All Activity

Only the intermediate results are incorrect (...Trp, BeamInc and CircInc), the other results including the final production are correct already.

Hi, What exactly are you trying to model? Are you focusing on production during peak demand hours or the price difference between on-peak and off-peak periods? In the economic evaluation, you can define different prices for on-peak and off-peak periods. You can also always generate an hourly output file with the relevant parameters and analyze the data in Excel or other external tools.

Thanks Michele, so the results are wrong, isn't it? Then I will wait to 8.08 version to do the simulation.

Hello Andrés, Please note that the language in this forum should be English. You can find a detailed explanation of all the possible inputs and parameters for the economic evaluation in the following YouTube tutorial: Kind regards

Is there a way to model on-peak and off-peak production? It seems like the self-consumption section is the best bet, but it doesn't seem like there is a straightforward approach.

Un gusto saludarlos, estoy realizando una simulación con un sistema en Mexico interconectado. Hay alguna opción dentro de un apartado del análisis económico donde pueda configurar o introducir valores referentes a un incentivo fiscal?

There was a bug that prevented variables ...Trp, BeamInc and CircInc from accumulating properly for a multi-orientation situation. We will update this for version 8.0.8.

Hello, Indeed both GlobInc and GlobEff will be in the collector plane at the position with backtracking if backtracking activated. You can export also the phi angle to verify the position of the trackers every hour.

If I understand well, you have a cluster of 8 MV transfos, and a line of 3 km up to the injection point or a HV transformer. You have probably a junction box, and a common line to the injection point. Sorry, this is not yet implemented as such in PVsyst. in the present time in PVsyst you can only define a line from each transformer individulally to the injection point. Therefore for each inverter you should define a line with a length of 3 km, but a section corresponding to the power of one transformer. In the future, we will implement the opportunity of defining a junction box, and a common cable transporting the global power of all MV transformers. Please see the help https://www.pvsyst.com/help/project-design/array-and-system-losses/ohmic-losses/transfo-in-cascade.html?h=mv+transfo for further details. NB: If you are working with the "relative" AC losses (i.e. defined as percentages), and you are waiting for a global loss of, say 1% for this 3 km line, you should define a loss of 1% for the line of each transfo.

In the loss diagram, the energies are always evaluated from the previous energy. In this case, the Stored energy sharing is evaluated from the charging energy rather than the discharging. You can evaluate the available solar energy as 20'443 MWh * (1-2.3%)*(1-0.5%)*(1-0.4%*(1-2.8%)*(1-1.0%) * (1-0.6%) = 18'933 MWh. Then: 18'933 MWn * 8.5% = 1609 MWh. This is the charging energy. The direct use is 8'933 MWh * 91.5% = 17'323 MWh. Here is the detailed calculation in EXCEL: you can check that the final result is very close to the loss diagram. NB: You can get the detailed calculations of the loss diagram directly in EXCEL. In the menu of the report, you can use "Export => Loss diagram values", that you can simply paste in EXCEL.

If backtracking is enabled, GlobInc considers backtracking, as does GlobEff, and all other irradiance parameters.

Hello, Indeed, if there is no production, the temperature of the modules are simply not calculated and put to 0. This has no impact of the result of the PV production since no thermal inertia is considered for the hourly simulations. For a more elegant output file we will considered changing this approach. For your evaluation you could consider the 0 as null and exclude from your average, or replace them with for instance the ambient temperature. Thank you for your input.

Hello, In general, you can define multiple MPPTs per sub-array (as long as you have a multiple between the number of strings and MPPT inputs). Indeed you have this constraint in the current version that you can not have empty MPPT inputs. To get around the constraints in PVsyst, you could modify the number of MPPTs in the OND file, though this might impact other behaviors of the inverter and you should adjust all the parameters to correspond to the use-case you are referring too. The following youtube video further explains the MPPT and Power sharing:

Hi, No it is today not possible to include that in the original simulation. If you choose to simulate both sides as front sides, that can indeed be simulated in the same variant (with the proposed work around of modifying the .PAN files) You are right, the thermal losses only consider front side irradiance, we will look into this. Kind regards

The energy provided by the Solar system may be used: - either for charging the battery, - or (mainly when the battery is full, but this depends on the kind of system) it is directly used, either for feeding the grid or the user's needs (this also depends on the system kind). This is what is named "E Direct Use", as a complement to "ECharging (from PV)".

Hi all, I'm trying to find a variable that gives the Gobal Inclined Irradiance in actual plane of array AFTER backtracking. The closest I found in PVsyst output are: GlobInc: The problem of this one is that I understand it gives the idealised GInc if the trackers were always tracking the sun (i.e. without considering backtracking early morning or later afternoon). GlobEff: The problem is that this gives the effective global Inc after all optical losses. I need the value BEFORE optical losses but after Backtracking. Any advice? Basically I need the GHI transposed to the actual tilt angle, without any corrections. Regards, Ahmad

Hello Luis Zimmermann, In PVsyst, the beam and diffuse components and the rear side of a vertical bifacial PV system are calculated similarly as on the front side, by computing the integral of the visible sky. For the rear side irradiance, this is done using a 2D intersection method, same as the "unlimited shed" field type. If the layout is done in the 3D scene, the visible sky is instead in 3D. With bifacial systems, the view factor model also estimates the contribution of ground reflection to the front and rear side (not considered in mono facial simulations).

Hi! I have this issue. 5 inverters with 4 MPPT each, 3 differents orientations. I,nverter 1 use all mppt inputs, in two orientations. Inverters 2-3 are configured without multiple mppt, but actually have 3 fields each. Here is the situation, Inverters 4-5 have 3 subconjunts with 3 different orientation each, so i used 3 mppt. But, in the power sharing that it's no possible because that numer is lower than the inverters inputs. So, how can i solve this situation? Thanks!

Hallo everybody, I tried to carry out an analysis with "Adavnced simulation/optization tool" for a certain range of tilt and azimuth in order to find the best orientation for a free standing plant. obtaining a suspect results. Optimization tools returns better performance for tilt 9.7° azimuth 30° Egrid 1301 MWh set-up azimuth from -30 to 30 , steps 30 set-up tilt 5 to 20 , steps 30 Then I tried a single shot simulation using tilt and azimuth I think is best choice. Better, for single shot simulation I defined tilt and azimuth with same values shown in calculated series of optimization tool. The result is very weird: tilt 14.8° azimuth 1.0° Optimization tool returns Egrid 1202 MWh Single shot simul. returns Egrid 1330 MWh Any hints? Many thanks

Transforming fixed tilt tables to trackers changes their orientation. It looks like the parameters are being passed directly to the new tracker object like azimuth and tilt, when these are calculated/defined differently for each type of object, and should be recalculated so that the object remains in place.

v8.0.6

I have a question, I would like to take into account the call of losses, the length of the cable route to the point of connection from the transformer. MV 12km please help. Cable length from 8 transformers to Coupling station it is 3018 m Thanks very much!!!! For help

Hi, I have just started exploring the use of the topography data that is now available as an import as part of the interactive map in the 3d shade scene. It's great. But it would be very helpful to be able to crop the ground object, since I am usually modeling large projects, and sometimes they run more north/south, as a portrait aspect ratio, while the download is always a very wide landscape aspect ratio. Thanks!

When I was conducting an off - grid simulation of photovoltaic power generation, in the simulation results, when the light intensity did not reach the threshold, the average operating temperature of the photovoltaic modules was 0 degrees Celsius. However, this is unreasonable. At this time, the temperature of the photovoltaic modules should be the ambient temperature. How should I handle this situation?

I have carried out a simulation with dome configuration with N-S axis, but the results have caught my attention since the Global Incident was lower than the Global Horizontal. I investigated in the hourly data and the results are strange in my opinion, since the GlobInc is higer than the Globtrp eventhough the only incident component that is higher than the trasposition component is the Diffuse component. Look at the following figure: I would like to know how PVsyst does the domes simulations and if this is normal. Thanks in advance.