I'm modeling quite a large project where there are 18x SolarEdge SE100KUS inverters, all using C651U optimizers. I've modeled a total of 54 total units (33.33 kW each). The Global system summary accurately calculates 1800 kWac. However, after running the simulation, there is a very large discrepancy where total ac power comes out to 1699 kWac. How can this discrepancy be fixed? Thanks!

thank you in advance

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

 I enter the measured POA irradiation for the whole year based on every 10 min measured irradiation, we got shifted 2 hour POA irradiation for the results during summer time, how to solve this, I've seen that the GlobInc values sometimes lower from the POA values input. 

I am trying to simulate a 75MWp/50MWac PV + 20MW/40MWh BESS system with grid limitation at 50MW in which the excess is used to charge the BESS. However, the requirement is to ensure that the BESS is able to fully charge and discharge 20MW for 2hours daily. Theoretically this should amount to an average of 1.2GWh per month or 14.4GWh per year. However, based on the results obtained, the EBatDis is only at 4.3GWh per annum. 

Storage strategy is set to Peak Shaving with the following parameters

Please advise if there is any settings changes to be made to achieve desired outcome.

I've noticed something curious while working with a custom .MET file that includes field-measured irradiance in the plane of array (GIPMeas). After running a simulation and generating the 8760 output file, I've seen that the GlobInc values sometimes differ from the GIPMeas values input.

I understand that GlobInc represents the global irradiance on the plane of the array, but I was expecting it to match the GIPMeas data directly, since that's what I used in the .MET file.

I’m attaching a screenshot showing a comparison between GIPMeas and GlobInc for reference.

Does anyone know why these differences occur? Is there some internal processing or adjustment done during simulation that could explain this?

Thanks in advance!

So I think GlobGnd is source energy for other parameters such as ReflLss and DiffGnd etc. That means value of GlobGnd should be the largest during these parameters.

But I processd some simulation  and looked into details of results. I found that BkVFLss always larger than GlobGnd. Does anyone know why about this?

albedo=0.5   GlobGnd=889.8   BkVFLss=832.2

albedo=0.8  BkVFLss=1331.5

I am currently trying to simulate a bifacial system in the PV System configuration. However, when I open the Bifacial System settings, the 3D shading scene does not appear to be connected to the bifacial configuration.

In the 3D Shading section, I have already created and added the 3D shading scene. However, it is still not recognized in the Bifacial System window.

Could you please assist me in resolving this issue? Is there any step that I might have missed which causes the 3D shading scene not to appear in the bifacial system settings?

For your reference, I have attached screenshots of both the Near Shading and Bifacial System sections.

Thank you for your support.

i am wondering if there is a way to get the output of each inverter in the 8760 file to fill out the table below:

I would appreciate your clarification regarding the definition and use of the Albedo parameter in PVsyst.

In the software, the Albedo value appears in two different locations:

1. Project Settings → Site → Albedo

2. System → Bifacial System → Albedo

Could you please clarify:

• What is the functional difference between these two Albedo inputs?

• In bifacial simulations, should both values always be identical for consistency?

kind regards,

Irakli

Hello everyone,

I have a question regarding the use of PVsyst for performance modeling in the context of performance testing (PPI and EPI) as described in the standards IEC 61724-2 and IEC 61724-3.

Can PVsyst be used to generate a performance model that is suitable for performance testing according to these standards? Does anyone have practical experience with this?

Is it possible to use 1-minute measured data in PVsyst for this purpose or what is the minimum data resolution supported for imported measured data?

Thank you in advance.

I have modelled a solar farm installed 5years back and factored in the yearly degradation rates in the detailed losses>>aging section  and enabled output file generation as attached below. For some reason, when I run the advanced simulation, it returns only Y1 E-grid values. How do I generate an output file with the hourly E-grid values for the current year, and later years?

Thanks,
Tonderai. 

i am trying to perform a calculation with a bifacial panels for car port system where i have 2 different orientations , azimuths. In order to enable bifacial factor to my simulation ,how shall i move forward ???

Does the answer change if the mixed modules share an inverter?

Please may you assist by providing assistance on how to approach this client request on the PVsyst platform for both scenarios.

Many thanks!

I noticed something in the software regarding inverter loss over nominal inv. power :
The creation of a subfield for each MPPT in the system or t he grouping of multiple MPPTs into the same subfield leads to significant simulation differences (see the example below with an additional 3% in losses).

How PVSYST manages the repartition of strings when we don't create a subfield for each MPPT ? 

Is there a trick to avoid creating a subfield for each MPPT (to save time) without generating these losses?

Thanks you for your help

Is there a specific reason why the Monte Carlo values are only calculated up to year 25? Most projects now have lifespans extending beyond that. Would it be possible to increase the number of steps, perhaps up to year 40?

Thank you.

Specifically, is there a way in PVsyst to block the tracker rotation and manually define a fixed tilt angle for the modules while maintaining the original tracker-based geometry and layout?

Or, alternatively, if the intention is to simulate the system with a fixed tilt, is it necessary to rebuild the entire model using fixed structures with the desired tilt angle instead of trackers?

E_Total = E_POA + E_Rear * 𝜑

...where 𝜑 is equal to the module bifaciality factor.

My question concerns the E_Rear term: if a PV system has a pyranometer installed in the rear plane of array in such a way that it is unobstructed by structures such as the torque tube, and the E_Rear used for the physical PV system is the measured RPOA from this pyranometer, what do you recommend using for the E_Rear term to calculate an equivalent model-side E_Total? Would the E_Rear term be the output variable GlobBak, a combination of factors such as GlobBak + BackShd, or something else? 

Reference: Waters, Martin, Chris Deline, Johan Kemnitz, and Jeffrey Webber. 2019. Suggested Modifications for Bifacial Capacity Testing: Preprint. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/ CP-5K00-73982. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/73982.pdf

I would like to know whether PVsyst can generate a graph of PV power output as a function of solar irradiance and ambient temperature.

Is it possible to obtain this directly within PVsyst, or through exported simulation results that correlate PV power output with these two variables?

Best regards,