cecile

Hi Andrés, The guaranteed PR is caclulated from PVsyst output and the reference irradiation could lead to mistake of inpretation. In PVsyst, irriadiation on the plan of the collectors, being impacted by far and close shading are: GlobHrz Global on collectors, corrected for horizon (far shadings) GlobShd Global on collectors, corrected for horizon and near shadings could you confirm what should be the reference computed irradiation values to use for the guaranteed PR for each of the following configuration: Configuration 1: Fix tilt structure - Pyranometer location: located in front of the installation (on the first shed) > in that case the pyranometer would "see" the Beam component, the Diffuse component and the Albedo component (impacted by the horizon). - Tilt irradiation to use for the Guaranteed PR: According to me this should be "GlobHrz" Configuration 2: Fix tilt structure - Pyranometer location: located on a shed with neighbors rows > in that case the pyranometer would "see" the Beam component and the Diffuse component (impacted by the horizon) but not the albedo component (?) - Tilt irradiation to use for the Guaranteed PR: According to me this should be "GlobShd" Configuration 3: Tracker structure - Pyranometer location: located on a shed with neighbors rows > in that case the pyranometer would "see" the Beam component and the Diffuse component (impacted by the horizon) but not the albedo component (?) - Tilt irradiation to use for the Guaranteed PR: According to me this should be "GlobShd" Could you let me know if those assumptions are correct?

Dear PVsyst team, While I was simulating a bifacial project with bifacial on a flat field (Chile, south hemisphere), while designing the scene, I changed the azimuth value and I realized that the GPOA rear changed significantly thus the yield results too. I identified the losses in yellow below. I could not explain this behavior as the project is designed on a flat terrain thus changing the azimuth from 0° to 180° should not have any impact as the project is symmetric. I suppose the correct simulation is the one with “azimuth 0” but cannot explain why the gain called “beam effective on the rear side” goes from +113.45% from one simulation to 0% for the other simulation. Could you help me to understand this behavior and tell me what gain could be realistic for this simulation? To what criteria the beam effective on the rear side is sensitive to (design characteristics, irradiation or ground characteristics) ? Recoleta-SG-TMY-for PVsyst team.zip PVsyst files Losses affected by azimuth change