{"id":88733,"date":"2020-01-15T08:00:07","date_gmt":"2020-01-15T13:00:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/\/?p=88733"},"modified":"2020-09-24T11:47:16","modified_gmt":"2020-09-24T15:47:16","slug":"solars-silent-killer-backsheets-are-shortening-project-lifespans","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/\/2020\/01\/solars-silent-killer-backsheets-are-shortening-project-lifespans\/","title":{"rendered":"Solar’s silent killer: Backsheets are shortening some project lifespans"},"content":{"rendered":"
California-headquartered Swinerton Renewable Energy has observed a recurring problem across some of its utility-scale solar sites. The EPC helped get the U.S. industry off the ground in the early 2010s and has installed over 4 GW of solar nationwide. Swinerton’s O&M division, SOLV<\/a>, has been tracking solar panel failure on some projects installed during the U.S. boom beginning in 2010. It found these projects experienced accelerated degradation rates due to cheap backsheets sourced by solar panel manufacturers trying to keep up with increased module demand.<\/p>\n “Back then, there was an uptick in production of modules because of the need to build solar. They didn’t have enough materials or the originally requested backsheets to put on their modules, so they went to other sources, and the quality of that backsheet was not as good,” said Reegan Moen, business development manager at SOLV. “We’re seeing those module manufacturers who went to a third- or fourth-source backsheet having issues only five years into the project. These should be lasting 20 to 30 years if they use the correct backsheet.”<\/p>\n Backsheet manufacturer DuPont warned of this phenomenon<\/a> almost four years ago after witnessing accelerated degradation rates during its annual data collection for its Global Field Reliability Study. But now, developers, asset owners, testing organizations and module manufacturers are growing more concerned about the long-term effects of sloppy material choices \u2014 namely, what are the quick fixes (if any) and how can this be prevented in the future?<\/p>\n Credit: DuPont<\/p><\/div>\n Backsheets are important to a module’s final form. The polymeric material adheres to the backside of a module to provide electrical insulation and protection from outside forces like moisture and UV light. Visible signs of backsheet failure include yellowing, cracking, bubbling and delamination. Once the problem is seen though, it’s often too late. Soon production will drop and the module may be at risk of complete failure, not to mention the potential for shock hazards due to leaking electricity.<\/p>\n DuPont<\/a> has been collecting data on material degradation for almost a decade through field inspections across the world to see how panels perform in various climates. The company has found backsheet problems on the rise. DuPont’s own brand of polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) backsheet, Tedlar, has the lowest defect rate in the industry after 30 years in service and is commonly accepted as the most reliable backsheet choice.<\/p>\n “Although we are selling backsheet materials in the market, the fundamental reason we are doing [this testing] is to understand how materials, specifically backsheets and encapsulants, degrade in the field,” said Kaushik Roy Choudhury, global technical leader with DuPont. DuPont releases its annual reliability study to make the industry aware of various problems and suggest ways for O&M to be done preemptively to find these degradation areas.<\/p>\n Outer layer cracking of PVDF backsheet (7 years, Arizona). Cracks expose electrically \u2014 insulating core layer to the environment, which can lead to mechanical degradation and cracking. Cracked backsheets present an electrical safety risk that can lead to metal corrosion and fires. Credit: DuPont<\/p><\/div>\n DuPont’s 2019 Global Field Reliability Study<\/a> showed a 47% increase in backsheet defects over 2018 results. Most concerning is the quick degradation of backsheets made of polyamide (PA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). Polyamide defects are most prominent in early stages, and, unfortunately, PA backsheets were offered as a lower cost option around 2010 when demand for panels was on the rise.<\/p>\n But the problem may not just be associated with panels installed at the beginning of the decade. Independent testing lab PVEL<\/a> does its own module performance tests for downstream customers \u2014 developers, financiers, asset owners. The company annually publishes a PV Module Reliability Scorecard<\/a> and in 2019 found that 30% of bills of materials (BOMs) failed at least one test criteria.<\/p>\n Tara Doyle, CCO of PVEL, cites cost pressure as the reasoning behind the continuing trend. As PPA rates come down, manufacturers are forced to do more with less to offer products at competitive prices. In addition to cheaper backsheets, manufacturers may turn to thinner glass and frames, which can lead to other downstream issues.<\/p>\n “The testing that we’re doing is identifying those cheaper materials and the cheaper constructions or the not-as-well-made modules for various reasons,” Doyle said. “Our testing helps those buyers mitigate the risk of selecting cheaper quality products.”<\/p>\n A few years ago, PVEL was overwhelmed by requests to test backsheets in the lab so asset owners knew which panels to purchase.<\/p>\nThe problem<\/strong><\/h4>\n
<\/a>
<\/a>
Current solutions<\/strong><\/h4>\n