Application-led decision support
Choose an application and the outcomes that matter most. The selector ranks PV technology families and explains their benefits and trade-offs without directing you to a particular manufacturer or model.
The ranking uses transparent, comparative scores for nine criteria: affordability, conversion efficiency, area efficiency, service life, heat tolerance, low-light performance, form-factor flexibility, resource and circularity considerations, and lifecycle climate impact. Scores describe broad technology families rather than individual products.
The four-part location globe is a broad latitude screening input. The northern and southern high-latitude bands increase the influence of low-light behaviour, service life, and area use; the two bands adjoining the equator increase the influence of heat performance and service life. Heat and low-light performance are inferred from this location choice and are therefore not separate priority controls. Hemisphere by itself does not determine local climate, so this adjustment must not be treated as a site-energy calculation.
The resource and circularity score considers material availability, critical or hazardous material exposure, service life, and current recovery pathways. It is deliberately qualitative because harmonised life-cycle inventories are unavailable for every technology family. It must not be read as proof that the overall top-ranked technology has the lowest environmental impact.
Final selection should also consider site irradiation, shading, structural loads, fire and electrical requirements, warranties, supply-chain availability, installer capability, and a project-specific financial assessment.
The sources below can replace broad family assumptions with traceable product and site inputs. Laboratory records remain useful for technology potential, but commercial-module and field evidence should control a project recommendation.
Inputs: nameplate power, module dimensions, PTC rating, temperature coefficient, and measured response across irradiance and temperature.
Sources: California Energy Commission equipment list, IEC 61853-1, and the IEA PVPS–Sandia validation dataset.
Calculation use: derive installed power per area and replace generic heat and low-light scores with measured module behaviour.
Inputs: irradiance, diffuse fraction, temperature, wind, horizon, mounting position, orientation, and technology-specific performance coefficients.
Sources: European Commission PVGIS, the Sandia PVPMC modelling guide, and IEA PVPS climatic rating.
Calculation use: compare annual delivered energy and energy per available area for the actual site instead of relying on standard-test efficiency alone.
Inputs: qualification status, field degradation, failure modes, warranty terms, climate stressors, and evidence duration.
Sources: IEC 61215-1, IEA PVPS service-life estimation, and its new-technology failure review.
Calculation use: model year-by-year energy and uncertainty. Passing IEC qualification is an eligibility check, not a numerical lifetime prediction.
Inputs: module mass and dimensions, mechanical loads, fire and electrical classification, flexibility, mounting restrictions, and application-specific stressors.
Sources: product certificates and datasheets, IEC 61730-1, IEC TS 63126 for high-temperature operation, IEC TS 63163 for portable products, and IEA PVPS application guidance.
Calculation use: apply pass/fail constraints before ranking, then compare only products suitable for the roof, façade, portable system, or ground-mounted site.
Inputs: current module quote, balance-of-system cost, installation cost, replacement risk, maintenance, annual energy, and degradation.
Sources: current supplier and installer quotations, with the NREL technology-cost benchmark retained only as a dated fallback for family-level screening.
Calculation use: compare lifetime cost of delivered electricity and total project cost rather than module price alone.
Inputs: verified product declarations, lifecycle greenhouse-gas emissions, manufacturing location and electricity mix, material inventory, repairability, collection, and recovery route.
Sources: IEA PVPS lifecycle assessment, its module-recycling review, and NREL PV ICE.
Calculation use: compare equivalent functional units and system boundaries; report climate, resource, toxicity, and circularity indicators separately.
Evidence rule: product-specific measured data should take precedence over technology-family averages. Research-cell records should indicate future potential only, and emerging technologies should remain clearly labelled until large-area module, durability, manufacturing, and bankability evidence is available.
Best fit for your selections
How to read the chart
Scores are relative, from 0 to 100. Farther from the centre is more favourable. A higher cost score means greater affordability, and a higher area score means less area is needed.
Selected technology scores
Compared with the leading option
Ranked alternatives
This is a qualitative screening score, not a product environmental declaration or a comparative life-cycle assessment. Results change with manufacturing location, electricity mix, module design, lifetime, yield, and end-of-life route.
Transparent scoring
Normalised value100 × position between fixed lower and upper anchors
Graph score50 + evidence factor × (normalised value − 50)
Fit scoreΣ(graph score × application weight) ÷ Σ(application weights)
Evidence factors are 1.00 for high confidence, 0.75 for medium confidence, and 0.35 for low confidence. Low-confidence estimates are pulled towards the neutral score of 50 instead of being allowed to create an unsupported extreme. The environmental-friendliness axis currently uses inverse lifecycle greenhouse-gas intensity. It measures climate impact only; toxicity, water, land, biodiversity, and other environmental effects require additional harmonised indicators. A project-grade comparison should replace every low-confidence proxy with site-specific yield data, supplier quotations, product datasheets, warranties, and verified environmental product declarations.