Tweet
While out/out lying is certainly a possibility, and without trying to semantically differentiate fly crap from pepper, I'd bet on some form of ignorant repeating going on.
In either/any case, while I believe the S.P. published data is technically correct and would stand up to technical scrutiny, I'd look for subtle changes in the data from one panel/cell data to the next that could be explained, for example, by a combination of measurement, or mfg./measurement tolerances or definition, or other things.
Maybe my cynicism has the best of me, but my money is on S.P., like most everyone else, trying to get the most from pushing the new/improved peddling line from evolutionary improvements while rotating/moving inventory, and also perhaps as a way to allow some wider variation in mfg. tolerances. Or, all that and other things. It's just business.
Since, while it's possible for consumers to run side/side tests on panels, I bet it hasn't and won't happen, making any price/Watt diff. between 310's, 327's, 335's and 345's somewhat academic.
In the sense that, say, a 6 kW array of most any panel from any mfg. will have about equal annual output, a 6 kW array of 310's or 345's ought to be priced at the same $$/Watt, with MAYBE some slight S.P. premium for any S.P. panel size, but no more$/Watt for a 310 than a 345, perhaps until the panel STC rating can change the # of panels for a particular duty or array size.
In either/any case, while I believe the S.P. published data is technically correct and would stand up to technical scrutiny, I'd look for subtle changes in the data from one panel/cell data to the next that could be explained, for example, by a combination of measurement, or mfg./measurement tolerances or definition, or other things.
Maybe my cynicism has the best of me, but my money is on S.P., like most everyone else, trying to get the most from pushing the new/improved peddling line from evolutionary improvements while rotating/moving inventory, and also perhaps as a way to allow some wider variation in mfg. tolerances. Or, all that and other things. It's just business.
Since, while it's possible for consumers to run side/side tests on panels, I bet it hasn't and won't happen, making any price/Watt diff. between 310's, 327's, 335's and 345's somewhat academic.
In the sense that, say, a 6 kW array of most any panel from any mfg. will have about equal annual output, a 6 kW array of 310's or 345's ought to be priced at the same $$/Watt, with MAYBE some slight S.P. premium for any S.P. panel size, but no more$/Watt for a 310 than a 345, perhaps until the panel STC rating can change the # of panels for a particular duty or array size.
Comment