Ana Sofía Lanza

I ran a simulation with a 30-year projection and, when reviewing the loss diagram, I noticed that the LID degradation (1% in this case) applies not only in the first year, but throughout the 30 years. Is this correct, or am I misinterpreting the result? Highlighted in green. Furthermore, when reviewing the module degradation loss for year 1, in addition to the 1% LID, the model applies a degradation loss of 0.20%, which corresponds to 50% of the annual degradation rate of 0.40% from year 2 onwards. However, we also note that this same 0.20% appears in the module matrix mismatch loss. Wouldn't this mean that the loss is counted twice? Highlighted in blue. Could you clarify whether this interpretation is correct and why this is the case? Best regards,

Hello, I ran a simulation with a 30‑year projection, and when reviewing the loss diagram, I noticed that the LID degradation (1% in this case) is being applied not only in the first year but throughout all 30 years. Is this correct, or am I misinterpreting the output? Higlighted in green Additionally, when reviewing the module degradation loss for Year 1, aside from the 1% LID, the model also applies a 0.20% degradation loss, which corresponds to the 50% of the annual 0.40% degradation rate starting from Year 2. However, we also see that this same 0.20% appears in the module array mismatch loss. Wouldn’t that mean the loss is being double-counted? Higlighted in blue Could you please clarify if this interpretation is correct and why it is the way it is. Grretings,

Hello, I calculated the voltage drop of a string, and the resulting power loss was only 0.03% lower than the voltage drop. As you mentioned, the percentage of power loss tends to be slightly lower than the voltage drop. Is there a recommended guideline or acceptable range for this difference (for example, should it typically fall between 0.5% and 1% lower)? In my case, I obtained 1.49% voltage drop and 1.46% power loss. Kind regards,