Edwin Tellez

Good day PVSyst team, I'm trying to do a simulation where I have two kind of portrait table : 2V and 3V. At the moment of activate Bifacial model appears the next notice: "Your PV system is not suited the bifacial 2D model computation: The pitch between tables is not sufficently homogeneous". Is it posible fix this problem? Thank you so much.

Stéphane, Thank you very much for your help and advice. Have a good day

Thank you very much for such valuable help. I have made the suggested adjustments, and now it allows the simulation to run. Given this, I am left wondering if these forced adjustments to enable the simulation significantly impact the energy generation results compared to the field measurements?

Hi, I appreciate your kind assistance with the following... Today, November 7, the update to version 8 was performed, but I am unable to run project simulations that I was able to simulate without issues in previous versions. As indicated, the following message appears: (177 fields in error, the first one being: Fiedl ##708, "Table Row#30 Col#8": The angle between the field and the average orientation (10.3°) is too high). I am trying to adjust or correct through the orientation manager, but it does not allow deletion actions, only creating new orientations. I am unable to make adjustments to the existing fields. I reiterate that in previous versions, for example 7.4.8, I had no issues and it allowed me to simulate the projects I have created. Thank you very much for your valuable attention and for your prompt and timely response.

Additionally, applying the formula (PR (glob) = (E_Grid1 + E_Grid2) / (GlobInc1 * PNomPV1 + GlobInc2 * PNomPV2).) is giving a higher PR (85.37% using the effective irradiation and a PR of 91.92% using GHI) than the PR obtained in each case respectively. Is that correct? Thank you for your support and collaboration.

Thank you for your appreciation, but is it possible? Even when the utilization of irradiance is different between fixed structure and tracker structure? Again, thank you for your attention and technical support.

Thank you for the clarification on how to determine a Global PR for the same large-scale photovoltaic system (75MWp installed) with a mix of both fixed and tracker structures. Based on the simulation results (see attached image), specifically the loss diagram, which irradiation should be used in the formula? The GHI or the effective irradiation on the collectors? My questions arise because independently, with the area that has fixed structures (22MWp installed) a PR of 82.85% is obtained with an energy production of 36212.85MWh/year, while with tracker structures (53MWp installed) a PR of 80.84% is achieved with an energy production of 102126.12MWh/year. I greatly appreciate your kind response and cooperation on this matter.

Hi André, Thank you very much for your response. I am also grateful for the clarification on how to determine the PR (Performance Ratio) of a project divided according to the type of support structures for the photovoltaic modules. Best regards.

Hi everybody, For a project that includes both fixed structures and trackers, if it is done with separate variants, one variant for fixed structures, and another variant for tracker structures, how can the PR of the Photovoltaic system be determined in general? What implications would there be for simulating the same system in parts? Is the PR averaged between the values given by each variant? Would the energy production of the system be the result of the arithmetic sum of each variant?

Hi dtarin, What percentages of losses due to LID have been evident in type N modules?

Hi, I have three concerns regarding the LID factor and how it influences the performance of the photovoltaic modules: 1. How long does the LID effect last in the useful life of a photovoltaic module? 2. Should the LID parameter be maintained during all the years of operation of the photovoltaic module? 3. For a type N photovoltaic module, what LID value is advisable to use in the simulation? Thanks for your time.

Thank you very much for your valuable response and contribution. Best regards, Edwin T.

Thank you so much Anges for your valuable answer. I understand what you are telling me when obtaining specific generations with Pxx in "Energy management", but what I really need is to load TMY files with P-40 and P-10 into PVSyst, to carry out the simulations and be able to obtain the respective PR for each scenario with TMY P- 10 and TMY P-40 respectively. Is this possible? Could I generate these files (TMY-P10 & TMY-P90) with PVSyst? Thanks a lot for your collaboration.🙏

Good day, I am currently in the process of defining the test protocols for the start-up of a solar park in Colombia, exactly in the region of El Copey, department of Cesar, where simulations need to be carried out in PVSyst under a TMY meteorological-based scenario with P -10 and for years 1 and 2 with TMY P-40. Is it possible to create these databases with PVSyst from a 23 year hourly multi-year database? Thank you so much.

I have a project with fixed structures of different configurations 3Vx28, 3Vx14, 2Vx14 with bifacial photovoltaic modules. There is a .pvc and .csv file for shadow analysis, but when activating the bifaciality function of the modules, PVSyst does not allow the simulation to be carried out: A pitch is considered between 2V tables of 6 m and between 3V tables of 9m. The types of tables considered for the project are a product of the typology of the terrain, seeking to optimize earthworks. Will it be possible to make some type of adjustment to the PVSyst parameters that allows the simulation to be carried out, activating the bifaciality function of the modules with these types of fixed tables (2V and 3V)? thank you so much for your support and attention.