Apologies if I got your back up BiggsSolar, perhaps I was a little brash. However I do stand by my guns.
Worcester - we mainly install REC and they provide NOCT data, so too do Up Solar who we are considering at the moment (BiggSolar please feel free to think what you like about any ulterior motive).
Whilst NOCT gives an additional benchmark to compare modules it is ultimately still only a snapshot at 44 degrees and 800w/m2. What happens when the temperature is -15 and irradiance 500 w/m2 or conversely temperature 60 degrees and 1300 w/m2?
In addition to including the above, PV Sol may also include the manufactures temperature co efficient but this is just a temperature coefficient at 1000w/m2, it doesn’t really mean much in the real world.
The point I was making is that real world module performance is not easy to model on a computer. Especially when the raw module data is not independent – it’s derived from manufacturers data sheets. So why does everyone get hung up on a computer model?
I would have thought a far, far better way to decide which modules are worth installing is to look at outdoor field data, such as Photon International.
Those who rate Sanyo hybrids may find this data from Sheffield University interesting….
Microgeneration Data
Though admittedly a new study, it basically shows per kWp installed there is little or no difference between monos, polys and hybrids.
