed Cumulative PV
the grid - 550 MW
capacity exceeds PV capacity capacity exceeds
in California, USA
15 GW exceeds 300 GW
100 GW

2011 2012 2012 2012 2017

New Japan  Solar cell cost New record-low New record-low 2017
record- introduces per watt < $1 PPA is signed PPA bid for $17.9/ Solar module
low PPA is their for $59/MWh MWh submitted in cost per watt =
signed for Feed-in-Tariff in USA Saudi Arabia $0.37
$200/MWh program for
in Ghana solar at $534/
MWh

Sources: BNEF, EPIA, GTM, IEA, IRENA

2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard ENERGY 07

 PV MODULE AGING
MECHANISMS

PV module aging and failure mechanisms have been The results from a Heliolytics study support this
documented over a wide range of power plant trend. Heliolytics has inspected over 8 GW of
locations and material sets. Field failures of PV operating systems using aerial infrared
equipment can stem from component issues, design technology. Focusing on ground-mounted modules
flaws, or failures in quality control during the with sub-module defects, they found that more than
manufacturing process. 7% of sites have sub-module defect rates greater
than 0.5%. Sub-module defects include failed
The graphic below indicates leading PV module aging diodes, cell damage or poor soldering where at least
and failure mechanisms occurring as infant, midlife and 1/3 of the module becomes inactive.
wear-out failures. 

Is long-term performance data available?

The long tails in both histograms are indicative of
The solar industry generally lacks comprehensive
module underperformance caused by poor quality
public datasets of PV equipment field performance.
manufacturing, materials or product design.
However, in 2016 Dirk Jordan and Sarah Kurtz from
the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
In another large study, from 2012 to 2018 DuPont
collaborated with DNV GL to perform a comprehensive
performed extensive field inspections on over one
literature survey on published PV degradation. This
GW (approximately four million modules) from
study identified more than 11,000 module degradation
systems ranging in age from zero to 30 years.
rates from nearly 200 studies worldwide. Of significant
DuPont conducted visual inspection, thermal
interest is the long tail with degradation exceeding
imaging and IR spectroscopy, identifying issues in
1% annually.
approximately 22% of the modules surveyed. Their
findings are outlined below.

1.3% 0.4% Failure Categorizations

9.5% No defect
detected Not Applicable
(76.8%)
12%
Corrosion, hot spot,
Cell/
broken interconnect,
Interconnect
snail trails, cracks,
(12%)
burn marks
Backsheet Cracking, yellowing,
(9.5%) delamination
76.8%
Encapsulant Discoloration or
(1.3%) delamination

Other Broken, etched,

(0.4%) hazed glass, etc.
2 4

1 Source: IEA PVPS 2014

2 Source: “Compendium of Photovoltaic Degradation Rates”, D.C. Jordan, et al, NREL, 2016
3 Source: Sub-module failures on ground-mount sites courtesy of Heliolytics, 2018
4 Source: Courtesy of DuPont Photovoltaic Solutions, “Degradation of Fielded PV Modules from Across the Globe”, K.R. Choudhury, et al., 2018

08 ENERGY 2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard

PV MODULE RELIABILITY
& TESTING

How was module testing developed? How does degradation relate to module failure?
The U.S. Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s (JPL) Block Buy Long-term module power degradation is built into
program started in the mid-1970s with the goal of project expectations and is warranted by
developing environmental tests for crystalline silicon manufacturers. Typical warranty terms provide a
modules. This program established many of the tests guarantee of 97% of the nameplate rating during
that are still used for reliability assessment today. the first year, reduced by 0.6-0.7% annually during
the following 24 years.
The European Solar Test Installation (ESTI) project
was initiated in the late 1970s and focused on both Measuring power degradation in the field when
testing modules and creating standard performance the levels are small is extraordinarily difficult due to
metrics for solar cells. the uncertainty of measurement tools and sensors.
Practically, this results in most PV module warranty
These two programs formed a foundation for today’s claims being limited to excessive underperformance
basic module certification tests: or complete failure. DNV GL notes that an allowance
for uncertainty, typically according to EN 50380, is
■■ International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) applied for warranty enforcement which effectively
61215 “Crystalline silicon terrestrial photovoltaic (PV) lowers the guaranteed level by a further amount (on
modules – Design qualification and type approval” the order of 3%).
■■ Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 1703 “Standard for
Flat-Plate Photovoltaic Modules and Panels” Based on DNV GL’s experience and data, at least
7% of commercial PV modules do not pass the IEC
Are there limitations to the standards? 61215 humidity freeze test. This 7% figure pulls from
Though most PV projects require UL and/or IEC the historical dataset that has grown from tens to
certification to ensure a minimum level of module thousands of modules.
robustness and safety, it is widely accepted that
these certification standards are not sufficient to
demonstrate long-term PV module reliability for the
following reasons:

1. UL 1703 (and the similar IEC 61730) are purely ■■ 7% of

safety tests, to ensure that modules do not pose a modules fail
hazard during operation. These tests do not address IEC 61215
long-term reliability or performance.

2. The IEC 61215 tests are suitable only for

identifying module defects that manifest within the
first few operational years (i.e., defect screening).

3. Certification testing is performed on PV module

samples selected by each manufacturer. This may Source: DNV GL

result in sampling bias if manufacturers select only

their best modules for certification testing.

Prior to PV module purchase, it is essential that a trustworthy source tests the

selected product’s resilience to the most common degradation mechanisms.

2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard ENERGY 09

 THE PV MODULE PRODUCT
QUALIFICATION PROGRAM

In 2012, DNV GL developed the PV Module Product Qualification Program (PQP) to support the solar community
with two aims:

Provide PV equipment buyers and power plant investors with independent and consistent reliability and
performance data to support implementation of an effective supplier management process (such as an
Approved Product or Vendor List).

Provide independent recognition to module manufacturers who outpace their competitors in product quality and
durability.

The scope of the PQP aligns with requirements from DNV GL’s downstream partners, including developers,
contractors, asset owners and financiers. The PQP has evolved to consider new insights in understanding field
failure and degradation mechanisms, requests from DNV GL’s downstream partners, as well as feedback from PV
module manufacturers. For example, beginning in 2018, an extended light soak test sequence was added to
better quantify LID stabilization.

This PV Module Reliability Scorecard is a distillation of the past 18 months of PQP results. Each set of results is
backed by a complete report on each product tested; these individual PV module reports are available to DNV GL
downstream partners. All Bill of Materials (BOM) of modules submitted to PQP testing are witnessed in production
and tested in the same way and in the same environment to enable a levelled comparison.

In the past five years, DNV GL has tested over 300 BOMs for more than 50 module manufacturers. Nine of the
top ten global module manufacturers and more than 70% of the latest Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF)
“Tier 1” manufacturers have participated in the PQP.

10 ENERGY 2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard

 Characterization (IV,EL)

Light Soaking >40 kWh/m2

Characterization (IV,EL, LLF, VWL)

Potential Field Light

Thermal Damp Ultraviolet Dynamic PAN File
Induced Exposure & Induced
Cycling Heat Light Loading & IAM
Degradation Performance Degradation

TC 200 DH 1000h UV 45 DML 1k PID PAN file Field Light

kWh/m2 cycles +/- 85 C (including exposure1 soaking > 10
1kPa 85RH IAM) year kWh/m2 Repeat
IV, EL, VWL IV, EL, VWL 96h until
IV, EL, VWL 1%
IV, EL, VWL IV, EL, VWL, IV, EL stable
TC 200 DH 1000h IV, EL, VWL IRTquarterly per IEC
UV 45 61215
kWh/m2 TC 50 Light
IV, EL, VWL All but IRT PID All at end soaking > 10
85 C kWh/m2
All but IRT IV, EL, VWL 85RH
TC 200 96h
IV, EL
HF 10
IV, EL, VWL All but IRT

IV, EL, VWL

TC 200
HF 10
All but IRT Measurements key: Test leg key:
IV: IV Flash @STC TC: thermal cycling
IV, EL, VWL EL: electroluminescence @Isc DH: damp heat
LLF: low-light flash DML: dynamic
VWL: visual, wet leakage mechanical load
HF 10 D: diode check HF: humidity freeze
IAM: incidence angle PID: potential induced
modifier
All but IRT degradation
IRT: IR temp measurement

DNV GL’s Product Qualification Program provides great

comparative insights into different manufacturers’ performance
and product reliability; the results serve as a valuable tool to
inform Sunrun’s procurement strategy.

Dirk Morbitzer, Director of Strategic Sourcing, Sunrun Inc.

(currently the largest dedicated residential solar company in
the U.S., with 323 MW in 2017).

2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard ENERGY 11

12 ENERGY 2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard 2018
THE RESULTS -
OVERVIEW

Spectrum of Performance
As vigilant readers of past Scorecards will note, the results of DNV GL’s 2018 Scorecard show strong performance
and fewer failures than in past years. However, underscored by the results presented in the following pages, there
is still a spectrum of performance. PQP and Scorecard participants tend to place a higher value on the reliability of
their products than non-participants. As such, the median results presented in the following pages may be better
than the median results of the broader industry.

Methodology
Results presented in the bar charts on the subsequent pages show average values of different BOM(s) for a single
module model. The majority of Scorecard participants are 60- or 72-cell mono- or multi-crystalline silicon modules.

Each test sequence had a different number of manufacturers and model types participating. The Top Performers in
each test category are identified in each table, in alphabetical order. Top Performers are model types that degraded
less than 2% for the entirety of the test sequence.

Reading the Results

Each test sequence is detailed over two pages. First, we provide an overview of the stress testing and real-world
context of the specific failure mechanism. A representative degradation profile illuminates how the particular
stress affects a module visually via electroluminescence and electrically with parameters of the IV curve. In the
second page, the 2018 results are graphically presented showing an average power loss by model type along with
Top Performers.

DNV GL cautions that not all products are represented in every test. For example, some products are not
subjected to all tests, or some results may not be available at the time of publication.

Reliability Top Bottom Median

Duration
Tests Result Result (%) Result (%)

No Measurable
Thermal Cycling 600 Cycles -8.8 -1.6
Degradation

No Measurable
Damp Heat 2000 hours -8.1 -2.5
Degradation

Dynamic 1000 Cycles + No Measurable -3.1 -1.2

Mechanical Load TC50 + HF10 Degradation

Potential Induced 192 Hours No Measurable -7.4 -1.4

Degradation Degradation

2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard ENERGY 13

 THERMAL CYCLING
OVERVIEW & RESULTS

PV modules are constructed from several materials with varying coefficients of thermal expansion. As temperature
and irradiance fluctuate, materials expand or contract at different rates, introducing interface stress. An example is
solder joint fatigue, which can manifest electrically as an increase in series resistance and decreased performance at
high irradiance.

DNV GL’s Thermal Cycling (TC) test sequence is an extrapolation of IEC 61215, which specifies 200 cycles. DNV GL’s
PQP sequence included 600 cycles in 2016-17, and has been extended to 800 cycles in 2018 (for inclusion in the 2019
Scorecard). TC includes interval characterization to profile the progression of degradation. A single thermal cycle
completes in an environmental chamber when the temperature is lowered to -40°C, dwelled, and then increased to
85°C to dwell again. During the temperature ramps, maximum power current is applied to the modules. One cycle
duration typically ranges from three to five hours.

Whether in arid environments with large daily temperature ranges or more temperate environments with many smaller
range cycles, extended thermal cycling delivers insight into the reliability of PV module construction, manufacturing
processes and expected field performance.

200 400 600

Voc Isc FF MPP

14 ENERGY 2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard 2018

 2018 TOP PERFORMERS
Manufacturer Module Model
Adani (Mundra Solar) ASP-7-xxx
CHSM6612M/HV-xxx
Astronergy Solar
CHSM6612P/HV-xxx
BYD BYDxxxP6K-36
FXS-xxxBB-SBD1W
Flex
FXS-xxxBC-SAD1W
GCL Solar Energy GCL-P6/72xxx
HT-SAAE HT72-156P-xxx
JA Solar JAM6(K)(ZEP)-60-xxx/PR
JKMSxxxPP-60
JKMxxxM-60B
JKMxxxM-72/JKMxxxM-72-V
Jinko Solar
JKMxxxPP-60
JKMxxxPP-72
JKMxxxPP-72-V
LG Electronics LGxxxS2W-A5
LONGi Solar Technology LR6-72PH-xxxM/LR6-60PB-xxxM
D6MxxxE4A
Neo Solar Power (NSP)
D6PxxxE3A
Panasonic VBHNxxxSA16
REC Solar RECxxxTP2
SunPower SPR-P19-xxx-COM
SunSpark Technology SST-xxxM
Suntech Power STPxxx-20/Wem
TSM-xxxDD05A.08(II)
Trina Solar TSM-xxxDD05A.18(II)
TSM-xxxPE14A/TSM-xxxPD14
Yingli Solar YLxxxD-36b
Top Performers above this line

Thermal Cycling Results Summary

Compared to previous Scorecard releases, the results in the 2018 Scorecard show an
improvement in TC 600 performance. ​The median for TC is -1.6% degradation, with the worst
performer measuring -8.8%. In the 2017 Scorecard, the median was -1.9%, with the worst
performer having complete failure, measuring no power output.

2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard ENERGY 15

 DAMP HEAT
OVERVIEW & RESULTS

The Damp Heat (DH) test sequence uses high

temperature and high humidity to evaluate
module construction, such as lamination and
material quality. While high temperature/high
humidity occur regularly in many parts of the
world, the damp heat testing sequence is
effective at uncovering degradation and failure
modes associated with long term exposure
even in moderate climates.

The various layers in a typical crystalline-Si PV module are shown to the right. These layers need to stay securely
adhered for decades in the field.

In an IEC 61215 Damp Heat test, modules are held at a constant temperature of 85°C and a relative humidity of 85%
for 1,000 hours (approximately 42 days). This moisture ingress stresses the module’s adhered interfaces. DNV GL has
performed hundreds of Damp Heat tests at various durations, assessing module resilience as a function of these
durations. DNV GL has found that 2,000 hours, as used in the PQP, are effective at differentiating top performance
versus average performance.

1000 2000

16 ENERGY 2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard

 2018 TOP PERFORMERS

Manufacturer Module Model

CHSM6612M/HV-xxx
Astronergy Solar
CHSM6612P/HV-xxx
BYDxxxP6C-36
BYD
BYDxxxP6K-36
FXS-xxxBB-SAB1W
Flex
FXS-xxxBC-SAD1W
GCL Solar Energy GCL-P6/72xxx​
Hanwha Q CELLS Q.PLUS BFR-G4.1 xxx
HT60-156P-xxx​
HT-SAAE
HT72-156P-xxx
JKMSxxxPP-60
Jinko Solar JKMxxxPP-72
JKMxxxPP-72-V
LR6-60PB-xxxM
LONGi Solar Technology
LR6-72PH-xxxM
Neo Solar Power (NSP) D6PxxxE3A
REC Solar RECxxxTP2
SunPower SPR-P19-xxx-COM​
Suntech Power STPxxx-20/Wem
TSM-xxxDD05A.18(II)
Trina Solar TSM-xxxDD14A.18(II)
TSM-xxxPD14
TSM-xxxPE14A
Yingli Solar YLxxxD-36b

Top Performers above this line

Damp Heat Results Summary

Results for DH 2,000 in the 2018 Scorecard showed higher degradation than what was
presented in previous editions. The median is -2.5% this year compared to -0.9% in both 2014
and 2017. The maximum degradation was -8.8% in 2018, compared to -5.5% in 2017.

2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard ENERGY 17

 MECHANICAL LOAD +
THERMAL CYCLING +
HUMIDITY FREEZE
OVERVIEW & RESULTS

The Dynamic Mechanical Load (DML) test sequence evaluates a module’s ability to withstand cyclic mechanical
deflection as an accelerated proxy for wind and snow loads. The sequential mechanical loading, thermal stress and
moisture ingress can cause performance loss due to solder joint fatigue, microcrack development and propagation,
and cell corrosion.

For the DML test sequence, the module is installed according to the manufacturer’s recommended mounting
configuration and is subjected to 1,000 cycles of alternating loading at 1,000 Pa. During the test, DNV GL monitors
continuity of the module’s electrical circuit and leakage current to the module frame. After an interim
characterization, the module is stressed in chamber for 50 thermal cycles to cause microcrack propagation before
undergoing 10 humidity freeze cycles to fully realize the potential power loss. The 2018 PQP extends the humidity
freeze cycles from one set of 10 cycles to three sets of 10 cycles.

The DML test scrutinizes various aspects of the PV module, including design features such as frame size, material
selection such as edge seal, and manufacturing controls of cell interconnection and etching.

DML1000 DML1000 DML1000

0 DML1000 DML1000-TC50 DML1000-TC50-HF10
- TC50
- TC50
- HF10

18 ENERGY 2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard

 2018 TOP PERFORMERS
Manufacturer Module Model
Adani (Mundra Solar) ASP-7-xxx
CHSM6612M/HV-xxx
Astronergy Solar
CHSM6612P/HV-xxx
BYDxxxP6C-36
BYD
BYDxxxP6K-36
First Solar FS-4115-3
FXS-xxxBB-SBD1W/FXS-xxxBC-SBD1W
Flex
FXS-xxxBC-SAD1W​
GCL GCL-P6/72xxx
Hanwha Q Cells Q.PLUS BFR-G4.1 xxx
HT-SAAE HT72-156P-xxx
JAM6(K)(ZEP)-60-xxx/PR
JA Solar
JAP72S01-xxx/SC
JKMxxxM-60B
JKMxxxM-72/JKMxxxM-72-V
Jinko Solar JKMxxxPP-72
JKMxxxPP-72-V
LG Electronics LGxxxS2W-A5
LR6-60PB-xxxM
LONGi Solar Technology
LR6-72PH-xxxM
Neo Solar Power (NSP) D6PxxxE3A
Panasonic VBHNxxxSA16
REC Solar RECxxxTP2
Solaria PowerXT-xxxU-WM
SunPower SPR-P19-xxx-COM
SunSpark Technology SST-xxxM
Suntech Power STPxxx-20/Wem
TSM-xxxDD05A.08(II) Top Performers above this line
TSM-xxxDD05A.18(II)
Trina Solar TSM-xxxDD14A.18(II)
TSM-xxxPD14
TSM-xxxPE14A
Yingli Solar YLxxxD-36b

Dynamic Mechanical Load Results Summary

DML results in the 2018 Scorecard improved over what was reported in prior Scorecards.
The median and bottom result from 2018 were -1.2% and -3.1% respectively, compared to -1.2%
and -11% in 2017, -1.6% and -7.3% in 2016, and -0.5% and -6.3% in 2014.

2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard ENERGY 19

 POTENTIAL INDUCED
DEGRADATION (PID)
OVERVIEW & RESULTS

Potential Induced Degradation (PID) emerged as a reliability concern as higher system voltages and ungrounded
systems were deployed with increasing regularity. PID, while having varied failure mechanisms, is driven by the internal
PV circuit being biased either negatively or positively in relation to ground. C-Si is predominately affected by shunting
from ionic motion within the cell.¹

During the test, a voltage bias equal to the system voltage rating of the module (either -1 kV or -1.5 kV) is applied
under 85°C and 85% relative humidity conditions for two sessions of 96 hours. This accelerated environment provides
the temperature, moisture and voltage bias conditions necessary to evaluate degradation related to increased leakage
current.

It should be noted that there are reversible and non-reversible PID mechanisms. Electrochemical corrosion and some
sodium ion damage to the PN junction are widely considered irreversible, while PID due to the accumulation of static
charge on the surface of cells, also known as polarization, can be reversed.

PID can be managed at many levels within a system. Certain system grounding configurations or distributed
electronics may not require PID-resistant modules. For this reason, DNV GL recommends evaluating intended
applications of the PV modules before selecting PID-resistant or non-PID-resistant modules.

PID96 PID192

1Naumann, V.et al. (2013), The role of stacking faults for the formation of shunts during potential induced degradation of crystalline Si solar cells. Phys. Status Solidi RRL, 7: 315-318.

20 ENERGY 2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard

 2018 TOP PERFORMERS

Manufacturer Module Model

Adani (Mundra Solar) ASP-7-xxx
Astronergy Solar CHSM6612P/HV-xxx
BYD BYDxxxP6K-36
First Solar FS-4115-3
FXS-xxxBB-SBD1W
Flex FXS-xxxBC-SAD1W
FXS-xxxBC-SBD1W
GCL GCL-P6/72xxx
Hanwha Q CELLS Q.PEAK-G4.1 xxx
HT60-156P-xxx
HT-SAAE
HT72-156P-xxx
JAM6(K)(ZEP)-60-xxx/PR
JA Solar
JAM60S02-xxx/PR
JKMxxxM-60B
JKMxxxPP-72
Jinko Solar
JKMxxxPP-72-V/JKMxxxPP-60/
JKMSxxxPP-60/JKMSxxxPP-72
LG Electronics LGxxxS2W-A5​
LR6-60PB-xxxM
LONGi Solar Technology
LR6-72PH-xxxM
Panasonic VBHNxxxSA16​
Phono Solar PSxxxP-24/T
REC Solar RECxxxTP2
SunPower SPR-P19-xxx-COM
SunSpark Technology​ SST-xxxM
Suntech Power STPxxx-20/Wem
TSM-xxxDD05A.08(II) Top Performers above this line
Trina Solar
TSM-xxxPE14A/TSM-xxxPD14
YLxxxD-36b
Yingli Solar
YLxxxP-35b

Potential Induced Degradation Results Summary

The PID test results in the 2018 Scorecard present a significant improvement compared to previous
years. The 2018 median was -1.4%, compared to -0.4%, -2.7%, and -18.4% in 2017, 2016 and 2014
respectively. More indicative of the improved PID performance is the comparison of this year’s worst
performer at -7.4% versus -92.2%, -58.3% and -100% in 2017, 2016 and 2014 respectively. It is worth
noting that some module types do not claim to be PID-resistant.

2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard ENERGY 21

 CASE STUDY:
PID PERFORMANCE

BOM Matters.
As manufacturers diversify their supply chains and developers enter emerging markets, educated BOM selections
and decisions become the cornerstone of PV plant reliability.

How BOM Matters.

This PID case study underscores BOM criticality with a deeper look at how DNV GL’s extended PID test sequence
could prevent a BOM selection with significant adverse consequences.

One Material Change, Big Impact.

Both PV samples here are manufactured by the same company, are identified by the same model number and are
exactly the same except for one component: the encapsulant.

-1% -2%

■■ Manufacturer A
Module Type B ■■ 96 hours ■■ 96 hours
■■ BOM 1 ■■ 85 ■■ 85
85% 85%
Negative Negative
Bias Bias

-1% -12%

■■ Manufacturer A
Module Type B
■■ BOM 2 ■■ 96 hours ■■ 96 hours
■■ 85 ■■ 85
85% 85%
Negative Negative
Bias Bias

Same Manufacturer. Same Model Number. Different Performance.

Findings.
Encapsulant choice is one of the PID mitigation methods available, with high volumetric resistivity isolating the
internal circuit. Not all solutions are created equal, with some merely designed to pass a qualification test.
Comparison of BOM 1 and BOM 2 underscores this; both BOMs performed similarly for the standard duration
test, with BOM 2 only differentiated as a worse performer when tested to the longer durations required in
DNV GL’s PQP.

22 ENERGY 2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard

CASE STUDY: PAN & IAM
PERFORMANCE

What is a PAN file and how is it made? Incidence Angle Modifier: Reflection Quantified
Energy predictions are a key contributor to project As the earth rotates throughout the day, the angle at
development for procurement decisions, cost of capital which sunlight strikes the solar module changes. As this
and risk mitigation. For PVsyst software, a file with a angle becomes more oblique, losses from reflection
‘.PAN’ extension is used to specify the performance increase. Manufacturers have focused on mitigating
characteristics of a PV module including the module’s these losses through the use of anti-reflective coatings
response to temperature and irradiance. or texturing. To model these losses, an Incidence Angle
Modifier (IAM) profile is quantified and employed.
DNV GL’s optimized PAN files start with lab-based These results can be used to inform or validate a
power measurement per IEC 61853-1, which manufacturer’s guidance to its customers.
determines a module’s power across a range of
irradiance and temperature. This dataset is the In PVsyst, the default IAM profile is modeled using
feedstock for optimizing five coefficients in a modified the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and
one-diode model employed by PVsyst. These results Air Conditioning (ASHRAE) model. This model, using
are reconciled with the manufacturer’s datasheet, which default parameters, can over-estimate the losses from
governs product warranty compliance. non-normal incidence angles. Lab-based
characterization of the IAM profile can result in more
300
accurate yield predictions that provide more clarity in
250 the energy assessment.
55
■■ Temperature ( C)

200
45 150

35 100

50
200 600 1000 PMAX(W)
Irradiance (W/m2)

When compared to default simulations, optimized PAN

files can provide more accurate performance predictions
for the measured modules.

How does this affect modeled production?

Similar to PAN files, DNV GL provides two simulations to
demonstrate the expected yield with an optimized IAM
profile. By not changing any system design parameters
except for IAM curve, these energy production
simulations showcase the implications of IAM. The IAM
profile of the module can represent a 1-2% difference in
predicted production. As with the difference in
production from PAN files, this difference in IAM can
significantly impact the valuation of a PV project.

Why does this matter?

To better illustrate performance from optimized PAN
files, DNV GL provides two simulation results with each
report that use identical system configurations to compare
performance between a default PAN file and an optimized
PAN file. As illustrated in the figure above, module
selection can result in a 4-5% production difference when
all other parameters are fixed. This difference can have
significant impacts on the value assigned to a PV project.

Sources: DNV GL

2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard ENERGY 23

 INTERPRETING THE
RESULTS

2018 Scorecard Failure Analysis

During each test sequence, modules are characterized (i.e. evaluated) before and after each test interval. During
each characterization, module safety and performance are assessed under several criteria before continuing in the
test sequence. Characterization criteria includes no greater than 5% power loss, visual inspection failure, lowered
insulation resistance (safety failure) and component defects.

For the 2018 Scorecard, DNV GL evaluated failures from three viewpoints: BOM, model type and manufacturer.

1. BOM
A single module type can have multiple BOM variants, as each critical component change can have different
performance and durability implications. 2018 results indicate that 9% of tested BOMs failed at least one of the
evaluation criteria.

2. Model Type
When viewed at a model-type level, the failure rate increased due to the overarching model type affected by a
single BOM failure. For 2018, this was 12% of the PQP population.

3. Manufacturer
Lastly, the highest level of review is on the manufacturing level, where 22% of all manufacturers who tested in the
PQP in the past 18 months had at least one failure.

Visual Failure
Safety Failure
>5% power loss

The chart above depicts the types of failures noted in the 2018 Scorecard. These can occur at interval or final
characterization events.

24 ENERGY 2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard

Improvements in Results
As indicated in the previous pages, overall test results have improved since
2017. Continual attention to quality and robust ongoing evaluation
appears to be driving PQP participants to new levels of performance.
However, new technology and materials continually demand ongoing
assessments with a test program that evolves with nuances and innovation.
Therefore, it is important for buyers to be cognizant of BOM specification
when sourcing PV modules, and to continually verify their durability.
DNV GL’s PQP offers this adaptivity by actively evolving according to the
needs of the downstream while also staying ahead of technological
advances in manufacturing process and materials.

Obtain the Detailed Reports

Most PV modules on the market today utilize several different BOMs. This
supply chain flexibility is necessary for PV module suppliers to remain
competitive and to remove reliance on single source components. The
use of many component suppliers is not a significant concern if the various
combinations are equally tested and/or a buyer has full transparency of the
proposed BOM and its associated test results. The same product label can
be applied to a module with different materials and cells, made in different
countries, and even produced by a different manufacturer (in the case of
contract manufacturing).

To mitigate this risk, DNV GL recommends acquiring knowledge of the

BOM and factory details (e.g., location, production line, etc.) for the specific
modules being shipped to a project, and obtaining accelerated test results
on that specific factory and BOM being procured. This knowledge
provides more confidence than relying solely on manufacturing capacity
and reputation of the supplier as measures of product quality.

Compare Results
The power degradation from the PQP results is based on accelerated
testing, and as such the degradation results should not be used as a direct
forecast of yearly degradation for fielded modules. The results should be
used as a mechanism to evaluate PV modules and their associated BOMs
and factory locations, and as a tool to compare expected module reliability
and long-term performance qualitatively.

2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard ENERGY 25

 FACTORY LOCATIONS

Module quality is affected by the equipment, process and quality control used when manufacturing the product.
The DNV GL PQP includes a factory witness to verify the BOM and factory processes for the modules that are
submitted to the PQP for testing. The factory witness results are documented in a comprehensive report. In
addition to other reliability and performance reports, DNV GL downstream partners can have access to the witness
reports to gain visibility into the BOM and factory.

The table below shows the 2018 Top Performer manufacturers in alphabetical order, followed by the factory
location(s) for the models that underwent PQP testing for the 2018 Scorecard. The graphic below depicts
manufacturer factory regions.

40%

16%

44%

North America
China
Other Asia

Manufacturer Factory Location

Adani (Mundra Solar PV Ltd) Gujarat, India
Astronergy Solar Haining, China
BYD Co, Ltd Shanghai, China
First Solar, Inc. Perrysburg, Ohio, USA
Flex Ltd Gelang Patah, Malaysia
GCL Solar Energy, Inc. Song Khe-Noi Hoang Industrial Zone, Vietnam
Hanwha Q CELLS Co., Ltd Cyberjaya, Malaysia; Eumseong Gun, South Korea
HT-SAAE Istanbul, Turkey
JA Solar Holdings Shanghai, China; Ningjin, China; Van Trung Industrial Park, Vietnam
Jinko Solar ShangRao, China
LG Electronics Inc. Gumi, South Korea
LONGi Solar Technology Co, Ltd Taizhou, China
Neo Solar Power Corp (NSP) Van Trung Industrial Park, Vietnam
Panasonic Kulim, Malaysia
Phono Solar Technology Co, Ltd Nanjing, China
REC Solar Tuas, Singapore
Solaria Corporation Fremont, California, USA
SunPower Corporation Mexicali, Mexico
SunSpark Technology Inc Riverside, California, USA
Suntech Power Wuxi, China
Trina Solar Changzhou, China; Pluakdaeng, Thailand
Yingli Solar Baoding, China

26 ENERGY PV Module Reliability Scorecard 2018

THE HISTORICAL
SCORECARD

While product lines and models may change, retire or be introduced anew, one measure of quality can be
assessed by a manufacturer's consistency as a Top Performer in DNV GL's PV Module Reliability Scorecard.

The Scorecard presented here shows the 2018 Top Performers and their history of Top Performance in previous
editions. The Scorecard is presented by the number of years as a Top Performer, in alphabetical order.

Jinko Solar

Trina Solar

Yingli Solar

Astronergy Solar

Hanwha Q CELLS Co., Ltd

JA Solar Holdings

REC Solar

BYD Co, Ltd

Flex Ltd

GCL Solar Energy, Inc

LONGi Solar Technology Co, Ltd

Neo Solar Power Corporation (NSP)

Phono Solar Technology Co, Ltd

Solaria Corporation

SunPower Corporation

SunSpark Technology, Inc

Suntech Power

Adani (Mundra Solar PV Ltd)

First Solar, Inc

HT-SAAE

LG Electronics, Inc

Panasonic

Artificial intelligence ENERGY 27

2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard ENERGY 27
 DNV GL
BEST PRACTICES

PV plants experience many conditions that cannot be fully replicated by accelerated testing. Modules
experience concurrent stresses in the field to varying degrees which may not be represented by the test
sequences described in this Scorecard. Laboratory testing is well controlled and typically limited to a single
stress type at a time. Laboratory observations should be utilized to assess how a specific set of aging
mechanisms impact module output over the duration of the test.

Additionally, accelerated testing should be used to screen for PV module defects in large procurements. The
schematics below show a recommended flow of laboratory testing, which can minimize risks in PV plant module
sourcing, development and construction, and operation. The qualification portion (the PQP scope) should
occur when a product is initially being evaluated for the module buyer’s Approved Vendor List. The Statistical
Batch Testing portion, or serial defect screening (typically IEC scope), should be performed on a sample of
modules from the specific batches produced and shipped to the project site. Field exposure testing should
occur long term to inform buyers and suppliers about real-world performance.

Characterization (IV,EL)

Light Soaking >40 kWh/m2

Characterization (IV,EL, LLF, VWL)

Thermal
Cycling
Damp
Heat
Ultraviolet
Light
Dynamic
Loading
Potential
Induced
Degradation
PAN File
& IAM
Field
Exposure &
Performance
Light
Induced
Degradation
DO YOU TRUST THE PRODUCT?
TC 200 DH 1000h UV 45 DML 1k PID PAN file Field Light
kWh/m2 cycles 85 C (including exposure1 soaking > 10
IV, EL, VWL

TC 200
IV, EL, VWL

DH 1000h
IV, EL, VWL
+/- 1kPa

IV, EL, VWL

85RH
96h

IV, EL, VWL

IAM) year

IV, EL, VWL,

IRTquarterly
kWh/m2

IV, EL
Repeat
until
1%
stable
per IEC
Before Production: Product Qualification Program
UV 45 61215
Light

1. Evaluate the factory

kWh/m2 TC 50
IV, EL, VWL All but IRT PID All at end soaking > 10
85 C kWh/m2
All but IRT IV, EL, VWL 85RH
TC 200 96h
IV, EL
HF 10

2. Consult DNV GL extended reliability and performance reports

IV, EL, VWL All but IRT

IV, EL, VWL

TC 200
HF 10
All but IRT Measurements key: Test leg key:
IV: IV Flash @STC TC: thermal cycling
IV, EL, VWL EL: electroluminescence @Isc DH: damp heat
LLF: low-light flash DML: dynamic
VWL: visual, wet leakage mechanical load
HF 10 D: diode check HF: humidity freeze
IAM: incidence angle PID: potential induced
modifier
All but IRT degradation
IRT: IR temp measurement

Module Characterization:
Flash test per IEC 60904 Module
High resolution EL image
Wet dielectric test at 1 kV Characterization
Visual inspection

DO YOU TRUST THE PROCESS?

Light Soak @ >40
kWh/m2

Module
Characterization

During Production: Statistical Batch Testing

Thermal Cycling Damp Heat Thermal Cycling PAN (IEC 61853-1)

1. Verify BOM qualification

200 Cycles 1000 hours 50 Cycles Including Incidence
Angle Modifier (IAM)

Module Module Humidity Freeze

2. Factory oversight during production for the project

Characterization Characterization 10 Cycles

Module

3. Test samples from each batch produced for the project

Characterization

HAVE YOU VERIFIED THE LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE?

Ongoing: Field Testing
1. Quantify operating capacity
2. Monitor and check system health
3. Analyze system performance using advanced analytics

28 ENERGY 2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard

2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard ENERGY 29
 CONCLUSION

Product Qualification Program Defines Quality

Full-life field performance data for modules requires at least 20 years of operation. Module warranty claims, when
available and successful, typically only occur for extreme underperformance or defects that can be seen visually.
Additionally, most module warranties only cover the replacement module costs and not the associated labor.

DNV GL’s Product Qualification Program combined with project-level Statistical Batch Testing and Field Testing
provide the global market with necessary analytics and due diligence to ensure that the sourced products have
undergone stringent quality checks throughout the project lifecycle.

PQP test results provide insight into how vendors, modules, BOMs, and factories compare with one another across
a set of controlled accelerated test sequences targeting failure mechanisms encountered in the field.

Scorecard Guides Industry

In its fourth year of publication, the PV Module Reliability Scorecard remains the leading guide to PV module
reliability and performance. With its supplier-specific performance analysis, the Scorecard can help investors and
developers generate quality-backed procurement strategies to ensure long-term project viability.

DNV GL generally recommends choosing vendors with lower degradation levels as this increases the likelihood of
technical and financial success of the project. However, this evaluation should be based on the PQP test results of
the specific model type, BOM, and factory location where the module was produced. DNV GL supports
downstream stakeholders by providing this detailed information upon request.

DNV GL is your Trusted Partner

With more than 1,000 renewable energy experts located globally, DNV GL is the world's largest independent
energy & renewable advisory firm. DNV GL’s Energy Laboratory Services group provides the market unmatched
services and expertise to help manufacturers make better products, help buyers make informed procurement
decisions and illuminate market and supplier trends in photovoltaics.

Contact DNV GL if you wish to become a downstream partner or a manufacturer participant in the PQP.

Every major variant of a PV module entering the global solar industry

in significant quantity should go through stringent reliability and
performance testing so we ensure safety, prevent latent defects from
undermining investment targets and generally protect our growing
reliance on solar power infrastructure.

Jonathan Previtali, Director of Technology & Technical Services, Wells Fargo

(one of the largest financers of renewable energy in the U.S., with more than
$5 billion in solar and wind project investments)

30 ENERGY 2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard

IMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This document (“Report”) has been produced by DNV GL PVEL LLC (“DNV GL”) from information relating to dates
and periods referred to herein. This document does not imply that any information is not subject to change. To the
extent permitted by law, neither DNV GL nor any affiliate company (the "Group") assumes any responsibility whether
in contract, tort or otherwise for use of the Report. This document is a summary and must be read in its entirety and
is subject to any assumptions and qualifications expressed therein. This Report may contain detailed technical data
which is intended for use only by persons possessing requisite expertise in its subject matter. Nothing in this Report is
intended to confer upon any entity other than the Group any benefit and use of this document is at the user's sole risk.
The trademark DNV GL is the property of DNV GL AS. This document is protected by copyright.

2018 PV Module Reliability Scorecard ENERGY 31

SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

DNV GL - Energy
Utrechtseweg 310-B50
6812 AR Arnhem
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 26 356 9111
Email: [email protected]
www.dnvgl.com

About DNV GL
DNV GL is a global quality assurance and risk management company. Driven by our purpose of safeguarding life, property
and the environment, we enable our customers to advance the safety and sustainability of their business. We provide
classification, technical assurance, software and independent expert advisory services to the maritime, oil & gas, power and
renewables industries. We also provide certification, supply chain and data management services to customers across a wide
range of industries. Operating in more than 100 countries, our experts are dedicated to helping customers make the world
safer, smarter and greener.

In the power and renewables industry

DNV GL delivers world-renowned testing and advisory services to the energy value chain including renewables and energy
management. Our expertise spans onshore and offshore wind power, solar, conventional generation, transmission and
distribution, smart grids, and sustainable energy use, as well as energy markets and regulations. Our experts support
customers around the globe in delivering a safe, reliable, efficient, and sustainable energy supply.

The trademarks DNV GL and the Horizon Graphic are the property of DNV GL AS. All rights reserved.
This publication or parts thereof may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying
or recording, without the prior written consent of DNV GL.

©DNV GL 05/2018