2014 年光伏组件可靠性计分卡

© 2017, PV RELIABILITY SCORECARD REPORT 2014 July 2014 Jade Jones, Analyst | Solar MJ Shiao, Director, Solar Research | Solar PV RELIABILITY SCORECARD REPORT 2014 Contents © 2017, July 2014 │ 2 Contents 1. Introduction 7 1.1. What Does Module Reliability Mean? 9 1.2. How Big Is the Module Reliability Problem? 9 2. Module Reliability and Testing 11 2.1. A Brief History of Module Reliability 11 2.2. The Limitations of Existing Certification and Qualification Regimes 12 2.3. Degradation Versus Failure 13 2.4. Reversible Versus Permanent Degradation 14 3. The Reliability Testing Regimen 15 3.1. Test Design and Philosophy 15 3.2. Module Selection and Sampling Process 15 3.3. Initial Module Preparation and Characterization 15 3.4. Recurring Procedures 19 4. PV Reliability Scorecard Tests and Results 21 4.1. Results Summary 21 4.2. Thermal Cycling 21 4.3. Dynamic Mechanical Load 24 4.4. Humidity-Freeze 27 4.5. Damp Heat 29 4.6. PID+ and PID- Test 33 5. Conclusions: Applicability and Interpretation of Results 37 5.1. Translating Laboratory Data Into Real-World Data 37 5.2. Conclusions 40 PV RELIABILITY SCORECARD REPORT 2014 List of Figures © 2017, July 2014 │ 3 List of Figures Figure 1.1 Cumulative Installed Global PV Capacity 8 Figure 1.2 Annual Installations by Region 10 Figure 2.1 Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Block Buy Modules 11 Figure 2.2 The Bathtub Curve . 13 Figure 2.3 Linear Warranty Versus Step Function Warranty . 14 Figure 3.1 Initial Module Preparation and Characterization . 15 Figure 3.2 I-V Curve . 16 Figure 3.3 Fundamental Performance Metrics . 16 Figure 3.4 Electroluminescence Imaging. 18 Figure 3.5 Module Failure Mode: Hot Spot . 20 Figure 4.1 PV Reliability Scorecard Test Results Summary 21 Figure 4.2 Thermal Cycling Failure Modes . 22 Figure 4.3 Broken Interconnect . 22 Figure 4.4 Thermal Cycling Test Procedure 23 Figure 4.5 Thermal Cycling Test Results 24 Figure 4.6 Dynamic Mechanical Load Failure Modes . 25 Figure 4.7 Module Failure Mode: Solder Joint Degradation 25 Figure 4.8 Dynamic Mechanical Load Test Procedure 25 Figure 4.9 Dynamic Mechanical Load Test Results . 26 Figure 4.10 Module Failure Mode: Corrosion . 27 Figure 4.11 Humidity-Freeze Failure Modes . 27 Figure 4.12 Humidity-Freeze Test Procedure 28 Figure 4.13 Humidity-Freeze Test Results 29 Figure 4.14 Layers of a PV Module 30 Figure 4.15 Damp Heat Failure Modes 30 Figure 4.16 Module Failure Mode: Laminate Outgassing 31 Figure 4.17 Damp Heat Test Procedure . 31 Figure 4.18 Damp Heat Test Results . 32 Figure 4.19 Failure Mode: PID . 33 Figure 4.20 PID Failure Modes . 33 Figure 4.21 PID Test Procedure 34 Figure 4.22 PID+ Test Results 35 PV RELIABILITY SCORECARD REPORT 2014 List of Figures © 2017, July 2014 │ 4 Figure 4.23 PID- Test Results . 36 Figure 5.1 The Scorecard Testing Regimens . 37 Figure 5.2 Annual Installation Demand: Top 10 Regional Markets vs. Rest of World . 39 Figure 5.3 Annual Installation Forecast by Climate: Top 10 Solar PV Markets . 40 Figure 5.4 PV Module Reliability Scorecard – Summary of Tests and Results 42 PV RELIABILITY SCORECARD REPORT 2014 About Authors © 2014 July 2014 │ 5 July 2014 │ 5 About Authors Jade Jones, Solar Analyst | GTM Research Jade Jones is a Solar Analyst with GTM Research covering the global solar supply market. Jade aggregates and analyzes technology and pricing data within the solar manufacturing sector, which informs both research and consulting. Prior to GTM, she has held several positions providing insight into the key relationships, business models and technology trends that are shaping the cleantech sector. Jade holds a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the University of California, Santa Barbara. MJ Shiao, Director, Solar Research | GTM Research MJ Shiao is the Director of Solar Research for GTM Research and is a leading expert on PV inverters, electronics, and balance-of-system components. A nine-year veteran of the solar industry, MJ has experience ranging from the fabrication of crystalline silicon solar cells to PV project development. Before joining GTM Research, MJ managed and designed several megawatts’ worth of residential and commercial PV projects with Solar Design Associates. Prior to project management, MJ worked at the Solar Electric Power Association and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. MJ holds a bachelor s degree in electrical engineering from the University of Delaware, where he was named a National Truman Scholar. A believer in the social benefits of solar power, MJ has researched, installed and tested rural off-grid PV in India and Thailand and formerly served on the steering committee of SustainUS, a nonprofit engaging U.S. youth in sustainable development advocacy. PV RELIABILITY SCORECARD REPORT 2014 License © 2014 July 2014 │ 6 July 2014 │ 6 License Ownership Rights All Reports are owned by Greentech Media protected by United States Copyright and international copyright/intellectual property laws under applicable treaties and/or conventions. User agrees not to export any report into a country that does not have copyright/intellectual property laws that will protect Greentech Media’s rights therein. Grant of License Rights Greentech Media hereby grants user a personal, non-exclusive, non-refundable, non-transferable license to use the report for research purposes only pursuant to the terms and conditions of this agreement. Greentech Media retains exclusive and sole ownership of each report disseminated under this agreement. User agrees not to permit any unauthorized use, reproduction, distribution, publication or electronic transmission of any report or the information/forecasts therein without the express written permission of Greentech Media. Users purchasing this report may make a report available to other persons from their organization at the specific physical site covered by the agreement, but are prohibited from distributing the report to people outside the organization, or to other sites within the organization. Disclaimer of Warranty and Liability Greentech Media has used its best efforts in collecting and preparing each report. Greentech Media, its employees, affiliates, agents, and licensors do not warrant the accuracy, completeness, correctness, non-infringement, merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose of any reports covered by this agreement. Greentech Media, its employees, affiliates, agents, or licensors shall not be liable to user or any third party for losses or injury caused in whole or part by our negligence or contingencies beyond Greentech Media’s control in compiling, preparing or disseminating any report or for any decision made or action taken by user or any third party in reliance on such information or for any consequential, special, indirect or similar damages, even if Greentech Media was advised of the possibility of the same. User agrees that the liability of Greentech Media, its employees, affiliates, agents and licensors, if any, arising out of any kind of legal claim (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) in connection with its goods/services under this agreement shall not exceed the amount you paid to Greentech Media for use of the report in question. PV RELIABILITY SCORECARD REPORT 2014 Introduction © 2014 July 2014 │ 7 1. Introduction In spring 1997, Siemens Solar Industries announced the extension of its module warranty guarantee, suddenly expanding it from a ten-year guarantee for purchases made before the announcement to a 25-year guarantee for purchases made afterward. This announcement marked the beginning of an industry standard, setting the 25-year warranty as a fundamental metric for project investors trying to understand the full-life economic viability of solar projects. Yet even today, the risks associated with module performance over long periods of time remain largely unclear. Though modern software such as PVsyst can provide models on module performance for given environments, the accuracy of statistical analysis is limited. Field data is necessary for understanding module lifetimes. So what is limiting module quality claims? For systems that have been in the field for a significant amount of time (e.g., more than twenty years), the value of findings is often limited by the quality of data. While this historic data provides critical information on module failure modes, factors such as a focus on prototype modules or compromised degradation data due to the replacement of faulty modules prevent claims about system lifetimes. As for modern capacity, more than two-thirds (~93 GW) of installed global PV capacity has been in the field for less than three years. It will be more than twenty years from now before actual lifetime field data for the majority of today’s capacity can be gathered. PV RELIABILITY SCORECARD REPORT 2014 Introduction © 2014 July 2014 │ 8 Figure 1.1 Cumulative Installed Global PV Capacity Source: GTM Research Additionally, while the 57 percent drop in module prices from 2010-2013 helped catapult industry growth by aiding project economics, industry concerns over cost reduction at the expense of module quality have emerged. Driven by the pressures of overcapacity, today’s surviving vendors are those which have been able to react to growing pricing pressure and reduce costs (typically by purchasing lower-cost materials). Yet neither price nor top-tier ranking have been proven to indicate module quality competitiveness. While quality experts question whether this rapid cost reduction compromised product quality, module procurement conversations continue to center around balance-sheet strength and price-competitiveness. With full-life field data more than twenty years away and without access to publicly available data comparing long-term module reliability by vendor, how can buyers and investors factor quality into their procurement discussions? The PV Module Reliability Scorecard aims to address this critical problem. With its supplier- specific performance analysis, the Scorecard can help investors and developers generate quality- backed procurement strategies to ensure long-term project viability. 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 5 E 2 0 1 7 E C u m u l a t i v e I n s t a l l e d G l o b a l P V C a p a c i t y ( M W ) 2 / 3 o f g l o b a l P V c a p a c i t y w a s i n st a l l e d w i t h i n t h e l a st 3 y e a r s C u m u l a t i v e i n s t a l l e d P V i s e x p e c t e d t o m o r e t h a n d o u b l e i n t h e n e x t 3 y e a r s PV RELIABILITY SCORECARD REPORT 2014 Introduction © 2014 July 2014 │ 9 1.1. What Does Module Reliability Mean? The Scorecard defines a reliable module as one which can deliver the energy yield required to fulfill a project’s full-life expectations. Module failure is defined as a discrete event signaling that the module’s power capability no longer meets warranty obligations. There are three fundamental factors that impact module reliability: technology (bill of material and design), quality assurance (monitoring the manufacturing process), and quality control (monitoring the manufactured products). Variations and errors in these processes have been shown to affect long-term module viability. These factors all play a role in a vendor’s module reliability competitiveness. While the Scorecard does not directly evaluate module vendors on their technology or QA/QC processes, the quality resulting from manufacturers’ decisions will emerge in the standardized testing process. 1.2. How Big Is the Module Reliability Problem? As noted, two-thirds of today’s cumulative capacity has been installed within the last three years. This increased pace of installation is expected to continue, with GTM Research forecasting cumulative capacity to quadruple by the end of the decade, growing from 128.3 GW by the end of 2013 to 528.1 GW by the end of 2020. Against this backdrop of strong demand and growing concern that systemic quality issues will affect an exponentially increasing proportion of PV projects, the extent of the module reliability problem has been largely misinterpreted and ill understood. Traditionally, the source of potential quality issues has been rooted in two areas.  The potential negative effects of material-focused cost-cutting measures. As suppliers fought to remain viable in a price-competitive market during the recent downturn in the upstream solar space, the pace and extent of cost-reduction efforts surpassed expectations. The majority of cost reductions were achieved through lower material costs, with little publically available data on those reductions’ effects on material quality. Procurement processes often focus heavily on financial bankability and price, but the effectiveness of current evaluation programs on module quality remains a subject of debate. As module manufacturers continue to face cost reduction pressures, procurement agents must improve their quality evaluation processes to ensure that cost reduction measures do not result in compromised module reliability.  The environmental impact of more diverse demand. While the majority of solar demand historically has been in the EU, incentives to ship modules to a broader array of regions drove stronger global development. In 2013, for example, installations in China, Japan and the U.S. exceeded those of longtime market leader Germany. As demand grows more diffuse, modules must be able to meet the physical demands of various climatic conditions. Because the amount and type of environmental stress exerted on modules varies from region to region, power loss for the same module may be more significant in certain regions. PV RELIABILITY SCORECARD REPORT 2014 Introduction © 2014 July 2014 │ 10 Figure 1.2 Annual Installations by Region Source: GTM Research So how big is the module reliability problem? Quality experts agree that there is a spectrum of modules that perform well and there is a spectrum of modules that perform poorly. The problem exists on a case-by-case level. In order to ensure that projects are not saddled with modules that fall in the poor-performance end of the spectrum, downstream players must commit to the ongoing vetting of vendors. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 0 0 % 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 5 E 2 0 1 7 E P e r c e n t o f A n n u a l I n s t a l l e d C a p a c i t y G e r m a n y R e st o f E u r o p e U n i t e d S t a t e s C h i n a J a p a n R O W PV RELIABILITY SCORECARD REPORT 2014 Module Reliability and Testing © 2014 July 2014 │ 11 2. Module Reliability and Testing 2.1. A Brief History of Module Reliability When discussing the origins and early phases of terrestrial module reliability assessment, two bodies of work are typically cited: the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Block Buy program and the Joint Research Center’s European Solar Test Installation. Figur