Xavien

Hello, How can I remove the license info at the bottom of the reports?

That's correct. I've done the same thing with data from NASA and PVGIS as well. PVsyst's simulation results are proportional to the data provided. My issue is the PVsyst's simulations v.s. real production. PVsyst estimates that there should be 95MWh per month production given 101,5kWh/m2/month irradiation. However real production is 75MWh per month instead. That's a huge difference. The question is; is PVsyst over estimating or is my system under performing ?

Hello mhamon, I'm not comparing daily values. I'm comparing monthly sum. My monthly irradiation is 101,5 kWh/m2. My corresponsing monthly production is 75MWh (given the config in my first post). Meteonorms montly irradiation is 104,5 kWh/m2. PVsyst's corresponding monthly production is 95MWh (again in my config). There is a %26 difference in monthly production given %2 difference in monthly radiation. So I believe the issue is not with Meteonorm data; It's with PVsyst simulation variables. Andre, I can share the project file as well if you want. BR,

Dear Mhamon, In order to be %100 precise; you are very much right. However my assumption is there shouldn't be a %26 difference in production given we have a %2 difference in irradiation. Somewhere between %5 difference is quite normal but %26 is unacceptable. Attached you can see real measured values from site in 5 mins intervals. Measured values are ambient temp, module temp, irradiation and corresponding production for that interval. In addition; I'm providing the meteonorm data for the location but I'm afraid we will again have the same difference (%26). I believe there is something I do wrong so the results are not correct. (a deviation of %5 from real values is acceptable for me) BR, RealtimeValuesPart1.rar Realtime values for February Part1 (5mins Interval) RealtimeValuesPart2.rar Realtime values for February Part2 (5mins Interval) MeteonormData.rar Meteonorm data for the selected location

Dear Andre, You are right however I'm not comparing daily values; instead I'm comparing the monthly sum. If you check the latest image in my post; at the bottom you will see monthy sum of irradiation is 101,5 kWh/m2. My corresponding production is 75MWh. In the simulation; it gives 95MWh for 104,3 kWh/m2. This I believe has to be inline with the irradiation. Difference between real measured irradiance (monthly sum) and simulated one ise 104,3kWh/m2 / 101,5 kWh/m2 = %2 However corresponding montly production is 95MWh / 75 MWh = %26. So that's my point. Input irradiance value is almost the same to the system however the output is very different. I believe PVsyst is overestimating it due to some errors in my config. I can share the meteo data file If you prefer to do the simulation by yourself. BR,

Dear all, I'm using PVsyst to calculate the expected output of a power plant. I do 3 calculations based on 3 different meteorological datasets - Meteonorm - NASA - PVGIS I extract hourly calculations from CSV file and relate them to real field values. I believe I am doing something wrong. I use V5.73 due to license. Here's the issue. So this is the PVsyst report. I grab the CSV values from it and use it in an excel file Here you can download the file that contains our measurements and PVsyst CSV files (merged) from 3 different Meteo sources. This is the excel style that I use for manual tracking of the values. Here in this month; you can see that our irradiation is 110,5% above the average of MN-PVGIS-NASA. However the real production is 78,4% of the average of the PVsyst simulations. The system is overloaded but it had never been a difference of %20. What might be the issue of this since this is not minot but major. BR,