Vinh Thinh

Thank you for the reply 🙂 Regarding your answer, I would like to have a better understanding on how to apply your procedure in order to visualize and quantify the shadowing impacts of turbines. First, I get that I shall generate two simulation variants one with and the other without them and from the two loss diagrams see the corresponding near shadings and electrical losses. In order to calculate those losses in MWh, if I understand correctly, I should multiply the energy production values with the near shading and electrical losses expressed in %. Am I right? Secondly, in order to calculate the overall energy impact on different timeframe basis (monthly, daily...) I would like to understand if there is a way in PVsyst to extract the production values with respect to such timeframes. Did you have in mind another way to compute and identify those losses ? Thank you.

Hi all, I have to run a simulation in PVsyst in order to compute the shadowing impact created by the presence of three wind turbine aerogenerators located within the layout design of an agrivoltaic PV plant. To do so, I am well aware of the fact that I can import in the PVsyst tool Near Shading 3D scene a .pvc file (from PVcase) of the layout which can include the 3D shadowing items of the 3 wind turbines with the aim to compute in the simulation the impact of the shadows generated by those turbines with respect to the PV plant producibility. In this regard, I would like to know: - if the software quantifies such shading losses in the loss diagram under the voice Near Shading Losses. If not, please clarify in which voice they are allocated in the loss diagram -if there is some kind of way to compute the impact of the shadings generated by the wind turbines in a daily/hourly/monthly formats to understand for example through the year in which periods of time (days, hours) the shading effects is more relevant Please let me know if there is the need of any additional information that could be helpful to provide an answer to my questions. Thank you in advance. Vinh

Thank you for your answer. So from your reply, I do understand that the topography being used to simulate the two variants is affecting the average tilt and therefore the transposition gain in a way that it justifies the difference of 120 kWh/kWp in the energy production.

Hi Michele, thank you for your answer. Below you can find the comparison between the "General parameters" pages for the two projects. As for the question about irradiance optimization, I just checked it and it has not been activated in neither of the two simulations. I will also share my projects with you through the mail you have mentioned. Looking forward to having a clearer view on this matter 🙂

Hi everyone, for two neighboring projects having the same meteo data as well as same tracker configuration in terms of width and length of the tables, I get very different specific production in the order of 120 kWh/kWp. Looking at the loss diagrams of the two simulations, I noticed that the difference mainly relies upon the imported 3D scene (.pvc), as the one with lower production features a more undulating topography. Therefore, as far as I understood, it is reasonable to have higher losses such as Near shadings and shading losses according to strings for the project with challenging terrain. However, I was also noticing that the parameter Global Incindent in collec. plane is quite different, with the project with more challenging topography having a gain 6% less than the other. Such divergence can be justified by the different 3D scene? Considering all these aspects and seeing the below loss diagrams, do you think that for two close projects, such deviation in production can be linked to the 3D scene, meaning the underneath topography? I hope you can help me with those questions, and I'm available for further discussions. Best regards.