pv magazine test – January 2019 results


Monthly energy yield data for the months from August 2018 to January 2019 is given in the table below. The graph to the right shows the total energy yield for January 2019[Feld]. Bifacial and mono PERC products continue to occupy the top five positions.

Last month, we showed the correlation between bifacial boost and irradiance: bifacial boost is inversely related to the total irradiance level. This correlation persisted for January 2019, as shown in the graph to the right. The obvious explanation is that diffuse irradiation has a much higher impact on the rear side yield, whereas strong direct irradiation has a higher impact on the front side yield. In low light conditions the diffuse portion is higher, therefore the inverse relation comes up.

Diffuse irradiance data were plotted against bifacial boost for January 2019 to better understand this trend. The percentage ratio of diffuse irradiance with respect to the total irradiance was calculated and compared to the bifacial boost. As shown in, the bifacial boost and the diffuse irradiance ratio are positively related, which further validates our findings from last month.

The graph below shows the comparison between different PV module technologies for January 2019. Bifacial modules are performing above the average energy yield level, with multi-crystalline silicon PV performing under the average energy yield level.

Notes on the energy yield measurements:

  • The energy yield is given in Wh/Wp and calculated by dividing the energy produced by the module by the Pmax at STC of the module. This Pmax is the maximum STC power after a process of stabilization.
  • The results are grouped in categories, per module type.
  • The bifacial boost depends on many parameters: the bifaciality factor, the installation geometry, the albedo of the ground, and also the sun angle and diffuse irradiance. The ground in this case is a plastic cover simulating green grass.

George Touloupas
Director of Technology and Quality, CEA

For more detailed results and analysis from pv magazine test visit pv-magazine.com/features/pv-magazine-test


Energy yield ranking

Product #ProductTypeTotal Aug 2018 Wh/WpTotal Sep 2018 Wh/WpTotal Oct 2018 Wh/WpTotal Nov 2018 Wh/WpTotal Dec 2018 Wh/WpTotal Jan 2019 Wh/WpGrand Total Wh/WpAug 2018 rankSep 2018 rankOct 2018 rankNov 2018 rankDec 2018 rankJan 2019 rank
18LONGi LR6-60BP-300MBifacial Mono PERC78.7468.8268.07215.6111
17NSP D6L310L3ABifacial Mono PERC151.67103.64128.1076.5167.0566.96835.3111322
16LONGi LR6-60PE-310M 2Mono PERC142.64101.43125.3076.5767.0566.40816.51134233
1Jolywood JW-D60N-305Bifacial N-PERT150.97102.73127.0075.4466.6865.98829.1222544
7LONGi LR6-60PE-310M 1Mono PERC148.68100.57125.4075.5766.2465.58817.9343455
4Perlight PLM-300M-60Mono PERC145.1798.77122.4073.6865.1465.15801.6698986
10Recom RCM-275-6MB-4-BB21Mono145.4399.46123.3074.0965.3165.06801.7566767
14Sample 2Mono PERC144.8096.85121.7073.9265.1264.79796.58139898
13Sample 1Mono133.6398.86120.3073.1265.2664.76780.1138121279
8Aiduo AD280-60SMono139.3798.76121.5074.1365.0464.69793.412101061110
20Phono PS380MH-24/THMono PERC65.1064.66129.81011
9Aiduo AD265-60PMulti143.7497.48120.8073.1064.2964.06792.191111131212
3Risen RSM60-6-270PMulti145.0499.39122.9073.2863.9964.02796.3777101313
12NSP D6LM305E3AMono PERC142.8597.29120.3072.1763.8063.79788.0101213141414
2Phono MWT-60-280Multi MWT146.1399.53123.6073.1563.5262.76797.2455111515

This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.