{"id":13411,"date":"2017-08-01T22:05:10","date_gmt":"2017-08-01T11:35:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.solarquotes.com.au\/blog\/?p=13411"},"modified":"2024-01-25T11:00:29","modified_gmt":"2024-01-25T01:30:29","slug":"jinko-trina-torture-test","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.solarquotes.com.au\/blog\/jinko-trina-torture-test\/","title":{"rendered":"Solar Panel Torture Testing: Jinko & Trina Do Well"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"DNV-GL

Now you know what the those DNV-GL engineers *really* get up to in their secret European HQ…<\/p><\/div>\n

DNV-GL’s PV Module Reliability Scorecard Report for 2017<\/a> is out1<\/a><\/sup> and gives some fascinating results.\u00a0 You can follow that long link in the previous sentence to download your own copy of the report, but for your benefit, I’ve included my own unique analysis below, where I will give my interpretation of the results in 2,000 words or less.<\/p>\n

Or possibly more.\u00a0 I’ve only just started writing so don’t really know just how many words I’ll require, but if it looks like I’ll go over my self-imposed limit I can just leaveoutsomespaces, so it’s not really a problem.<\/p>\n

The DNV-GL Reporting Process<\/h2>\n

I wrote about DNV-GL’s Module Reliability Scorecard for 2016<\/a> and described their reporting process, which is similar this time around.\u00a0 But there’s no need to skip back to my old article.\u00a0 I’m quite happy to go over it again.\u00a0 This is because I am conscientious and want to provide you with all the information you need and definitely not because I get paid by the word.<\/p>\n

You can rest assured there is absolutely no way I would ever just go on and on, adding more and more words for no worthwhile benefit, boon, advantage, or gain, just to pad, prolong, expand, extend, or even elongate a piece of writing.\u00a0 Besides, I have my self imposed 2,000 word limit, so I certainly don’t have the luxury of being able to fritter away my words and must at all times endeavour to be consistently parsimonious with their usage.<\/p>\n

Manufacturers Pay To Have Panels Tested By DNV-GL<\/h2>\n

DNV-GL is, among other things, a standards organization.\u00a0 They will test products, see how they measure up, and write up reports.\u00a0 But, for some strange reason, possibly communism, the people who work at DNV-GL like to be paid and so if you want them to test products you have to pay money.<\/p>\n

This means the solar panels<\/a> tested in their report were not a representative sample of solar panels in general.\u00a0 I suspect many manufacturers knew, or at least hoped, their panels would do well and wanted the bragging rights an independent evaluation would give them.\u00a0 On the other hand, there are always some panels that do really poorly in tests, so maybe some manufacturers just want to see how much they need to improve or are just really over-confident.<\/p>\n

I suspect the internal politics of companies also plays a role at times and cruddy panels get sent for testing to convince executives to spend more money improving the product2<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n

But the good news is, once a manufacturer has paid to have their panels tested, DNV-GL will acquire those panels themselves.\u00a0 This prevents manufacturers from sending specially made, ‘golden’ panels, or scratching the label off a competitor’s product and replacing it with their own.<\/p>\n

DNV-GL Only Reveals Who Passed Their Tests<\/h2>\n

Not what the individual scores were, or which panels failed…<\/strong><\/p>\n

For their scorecard report, DNV-GL performs 5 different, rigorous ‘torture’ tests.\u00a0 Manufacturers enter their panels into these tests separately, so just because a panel shows up as having passed one test doesn’t mean it underwent any other testing.\u00a0 DNV-GL does not even name all the panels they\u00a0tested.\u00a0 They only reveal which ones passed the test, giving their names in alphabetical order so you can’t tell which ones did best.<\/p>\n

But this is still useful information.\u00a0 Just knowing a panel passed a torture test is reassuring, even though it’s not possible to know from the result if it was the star performer or just scraped by.<\/p>\n

The cut-off points that decide whether a panel passes or fails a test are arbitrary.\u00a0 There is never much difference between the worst panel that passed and the best one that failed.\u00a0 But that can’t be helped in this situation where the only information we are given is those that pass and none of DNV-GL’s cut-off points are unreasonable.<\/p>\n

DNV-GL’s 5 Torture Tests<\/h2>\n

DNV GL’s 5 tests for their Module Reliability Scorecard Report are:<\/p>\n