Long Life Span for Solar Panels Equals Extra Low Cost
The cost of home solar power could fall even faster than expected in light of a new study by European researchers. Tests by the EU Energy Institute have found that 90 percent of solar panels last for 30 years or longer, a considerable leap from the 20 years generally recognized by banks and lenders. It has long been accepted amongst solar contractors and enthusiasts that the panels will last beyond the 20-year warranties typically associated with them. The EU research provides scientific evidence to back those claims.
The EU Energy Institute performed accelerated aging tests in which solar panels were submitted to extreme heat, cold and humidity. The results show overwhelmingly that panels will survive with limited loss in production for much longer than previously confirmed.
That fact could make financing home solar power systems even easier and bring down monthly payments as lenders could provide longer loan terms with confidence. The cost of solar power equipment is dropping on its own, as shown by a 30 percent decrease last year. That could potentially become 50 percent by the end of 2009. Combine that with a test-supported increase in life span, and the road to home solar power should grow ever wider and smoother in the short term.
Solar Mortgages
Dr. Heinz Ossenbrink of the EU Energy Institute would like to see solar panels financed like a house. With a 40-year life span assured, banks could confidently open mortgages with consumers on solar systems. For, say, 30 years, a homeowner could pay the bank for a home power system that the bank would own until the mortgage terms are satisfied. Given the general cost of a solar power system ($20,000 to $40,000, including equipment and installation), that would lead to very low payments and facilitate an easy, affordable distribution of solar power through global markets.
Whether solar mortgages pop up in major solar markets or not, the combination of long life and falling equipment costs will combine to make prices drop faster than expected. The vast majority of solar costs are incurred up front for equipment and installation with very little maintenance needed. Over time, that solar system will pay for itself through energy saved on utility bills – typically in 10 to 20 years at current prices, and depending on available incentives.
That framework is nothing new. But a proven longer life span for the panels changes the numbers a bit. Averaged out over 30 years rather than 20, the cost-effectiveness of home solar power takes on a new, more lucrative light. Homeowners can feel more secure in the rather large investment that is solar power, and banks can feel more secure in financing a home energy system that is nearly certain to produce beyond the payback period of the loan.
Source: BBC News
Photo Credit: ICTSustainability & Helio
![[del.icio.us]](http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Twitter]](http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
Posted on December 4th in Solar Research by Dan.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Really? 90 percent of solar panels last for 30 years or longer? Care to point to that study? Clueless BBC articles don’t count as studies. Actual long-term studies have revealed that 1) module degradation and failure is not uncommon, even for crystalline modules, and 2) the companies that make PV modules do not last 20 years (ARCO Solar –> Siemens –> Shell –> SolarWorld?):
http://www.isaac.supsi.ch/isaac/pubblicazioni/Fotovoltaico/Final%20Report/rapporto%20finale%20-%20progetto%20eu%205fp%20-%20mean%20time%20before%20failure%20(mtbf)%202003.pdf
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/solarec/publications/osaka_lifetime.pdf
Thin-film module failure and degradation, of course, are much more common and much more severe.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
ECD Fan, thanks for your response. You may be right, and it would appear that the study in question has yet to be published. The stats given in the BBC article were apparently the result of an interview with Dr. Ossenbrink and probably others at the EU Institute for Energy. You can choose to believe or not believe what Ossenbrink claims about the testing at the Institute, but if it helps with your perception of validity, Ossenbrink does work at one of the organizations cited in your links.
Secondly, there is an essential difference between the your studies and the assertions made by the Institute for Energy. Those studies examine panels that are now nearly 30 years old. The Energy Institute is taking new products – with whatever improvements 25 more years of research and development bring – and subjecting them to accelerated heat and weather simulations. It is an attempt to provide longevity testing for new panels rather than basing assumptions about today’s products with statistics gathered for products manufactured in the 1980’s. And even those panels only degraded roughly 5% over 20 years.
What do you think?
December 8th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Dan:
Yes, Dr. Ossenbrink is a recognized expert in PV module testing, but even experts make mistakes (as Climategate demonstrates). Assessing module durability, reliability, and power degradation is a very complex subject. For example, Dr. Ossenbrink wrote a paper in 2004 ( http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/solarec/publications/osaka_mqt12.pdf ), showing 54% of new module types fail in initial qualification testing (How many modules have been manufactured for more than 10-years and have all the kinks worked out?). But, of course, standard module qualification test results (including from accelerated testing) cannot be used to obtain or infer a product lifetime, as this NREL study demonstrates: http://www.nrel.gov/pv/performance_reliability/pdfs/osterwald_pip_review_2008.pdf
Here is an article that touches upon the difficulties in predicting service life for modules:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/12/pv-durability-and-reliability-issues
So, yes, this subject is far from settled, and, yes, it has major implications for LCOE or ROI calculations for PV systems.
Finally, regarding whether new modules are better than the old, here is one more (disturbing) study by ASU:
http://www.pv-tech.org/images/uploads/pdfs_ed_1/PVI-04.pdf
The conclusion: “The failure analysis of the qualification test results of ASU-PTL indicates a large increase in the failure rates for the 2005-2007 period as compared to the 1997-2005 period.”
Here is an example of the risks: “REC to Recall All of Its Solar Panels From 2008: Report:” http://www.greentechmedia.com/green-light/post/rec-to-recall-all-of-their-solar-panels-from-2008-report/
REC’s customers are very lucky that REC is a reputable company that is still in business. Because another company is suppressing the results from a long-term degradation study (which are indicating a likely violation of warranty) or various other system failure mechanisms, and has crafted a warranty language that allows them to blame module failure on insects (no kidding!). Buyer beware!