Linda Thoren

Hi, Indeed if you have no other shadings this solution would give a rather representative scenario of what you wish to simulate.

Hello, Sorry your goal is not really clear to me. In the headline you indicate that you have 22 strings with 34 panels in series and 1 string with 33 panels in series (a total of 781 panels). If your inverter has 6 MPPTs you could for instance create 3 sub-arrays with the following configuration: sub array 1: 4 MPPTs 16 strings of 34 (4 strings per MPPT) sub array 2: 1 MPPT 6 strings of 34 (6 strings per MPPT) sub array 3: 1 MPPT 1 string of 33 It is important that the number of strings is a multiple of the number of MPPTs The following youtube tutorial further explains the multiple MPPT feature and the power sharing:

This is further explained in the following help page: https://www.pvsyst.com/help/project-design/bifacial-systems/index.html#irradiance-on-the-rear-side-view-factor

Hello, Is your simulation for year 1? In that case it seems to match well with just some rounding differences of 0.01%

Hello, High annual variability indicates that weather conditions can differ significantly from year to year at this site. The purpose of running a P50-P90 analysis is to account for these uncertainties. Therefore, it is not recommended to customize the weather data variability, though you do have the option to input custom values if needed.

Hello, It is not possible to mix orientations in a string. It is possible to mix orientation in an MPPT, given that there is at least one string in each orientation. You find more information about this in the following PVsyst help: https://www.pvsyst.com/help/project-design/orientations-in-v8/mixed-orientations.html It is not possible in PVsyst to have empty MPPT inputs.

One way to evaluate such a system could be to choose the increased self consumption storage strategy and create a self consumption profile that corresponds to the energy you intend to inject to the grid. With the self consumption strategy, the batteries will never discharge to the grid, only to fulfill the users needs. Though, if you create a consumption profile with large consumption during the night you could possibly considered the energy that is "self consumed" to be what you inject to the grid. Let me know if this work around seems to be valid in your context. Kind regards

Hi Alex, The Unlimited Sheds field type is aimed for large regular systems with several rows assumed to be sufficiently long (unlimited) sheds so that we can neglect the edge effects. For only one table you must choose the field type Fixed tilted plane. Indeed it is not possible to simulate a bifacial system with a single row, though this is on our roadmap. The bifacial calculation in PVsyst is based on a 2 dimensional representation, calculating how much irradiance is falling between the tables and how much will be scattered up on the back side, thus there has to be a pitch. A possible workaround is therefor to create a 3D scene with your table and then duplicate this scene further away so that PVsyst can detect a pitch. Verify that the tables are well aligned so that indeed PVsyst detects the pitch in bifacial window. Note that the amount of tables in the 3D scene will be double what you have defined in the system and this will create a warning. You can increase this limit in the advanced parameters. In the first PVsyst welcome window, click “Settings” and “Edit advanced Parameters” and find the parameter that triggers the error message – “Shadings: absolute maximum shading/field area ratio”. This will allow you to run the simulation Kind regards

Hello, Indeed, in PVsyst version 8 you are able to define separate bifacial models, one for each fixed tilt or tracker orientation. However, dome configurations are not yet covered by this update. We will work on it for a future minor release.

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.

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

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.

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