Ben

LoicA, Thanks for this information. Can you also explain for me why the distance between rows has no effect on the Albedo, and only the number of rows matters? I must be thinking of this too simplisticly, but if it is a reflection of light that strikes the entire surface of the array, then I would expect for light to be reflected onto every row, as long as the row in front doesn't cast too long of a shadow.

LoicA, André, thank you for your help. I tried adjusting the field to only include 1 shed and the near shading loss dropped to 0.1%. And I read these articles: http://files.pvsyst.com/help/shading_treatment.htm http://beyondpenguins.ehe.osu.edu/issue/energy-and-the-polar-environment/solar-energy-albedo-and-the-polar-regions But I'm still having trouble understanding why only the first row "sees" the albedo reflections, even when rows are spaced far apart. Can you clarify this, or point me to an article that explains? I would expect that rows behind the first row will "see" albedo as the rows are spaced farther apart.

As an experiment, I set up the Orientation of a field with 11,111 Meter spacing between sheds, using the "Unlimited Sheds" option. After running the simulation, there is still a 1.0% "Near Shadings: Irradiance Loss" listed in the Loss Diagram. With essentially an inifnite amount of space between rows of modules, I expected 0% near shading loss. Is the 1.0% loss inaccurate? I am asking because, based on this experiment, I am not sure if I can trust PVsyst's production estimates as I vary the inter-row spacing.

I'm able to print to PDF using Microsoft Word, but when I try with PVsyst version 6.43, I choose the Adobe PDF printer, but nothing happens after I click the "Print" button. I have to print to an XPS file and then convert that to a PDF. Please advise.

Hi, Is there a limit to the number of figures before PVsyst can no longer show the data as kWh? For example, in reports where there were 5 figures, like 53,523 kWh, PVsyst was reporting those, but it seemed like once it got to 6 figures, like 532,322 it would report it in MWh (rounding it to 532.3 MWh), even though I selected the output to be kWh.