What is the issue with inspection costs?

The costs of inspecting one module is equal or even higher than the cost of a new module. SunSniffer offers a way of inspection at a fraction of the usual costs.


Decent plant performance testing needs to look at the module. 

This can be done either in field or in lab; in both cases usually only on demand, for an acute (emergency) situation. 


Costs are starting at 20€ per module for in-field measurements, but can go up to 60€ or more easily for lab measurements. 

Testing options = most are not suitable for every day use

How elaborate testing can be done shows Arizona State University (ASU) in a field evaluation in 2014; in this graphic you can see all testing methods they applied. Only such sound testing can provide valuable and useful information for most effective O&M and fault management. Yet such extensive tests make no sense in terms of time or money. 

This is highly uneconomically for every day and every plant use!

And a new module? 

Now compared to the costs of a new module this uneconomicalness becomes even more evident: 

Deteriorating in the last decade, a new modules' cost is now at 60-70€ (60 cells). 


If you look at this, wouldn't it make more sense to simply swap a defective module with a certain power loss, instead of first having to examine it in the field? 

Sure - but how can it be found, without high costs? 


So what is needed? 
Wouldn't it be highly useful to have a technology which automatedly examines each and every module in the field, during operation, and identifies faulty ones online and in real-time?


And notifying the manager immediately when the production falls below a certain threshold - like the warranty level? 


This way the money saved on error search could be spend on better modules!