Jump to content

Gustavo Pianovski

Members
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gustavo Pianovski

  1. Continuation... Actual Condition (COM Losses: string voltage limited by the smallest) Module 705 Wp 710 Wp 715 Wp Module Config. A B C Total Imp (A) 17.55 17.59 17.63 Vmp (V) 40.2 40.2 40.2 Electrical Configuration P (Wp) 705 706.6 708.2 String/Inv 8 36 37 81 Mod/STR 30 30 30 Arrangement Vmp String (V) 1205.1 1205.1 1205.1 Imp config (A) 140.4 633.2 652.3 P config. (kWp) 169.2 763.1 786.1 1718.5 In the first table (ideal condition), the total power is 1729.7kWp. In the second table, the total power is 1718.5kWp. The difference between these two power outputs is 0.65%. I'm considering applying this loss to the mismatch simulation. Is this analysis correct? I tested a second methodology: using the Detailed Study tool in the Mismatch Losses tab in PVsyst. In this analysis, the Voltage Difference between the 715Wp and 705Wp strings is 11.5V (1216.7V – 1205.1V (Table 1). Applying a voltage difference to the string of 11.5V, PVsyst returns a mismatch of only 0.05% (Figure below). Why is the loss calculated by PVsyst so low? What is the best way to model this project and a loss to be applied due to the power difference of the modules?
  2. I'm working on a project with 3 different modules (705, 710 and 715 Wp) connected to a single MPPT inverter: Ideal Condition (No Losses) Module 705 Wp 710 Wp 715 Wp Config. A B C Total Module Imp (A) 17.55 17.59 17.63 Vmp (V) 40.2 40.4 40.6 P (Wp) 705 710 715 Electrical Configuration String/Inv 8 36 37 81 Mod/STR 30 30 30 Arrangement Vmp String (V) 1205.1 1210.9 1216.7 Imp String (A) 140.4 633.2 652.3 P config. (kWp) 169.2 766.8 793.7 1729.7 An alternative modeling approach is to change the .OND to 3 MPPTs and use the MULTI-MPPT tool. This will allow me to model all three module types in the same inverter. Will making this change to .OND cause other problems? I did the simulations below to test: Simulation 1: 3 inverters with original .OND (1 MPPT per inverter). Each inverter is configured with a different module, totaling 5,176 kWp. E_grid = 11261 MWh Simulation 2: 3 inverters with modified .OND (3 MPPTs per inverter), only to allow modeling in PVsyst. Each inverter is configured with 27 strings of the three types of modules, totaling 5,176 kWp. The PVsyst MULTI-MPPT tool is used to group the 3 MPPTs on the same inverter. E_grid = 11261 MWh The energy result (E_Grid) is the same in both cases. I understand that PVsyst doesn't consider any differences between the models. Therefore, we must calculate a loss due to this electrical configuration. I understand that this electrical configuration will result in a greater mismatch. One way I found to calculate the electrical losses of this configuration is to consider that "the array voltage is always limited by the lowest voltage string." In this case, the voltage of the 710Wp and 715Wp strings will be equal to the voltage of the 705Wp string. I calculated the power of each configuration (P config. (Wp) = Vmp String (V) X Imp config (A)):
  3. Dear Michele, I am working on a V7.4.1 project to extract the some variable, and the following warning appears: I analyzed the .PAN and the difference observed is 0.01%. However, the difference in E_Grid is 0.46%, of which 0.3% is due to Near Shadings losses: In the simulation using Version 8.0.13, this problem does not appear. Does simply performing a new simulation in Version 8.0.13 solve this problem? What are the reasons for this warning? What updates have been implemented to fix this bug?
  4. Hello, I have two projects in the same location and the losses horizon shading difference is 1.4%. The horizon profile is similar. In the first, I have the following factors: Albedo factor = 0.87 Diffuse factor =0.96 The horizon losses is 0.4%. In the second, I have the following factors: Albedo factor = 1.00 Diffuse factor = 1.00 The horizon losses is 1.8%. Question: 1) How do these factors affect the shading calculation? 2) How can these factors be defined? 3) Where can these factors be set in PVsyst? Thank you!
  5. Thank you Michele! When will this be implemented in PVsystCLI?
  6. Hello, Is it possible to change of LID loss, ground albedo, soiling loss, simulation year and others parameters using PVsystCLI? For example, pseudo sub-hourly simulation with change of simulation year. Thank you!
×
×
  • Create New...