Kaneka P-LE055 panels, opinions, reviews?

[madlabs]

Hi All,

I have a chance to buy some Kaneka P-LE055 panels for less than $2 a watt. But I know nothing about these panels. Any input?

Thanks!

Jonathan

[madlabs]

Tom,

Sorry for ther misplaced post. I thought that the reviews was if you had a review. Thanks for moving it.

Jonathan

[DanG]

That is a nicer 12V panel but the Kaneka Warranty document has some fine print - not to be installed near brine or brine mist, never to see below -20° C, not to have snow loading etc., but otherwise is a solid 5 year workmanship /12 year 90% power / 25 year 80% power warranty.

[ghurd]

I do not have any experience with them.  The price is pretty good, but a couple things caught my eye.

The ratio of Isc to Imp is the highest I ever saw.  4.68A : 3.33A  It's usually less than 10% or so.

It is pretty big for only 55W.  A meter square!

The P Type module only has a 10 year warranty.

The "P-TYPE PV modules wll maintain more than 90% of minimum rated power for 10 years (based on data from silicon PV modules installed over a month under conditions of 25ºC, A.M. 1.5 and 100m W/cm2)"  makes it sound like it will be worn out shortly after 10 years?

IMHO, there website has quite a bit of carefully worded information that could be misinterpreted by the average person...
- "Kaneka's amorphous silicon PV module (a-Si) has superior light absorption per nominal watt power. Compared with mono-crystalline silicon PV modules (c-Si) or poly-crystalline silicon PV modules (poly-Si), it generates considerably more power per nominal watt power."
That almost sounds like they more efficient?  They are not, or they would use less space than crystalline.
- Their comparison chart looks kind of impressive, but it starts at 600 at the bottom.  If it started at 0, it would be more obvious the difference the chart shows is only about 7.5%.
- Energy Pay-Back Time is shorter, but if the panels last half as long, then it is not as efficient?
- Environmentally Friendly because it uses less a-Si material, but the 55W panel weighs almost 2 and a half times more than a 65W Kyocera.  It weighs almost 3X as much as a 54W Kyocera.
- The thickness comparison does not take into account that the material needs to be over twice the surface area.

Just saying be careful interpreting what you read.
G-

[madlabs]

Ghurd,

Thanks for looking at the fine print.

What does the ratio between Isc to Imp mean?

I guess all I really care about is if they will last or if they will be like the dreaded harbor frieght ones. I don't mind the size thing too much, I have plenty of space to mount them. I'm just nervous about trying out US$1k worth of them. I guess there is no way to find out other than trying.

Thanks!

Jonathan

[DamonHD]

G: I believe a-Si is better at absorbing when light levels are low, so they *may* be more efficient in terms of W/area in some conditions.  This is the partly reason I understood my fancy-dancy Sanyo HIT panels with a layer of a-Si on c-Si to be smarter than the average bear and achieve very high W/area efficiency.

Also, I suspect the Isc/Imp is a reflection of higher internal resistance of a-Si.

But I may well be wrong on both counts.

Rgds

Damon

[ghurd]

Jonathan
The ratio of Isc to Imp is just the ratio.  I only noticed it because it is far out of kilter for the numbers I am used to seeing.
Not sure what the implications are, but would like to see a V:I chart for those.

Damon,
"W/Area"?  I don't think so.
They are talking absorbed light per nominal watt.
If they were talking area, they would have to use some conditions on the cusp.
I figured it out the other day (did not write it down), roughly compared to a Kyocera something-something 50 rated at 54W, and best guess is the 55W Kaneka uses a bit over 2.6X more active surface area.
With that much more surface area, I hope it would absorb more light!

G-

[madlabs]

Well, I bought 'em US$1k for 550 watts. No shipping or tax. I'll post again when I have run 'em for a few months .

Thanks for the input!

Jonathan