skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Performance Comparison of Four SolarWorld Module Technologies at the US DOE Regional Test Center in New Mexico: November 2016 - March 2017.

Abstract

This report provides a preliminary (three month) analysis for the SolarWorld system installed at the New Mexico Regional Test Center (RTC.) The 8.7kW, four-string system consists of four module types): bifacial, mono-crystalline, mono-crystalline glass-glass and polycrystalline. Overall, the SolarWorld system has performed well to date: most strings closely match their specification-sheet module temperature coefficients and Sandia 's f lash tests show that Pmax values are well within expectations. Although the polycrystalline modules underperformed, the results may be a function of light exposure, as well as mismatch within the string, and not a production flaw. The instantaneous bifacial gains for SolarWorld 's Bisun modules were modest but it should be noted that the RTC racking is not optimized for bifacial modules, nor is albedo optimized at the site. Additional analysis, not only of the SolarWorld installation in New Mexico but of the SolarWorld installations at the Vermont and Florida RTCs will be provide much more information regarding the comparative performance of the four module types.

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [1]
  1. Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)
  2. Sandia National Lab. (SNL-CA), Livermore, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Solar Energy Technologies Office (EE-4S)
OSTI Identifier:
1374008
Report Number(s):
SAND-2017-7962
655711
DOE Contract Number:
AC04-94AL85000
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
14 SOLAR ENERGY

Citation Formats

Burnham, Laurie, Lave, Matthew Samuel, and Stein, Joshua. Performance Comparison of Four SolarWorld Module Technologies at the US DOE Regional Test Center in New Mexico: November 2016 - March 2017.. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.2172/1374008.
Burnham, Laurie, Lave, Matthew Samuel, & Stein, Joshua. Performance Comparison of Four SolarWorld Module Technologies at the US DOE Regional Test Center in New Mexico: November 2016 - March 2017.. United States. doi:10.2172/1374008.
Burnham, Laurie, Lave, Matthew Samuel, and Stein, Joshua. Sat . "Performance Comparison of Four SolarWorld Module Technologies at the US DOE Regional Test Center in New Mexico: November 2016 - March 2017.". United States. doi:10.2172/1374008. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1374008.
@article{osti_1374008,
title = {Performance Comparison of Four SolarWorld Module Technologies at the US DOE Regional Test Center in New Mexico: November 2016 - March 2017.},
author = {Burnham, Laurie and Lave, Matthew Samuel and Stein, Joshua},
abstractNote = {This report provides a preliminary (three month) analysis for the SolarWorld system installed at the New Mexico Regional Test Center (RTC.) The 8.7kW, four-string system consists of four module types): bifacial, mono-crystalline, mono-crystalline glass-glass and polycrystalline. Overall, the SolarWorld system has performed well to date: most strings closely match their specification-sheet module temperature coefficients and Sandia 's f lash tests show that Pmax values are well within expectations. Although the polycrystalline modules underperformed, the results may be a function of light exposure, as well as mismatch within the string, and not a production flaw. The instantaneous bifacial gains for SolarWorld 's Bisun modules were modest but it should be noted that the RTC racking is not optimized for bifacial modules, nor is albedo optimized at the site. Additional analysis, not only of the SolarWorld installation in New Mexico but of the SolarWorld installations at the Vermont and Florida RTCs will be provide much more information regarding the comparative performance of the four module types.},
doi = {10.2172/1374008},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Sat Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2017},
month = {Sat Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2017}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • A 9.6 kW test array of Prism bifacial modules and reference monofacial modules installed in February 2016 at the New Mexico Regional Test Center has produced one year of performance data. The data reveal that the Prism modules are out-performing the monofacial modules, with bifacial gains in energy over the twelve-month period ranging from 17% to 132%, depending on the orientation and ground albedo. These measured bifacial gains were found to be in good agreement with modeled bifacial gains using equations previously published by Prism Solar. The most dramatic increase in performance was seen among the vertically mounted, west-facing modules,more » where the bifacial modules produced more than double the energy of monofacial modules in the same orientation. Because peak energy generation (mid- morning and mid-afternoon) for these bifacial modules may best match load on the electric grid, the west-facing orientation may be more economically desirable than traditional south-facing module orientations (which peak at solar noon).« less
  • A 9.6 kW test array of Prism bifacial modules and reference monofacial modules installed in February 2016 at the New Mexico Regional Test Center has produced six months of performance data. The data reveal that the Prism modules are out-performing the monofacial modules, with bifacial gains in energy over the six-month period ranging from 18% to 136%, depending on the orientation and ground albedo. These measured bifacial gains were found to be in good agreement with modeled bifacial gains using equations previously published by Prism. The most dramatic increase in performance was seen among the vertically tilted, west-facing modules, wheremore » the bifacial modules produced more than double the energy of monofacial modules and more energy than monofacial modules at any orientation. Because peak energy generation (mid-morning and mid-afternoon) for these bifacial modules may best match load on the electric grid, the west-facing orientation may be more economically desirable than traditional south-facing module orientations (which peak at solar noon).« less
  • This report provides performance data and analysis for two Stion copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) module types, one framed, the other frameless, and installed at the New Mexico, Florida and Vermont RTCs. Sandia looked at data from both module types and compared the latter with data from an adjacent monocrystalline baseline array at each RTC. The results indicate that the Stion modules are slightly outperforming their rated power, with efficiency values above 100% of rated power, at 25degC cell temperatures. In addition, Sandia sees no significant performance differences between module types, which is expected because the modules differ only inmore » their framing. In contrast to the baseline systems, the Stion strings showed increasing efficiency with increasing irradiance, with the greatest increase between zero and 400 Wm -2 but still noticeable increases at 1000 Wm -2 . Although baseline data availability in Vermont was spotty and therefore comparative trends are difficult to discern, the Stion modules there may offer snow- shedding advantages over monocrystalline-silicon modules but these findings are preliminary.« less
  • The US Department of Energy’s Regional Test Center (RTC) program provides outdoor validation and bankability data for innovative solar technologies at five sites across the US representing a range of climate conditions. Data helps get new technologies to market faster and improves US industry competitiveness. Managed by Sandia National Laboratories and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the RTC program partners with US manufacturers of photovoltaic (PV) technologies, including modules, inverters, and balance-of-system equipment. The study is collaborative, with manufacturers (also known as RTC industry partners) and the national labs working together on a system design and validation strategy thatmore » meets a clearly defined set of performance and reliability objectives.« less
  • This annual report evaluates the performance of the groundwater remediation system at the Shiprock, New Mexico, Disposal Site (Shiprock site) for the period April 2015 through March 2016. The Shiprock site, a former uranium-ore processing facility remediated under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, is managed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management. This annual report is based on an analysis of groundwater quality and groundwater level data obtained from site monitoring wells and the groundwater flow rates associated with the extraction wells, drains, and seeps. Background The Shiprock mill operated from 1954 to 1968more » on property leased from the Navajo Nation. Remediation of surface contamination, including stabilization of mill tailings in an engineered disposal cell, was completed in 1986. During mill operation, nitrate, sulfate, uranium, and other milling-related constituents leached into underlying sediments and contaminated groundwater in the area of the mill site. In March 2003, DOE initiated active remediation of groundwater at the site using extraction wells and interceptor drains. At that time, DOE developed a baseline performance report that established specific performance standards for the Shiprock site groundwater remediation system. The Shiprock site is divided into two distinct areas: the floodplain and the terrace. The floodplain remediation system consists of two groundwater extraction wells, a seep collection drain, and two collection trenches (Trench 1 and Trench 2). The terrace remediation system consists of nine groundwater extraction wells, two collection drains (Bob Lee Wash and Many Devils Wash), and a terrace drainage channel diversion structure. All extracted groundwater is pumped into a lined evaporation pond on the terrace. Compliance Strategy and Remediation Goals As documented in the Groundwater Compliance Action Plan, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission–approved compliance strategy for the floodplain is natural flushing supplemented by active remediation. The contaminants of concern (COCs) at the site are ammonia (total as nitrogen), manganese, nitrate (nitrate + nitrite as nitrogen), selenium, strontium, sulfate, and uranium. The compliance standards for nitrate, selenium, and uranium are listed in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 192. Regulatory standards are not available for ammonia, manganese, and sulfate; remediation goals for these constituents are either risk-based alternate cleanup standards or background levels. These standards and background levels apply only to the compliance strategy for the floodplain. The compliance strategy for the terrace is to eliminate exposure pathways at the washes and seeps and to apply supplemental standards in the western section.« less