{"id":155499,"date":"2025-06-17T01:01:00","date_gmt":"2025-06-17T01:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pv-tech.org\/?p=155499"},"modified":"2025-06-26T11:09:25","modified_gmt":"2025-06-26T11:09:25","slug":"as-solar-module-breakage-soars-heres-a-path-to-building-a-stronger-industry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pv-tech.org\/as-solar-module-breakage-soars-heres-a-path-to-building-a-stronger-industry\/","title":{"rendered":"As solar module breakage soars, here’s a path to building a stronger industry"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Catastrophic breakage in Kiwa PVEL\u2019s Module Mechanical Stress Sequence Tests, 4 June 2025<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

As the solar industry pushes for ever-lower costs, larger module sizes and greater energy output, the structural integrity and long-term performance of modules have become critically compromised. According to the latest research<\/a> from Kiwa PVEL and CRU, aggressive cost-cutting on module frames has led to poor quality and structural integrity issues. Failure rates in module mechanical stress sequence (MSS) testing are at 20% \u2013 up from only 7% a year earlier (see Figure 1). This disturbing trend adds to unplanned project costs, while a decline in testing rigour and lagging standards have increased uncertainty and risk. The combination of quality-impacting module cost reductions and inadequate test standards is simply not sustainable for an industry that depends on predictable costs and power production for profitable growth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Figure 1: Kiwa PVEL 2024 & 2025 PQP Mechanical Test Failures Increase from 7% to 20%. Source: <\/em>PV Module Reliability Scorecard<\/em><\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

There is an urgent need to improve and increase module ratings and long-term durability, thereby ensuring solar plant reliability and performance.\u00a0CFV Labs<\/a> (now part of Groundwork Renewables), a solar testing laboratory, has long been advocating for higher testing standards for PV modules to reverse the trend of decreasing mechanical strength.\u00a0The solution for module breakage starts with a return to more rigorous performance and certification testing \u2013 and stronger materials, which will lead to more meaningful specifications and safety margins. At the same time, transitioning the industry away from aluminium to steel frames will increase module strength, enable further innovations, and unleash a strong domestic supply chain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Solar module reliability is collapsing<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The race to cut costs and increase productivity in solar manufacturing has come at a steep price: reliability. As modules grow larger and manufacturers shave pennies by using weaker aluminium frames and thinner, not fully tempered glass, failure rates are spiking both in the lab and the field (see Figure 2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a recent article<\/a>, Alex Barrows of CRU Group highlights this risk: \u201c\u2026we have been warning subscribers… of the risk to module reliability from this aggressive cost-cutting. Last summer, we highlighted a particular risk from frames; frame manufacturers\u2026 had expressed a concern that in some cases module manufacturers were pushing too far with slimming down wall thicknesses and were compromising on quality.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Figure 2: “How more rigorous testing and stronger frames can help solve the solar industry\u2019s growing module breakage problem”, <\/em>Webinar<\/em><\/a>, Origami, CFV Labs, DNV<\/em>, June 2024<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

An IEA PVPS report<\/a> on field-deployed module performance highlights the scale of the issue, citing a 10% overall failure rate for 2mm glass\/glass modules and instances of up to 50% breakage in some 2mm glass modules within nine months. Other reports claim growing instances of \u201cspontaneous\u201d breakage with no identifiable weather event.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To make matters worse, industry test protocols have failed to keep up with industry needs. They typically rely on a single mechanical load test sample that fails to account for module (and particularly glass) variability and proper safety margins and also fails to characterise \u201cspontaneous\u201d breakage risk or other low-level wind vibration through extended dynamic load testing. Load ratings, once a safety benchmark, are lower than ever. This puts pressure on EPCs, developers and asset owners to deploy additional measures to understand module capabilities and site risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics<\/a>, NREL scientists warn that \u201ccurrent qualification testing is ineffective\u201d at detecting early-life failures, adding to a growing list of industry experts delivering similar warnings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s time to stop accepting diminishing specifications, poor standards and unknown risk factors and start demanding solutions. Stronger frames \u2013 specifically steel \u2013 offer a clear path to bolster load capabilities and safety margins and better protect module glass and cells from breakage. If the industry wants to scale with assurance and integrity, its materials and testing methods must scale with it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Redefining module strength: the steel frame advantage<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Steel frames represent a critical opportunity for greater innovation and performance in the solar industry. Steel performs significantly better than aluminium in myriad aspects, providing superior protection for module glass and cells from damage during manufacturing, transport, installation and weather events in the field.\u00ad Steel also accommodates more robust module specifications and safety margins, especially with larger-format modules (see Figure 3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Figure 3: Utility module, aluminium and steel frame mechanical load test-to-failure comparison, Origami solar testing at CFV Labs (now Groundwork)<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In conjunction with solar tracker mounts (which are also typically made of steel), the added frame strength boosts wind ratings, can save money on tracker mount installation costs and simplifies project design. Steel frames can also meet higher performance expectations with fewer system or PV plant design compromises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A recent webinar<\/a> that Origami presented with tracker maker Array Technologies highlighted several key arguments regarding the value of steel frames in combination with trackers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n