PV I MANUFACTURING
modules, it is a considerable amount. All of these FABs are equipped with the state-of-art manufacturing and advanced testing equipment that again requires millions of dollars.
Whatever the deal struck, it has allowed Seraphim to stick to its technology roadmap without interference from constant financial reporting needs. Backed by the Honland group, Seraphim has the ambition to be a world-class professional provider of solar energy solutions, with more than enough stability and reliability to offer long term warranty to global customers.
Seraphim has not just shown foresight and trust in its product offerings but has the highest performance warranty of any manufacturer with panel performance guaranteed at 90% for a decade. Materials that make their modules also carry a decade long warranty, which is an industry first. The company also spent the time ensuring they have the right financial insurance and are considered a bankable provider of modules by leading financial institutions. It was an impressive start for a tier two company but how to make such plans a reality.
Tier of success
The financial world has imposed the idea of tier companies on the solar industry as a way to differentiate size and output for different companies. Unfortunately many have presumed that such a tiered system must also reflect success or standard of product. Companies are regarded Tier 1 when they spend a significant amount on R&D, have an automated manufacturing process and are vertically integrated in manufacturing cells and module assembly. They also have to have been running for more than five years as an indicator of longevity and likelihood to cover long warranties. Companies designated tier three tend to be assembling other people’s efforts and despite been relative newcomers to the industry make up the bulk of panels for sale around the world.
Seraphim is still considered a tier two company which is a company with a smaller percentage of R&D and only partial automation. The company does not fit this description but does not have the years to be classified tier one as yet. It would be fair to say that Seraphim initially suffered as many potential customers did not fully understand the tier system.
The only way for Seraphim to make progress was to prove their claims of the world’s best solar panels. Partnered with leading material suppliers like Fujifilm in Japan, Seraphim has conducted an enormous amount of R&D to improve the PV module’s reliability and power output performance.
Not content with taking top position on the Photon panel list, Seraphim became the first company to pass the TUV “Thresher Test”. The test is based on 3 times stringent testing standards than regular IEC61215 + IEC61730, the PV modules that pass the Thresher Certification offer a much higher level of confidence in terms of long-term reliability as compared to those having standard certification. The R&D team has also poured efforts into improving the PID performance through optimal material configuration, processing control to final product performance verification. All tests have shown the module to be PID free.
58
www.solar-international.net I Issue IV 2014 Heading the rankings
At present the only public system that tests and ranks PV modules is the Photon International independent research with a test site in temperate Germany. Traditionally monocrystalline has provided a higher efficiency output than polycrystalline in these tests although the difference has been shrinking and was only 0.6% in the 2013 rankings. Seraphim has been high in the rankings since 2011 and produced a high performance ratio of 93.6%. The company demonstrates its trust in its efforts with its 90% guarantee for 10 years.
In 2012, Seraphim topped the chart in the Photon yield test not counting Sunpower’s entry which is a different type of technology. In 2013, Seraphim dropped to 12th place, which appears a drop but it stayed with a strong rank. It beat all other panels that had been tested for 12 months or more. In the 2013 findings, Seraphim panels were the highest placed panel that have a two year history on the test and only lost 1% in performance in the time between the two tests. If the test was adjusted to show initial performance ratios and then subsequent annual results, then instead of 12th place on the chart Seraphim would come in at number 3.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96