The solar industry has been fighting for decades to earn its reputation as the fastest, cheapest way to decipher the grid. But in 2025, because the deployment accelerates and finishing policy support, the industry must experience an uncomfortable truth: the obsession of the sun sector with the lowering of costs now undermines the reliability, safety and life cycle conomy of the module.
On the other hand, Solar Energy remains the cheapest electricity source in the world, according to Lazard’s newest LCOE report. This applies to a non -subsidized basis (ie, without tax benefits or other credits), despite the technology with which macro challenges and headwind are confronted.
But the endless pursuit of lower costs has its disadvantage, such as confirming an ever -increasing number of reports in the media.
Today’s solar modules break during shipment, storage, installation and normal operations – not to mention under extreme weather stress. Field failure even takes place in circumstances that are lower than the level at which modules are certified. Large format modules have become too vulnerable, as authoritarian documented here And hereWith less frame material and weaker glass – all in the name of cost reduction. The economic impact of poor quality has turned out to be more important for the profitability of the project than the aggressive focus on “first-cost” cost reductions. Simply put: it is more expensive to tackle the quality of quality and reliability with the end From the value chain, versus during the design and planning phase.
When frames fail, projects do this too
These malfunctions are not only in the margins-they event in regular, utility scale modules with two 2 mm glass windows and aluminum frames with reduced strength. A report From the PVPS program of the International Energy Agency, fracture rates found as high as 50% within nine months after installation in some field-made glass modules of 2 mm. Even in the more common case of 1-2% Module fracture, glass failure can lead to soil errors and stumbling inverter, which means that the effect is considerably strengthened.
The conclusion is inevitable: lowering glass and frame costs, while the module size is increased and the test standards do not update is a significant industrial failure.
Moduleglas has become thinner, making it a challenge to achieve the same temperature level. But even more importantly, manufacturers that increasingly lower costs per Watt, the height, the wall thickness and the resulting strength of their aluminum frames are shaved.
Has been an example of harmful cost treatment documentary By Cru Group, who found a reduction of 9% in aluminum content in weight when comparing older certified module frames with newer who failed Kiwa Pvel’s Mechanical stress sequence (MSS) test.
Frames used to be the protective backbone of solar modules; Nowadays they are often the weakest structural link. Glass must now offer the majority of the strength of a module. Since glass has a wider strength distribution (higher standard deviation) than metal, the relocation of the Lower Later function to the glass would increase In the safety factor, instead of turning it.
Groundwork renewable energy sources showed that strengths for modules (average test prints) have been reduced by almost 40% in the last five years, while the test failures have risen from almost zero percent to 30%. This shows a continuous decoupling in the industry between strength requirements of sites and power possibilities of modules.
Increase test standards
The solar industry is located at a crossroads. Lower quality modules that have been approved for a project based on eroded certification standards are in danger of undermining decades of steady progress. We must restore a higher level of production integrity and focus on maximizing energy harvesting during the life of a project. Getting there requires more rigorous testing and certification, with stricter standards and requirements. For example: more tested samples; a return to higher and more rational tax classifications that represent the Real-World circumstances that experience solar plants; And testing for not taking care of a return to meaningful safety margins.
In short, the industry must test and reconsider certification protocols for powerful, long-life modules. Reducing specifications and safety margins to certify a module for sale and expect that trackers makers, EPCs or other parties take on the play to ensure that the sustainability of the project is the wrong approach.
Modules must be tested under extensive mechanical loading scenarios, so that real-world simulate wind, snow and mounting conditions. A wider series of test methods, such non-uniform load, is also being investigated to gain a deeper insight into the weaknesses of potential module.
Certification tests also fall short when it is dependent on iterations with one test, which are insufficient for materials with a wide standard deviation in mechanical strength, such as glass. Certification must require testing of at least 3-5 modules. Inadequate test pressure connects this problem. To give an example based on the Basic study: average test loads of 400 mm, the average modules for M10 glass glass have been reduced from 2400 PA to 1500 PA and even as low as 800 PA-in the past 5 years. Since both field malfunctions and test errors have increased in this time frame, these test taxes are clearly insufficient for the circumstances of the real site.
Ultimately, certified modules must bear a higher safety factor (FOS) – the value that determines the correct maximum permitted design tax. Increasing the FOS-wide would serve as a sort of safety net for the range of problems that a module can have; Random conditions, glass tattles and other failure modes.
The FOs used for solar modules today is 1.5, which is the minimum under the IEC 61215 standard. This value is extremely low compared to standard values used in construction codes. The lowest safety factor requires, for example, by AISC 360: Specification for buildings with steel steel steelis 1.67, and this is for a well -controlled material with a low standard deviation of failure. The North American specification for the design of cold-formed steel structural members (AISI-S100-16) requires at least three test iterations to determine a design capacity based on loading tests and requires even a safety factor of 2-2.5, unless extra iterations (beyond three) are performed.
Recommendations
It is clear that the current test standards are harming the solar industry. Weaker, cost-reduced modules monsters take place on the basis of outdated certification tests. Nevertheless, laboratory and field error rates have shot up. Energy production on systems on utility scale cannot be insured, so that the bankability of the project is damaged. In the meantime, the industry seems to be looking the other way.
Escape from outdated test region requires a collective shift in mindset and methodology. Here are some sensible changes that we encourage the industry to consider:
- Add strictness to certification tests It therefore requires reasonable minimum test loads and multiple sample iterations.
- Increase module factor of safety (FOS) Minimum requirement to more accurately display the standard deviation of the test results of the assembly test.
- Implement Pre-Certification Tests-Naar Failure and other more predictive types of tests With multiple iterations, about the real-world tracker and assembly use cases.
Steel frames and the business for stronger standards
Since the first solar cell was invented almost 100 years ago, the industry is constantly evolving. It has advanced solar technology through better materials, greater efficiency and enormous cost reductions. It is time for the current test standards to change-to display the circumstances from practice and not to obstruct the progress of the industry. More rigorous tests to ensure stronger modules is the right step.
A way in which solar manufacturers could easily strengthen modules can be adopted by steel frames. Scaffolding aluminum to steel can solve multiple performance problems quickly and cheaply. When Origami has proven in third-certified laboratory tests and production settings, steel frames support the larger, thinner modules of today better; They offer superior power in multiple test-to-failure scenarios; And they make higher FOS values possible – stimulating bankability. And they would pass the stricter certification tests that we think they are needed.
But even if origami and test partners have demonstrated the superior strength of steel frames and the efficacy of more challenging test approaches, tests remain as usual. Bankability frameworks and requirements can be adjusted slowly. We build a 21st-century energy infrastructure based on a 20th-century test mindset.
The experts at Grondwerk and Origami work together and with modulemakers to stress modules with steel frame test under extreme load conditions. Modernized testing, higher safety margins and a renewed deployment for long -term performance presents a clear path Vooruit. If the industry wants to scales in a post-subsidy world responsible, it must be built up for Real-World circumstances the outdated scenarios of Legacy tests.
Lauren Ahsler is vice -president of Engineering at Origami Solar, a developer of steel solar module frames. Colin Sillerud is director of reliability tests based on groundwork, an independent meteorological data, services and test laboratory for the solar industry.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author, and do not necessarily reflect it by PV -Magazine.
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to work with us and reuse part of our content, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.
Popular content
