Tharcisio Souza

I'm trying to check whick titl will be better for my Photovoltaic plant. When I use the Optimization Tool to do so, PVSyst just shows the message "The Scan was aborted by the user" when the progress bar reaches the end. It's important to note that no request was made for the procedure to abort and I tryed it many times with many different projects. My software is at version 7.4. The last time I tryed using this feature it was as version 7.3.1 and it worked perfectly. Does anyone have a clue of what could be wrong? Best regards.

Hello, friend. I use a method that allows me to get the data from google earth (kml files). Maybe it'll useful to you. Send me a private message if you're intrested. Best regards.

Hello, everyone. After running a few simulations on several sites of the Brazilian soil, I realized that the Global incident in Coll. plane from the Loss diagram was very different on each simulation. Since all of my simulations have fixed sheds, not trackers, I started wondering why in some cases I got over 6% Gain on Global incident in Coll. plane and others I got only 0.3%. Even if I used the optimization tool for tilt and azimuth enhancement, the Global incident in Coll. plane would not change significantly. The only correlation I could find for this behavior was with the Latitude: The closer I get to a 0° Longitude, the smaller the Global incident in Coll. plane is. This trend is clearly shown in the following table and scatter plot: The column 'Gain' represents the Global incident in Coll. plane value taken from the simulation's Loss Diagram For a visual reference of where those simulated plants are located: Given all that explanation, I have some questions: Is my interpretation correct and the closer I get to a 0° Latitude the smaller the gain for Global incident is? Can you recommend me articles that explain this behavior, either on PVSyst or a more general sense? Why couldn't I get a significant enhancement of the Global incident in Coll. plane when I used the optimization tool (for tilt and azimuth)? I hope you can help me with those questions, and I'm available for further discussions. Best regards.

Plant 1 Array Plant 2 Array It's the same array configuration, with the same inverters. I remember using Plant 1 as the basis of Plant 2 by saving as another project. Then I just modified the plant site and 3D scene since the rest would be the same.

I've ran two simulations, both of them are a 3MW (12 x 250kW inverters) and 4,066MWp array, two different sites. The first simulation, let's call it Plant 1, I got the value of -4,06% Inverter loss due to nominal inverter power. The second plant, Plant 2, with the same inverter and array configuration, I got the value of only -1,82% loss. Plant 1 Plant 2 When I spotted this difference I figured it could be due to the respective plant sites, which are distinct. So I inverted the sites in both simulations, but it didn't make much of a difference: It's noticeable that the inverter temperature loss changes properly, but the inverter loss duo to nominal inv. power is about the same. Plant 1 - Inverted site Plant 2 - Inverted site I can't figure out what exactly is causing this Inv. loss duo to nom. inv. power, but it's certainly about each simulation's parameter. Can somebody help me with this issue? What parameter could be causing this significant difference?