Luca Antognini

Dear Mikhail, The aging tool is a general tool to represent several situations. Unfortunately, the literature is a bit scarce on aging (real aging tests need years of field testing and there are a variations among technologies and climates - new technologies still need to be monitored more extensively) and on our side we don't have at the moment a clear literature review on the topic to hand out on to give clear recommendation on our side. However, here are a few additional clarifications: First recommendation: if provided, input the aver. degradation factor from the data sheet of your module (/!\ this is not equivalent to the warranty!). Know that average degradation factor lies between 0.2-0.6%/year. So you can adapt it if you want to see a more or less optimistic/conservator impact. The Imp / Vmp contribution is set by default to 80/20 %, to represent the fact that often the first impact on the long term are first of optical nature (=decrease the current), for example due to encapsulant yellowing. But this is to adapt with what you find in the literature about your technology or what you observe in the field. The Imp and Vmp RMS dispersion are tuning parameters of the model. If you set them at 0, all the PV modules will have the exact same degradation rate and your system will follow the blue curve. Set to higher values, the PV modules will have mismatch among them and an additional loss occurs because of this (mainly driven by the PV module whose current degrades the fastest). There is not really literature to advise what parameters to input here, but you can use this parameters to visualize the extra impact of this mismatch or tune it to make it correspond to existing measurements of a PV system.

Dear Chen, We are currently investigating how to adapt our model to such technologies. It will take some times, as we want our modification to be backed-up by high quality experimental data and be applicable to the whole of our PV module database. We will present an update of our research at the upcoming EU-PVSEC.

Hello, Thank you for reporting those behaviors. I believe there are several issues, which I will report for future correction, but my interpretation is different: - There are indeed a unit problem with the apparent and reactive energy, which will be corrected in future version. In the report, the switching to Mega watt hour instead of kilo watt hour doesn't work well for those quantity. The numerical value displayed is correct by the "k" in the unit doesn't switch yet to and "M". You can change the unit of the report for a consistent display in "kWh" by going to "Report > Report Options > Final Report Options > Energy Units > kWh". - The name of reactive and apparent energy are correctly displayed in the report. Though it seems to me that you didn't allow "solar injection into the grid" in the "self-consumption" window. Therefore, no active energy is transferred to the grid from the solar production and reactive and apparent energy are equal: Note here that the reactive component is computed based on the solar energy available at the inverter's output, as E_Reac = E_InvOut * Tan(phi). Then the apparent energy is E_app = sqrt (E_Reac*E_Reac + E_Act*E_Act) Let me know if this makes sense for you. As I see that you are trying to simulate a scenario with a large consumption, you were maybe looking for a different behavior of the reactive energy. Luca

Hi! The variable in the hourly energy variables are sometimes displayed with units "kW" instead of "kWh". This is indeed a bit confusing but for time step of one hour this is equivalent. The case of the apparent and reactive energy units should be unified with the rest in the future. In particular the reactive energy should be displayed by convention in kVARh instead of kVAh (even though they are all pseudo-units, equivalent to kW in the end).